Leadership development continues to be an important goal for higher education (Fine & Lee, 2017; Kezar, et al., 2006; Mayhew et al., 2016). With the rise of vexing societal problems like climate change, threats to democracy, rising inequalities based on race and gender, and increasing instability among nations across the world, students learning the skills to be leaders to address these issues is more important now than ever. Staff and faculty tasked with developing student leaders have been well served by new models and approaches to leadership in the last few decades (HERI, 1996; Kezar, et al., 2006). New models focus on leadership as a complex process, that is distributed/shared, requires multiple perspectives, and engages leaders in self-reflection on key values, in contrast to more hierarchical, individualized, and power and influence approaches from in the past (HERI, 1996; Kezar, et al., 2006).
One of the most prominent models of leadership development in higher education that focuses on leadership as a complex distributed process and engages values exploration is the Social Change Model of Leadership (HERI, 1996). This model has been widely used among several generations of college students and created change agents with a greater commitment to seeing social change as an objective of leadership. The model offers a set of values to be considered at the individual, group, and community level. This model has also helped foster self-reflection about values and like Burns’ (1978) earlier work on transformational leadership, suggests a moral role for leaders. Leadership, as framed by the Social Change Model, is explicitly engaged in furthering social equality, democracy, and justice.
Yet, for all its advancement in terms of rethinking the goals, processes, and values of leadership, in this article we offer a critique and needed revision to the Social Change Model of Leadership. We compile and review an additional set of values to be considered at the individual, group, and community level as part of the Social Change Model. We use Yosso’s (2005) theory of community cultural wealth as an approach to explore the Social Change Model from the perspective of racially and ethnically minoritized individuals and how they experience the social world and leadership. Yosso identifies forms of capital among racially and ethnically minoritized individuals that are often overlooked but serve as critical skillsets/knowledge that help these populations to succeed despite their location at the margins. We argue that these forms of capital are overlooked values in the Social Change Model that reflect the realities of racialized minorities (as well as marginalized groups more generally).
In fact, most theories of leadership development are devoid of attention to race, gender and other social identities or the impact of historic marginalization on leadership development (Kezar, et al., 2006). We are not arguing that race or gender have not been examined in terms of the experience of leaders of color or women, but that these identities have not been interrogated when it comes to leadership development models or theories. Given leadership involves the use of power, it is problematic that the link between leadership and race (as well as other marginalized identities) has been overlooked in development. This gap in our understanding makes this article and our contribution extremely important for rectifying this dearth of knowledge. We articulate how an application of Yosso’s theory to the Social Change Model identifies new values that better support the leadership development of racially minoritized students. And we also note how this has implications for students from other marginalized identities as well.
We begin the article with a review of the Social Change Model, and a few critiques that have been raised of the model. We then review Yosso’s community cultural wealth theory and explore how it can add important new information to advance the Social Change Model (as well as other leadership development approaches). We then apply Yosso’s model to the practice of leadership development and argue why this application is appropriate. Lastly, we discuss the implications of this revised approach to the Social Change Model of Leadership specifically as well as other approaches to leadership development. Even programs that do not use the Social Change Model can use the concepts we derive from Yosso to revise the programmatic approaches to leadership development to be attentive to the background and social capital of students from racially minoritized groups.
Review and Critique of The Social Change Model of Leadership Development
The Social Change Model of Leadership is a widely used model in higher education that challenges traditional notions of leadership (Fine & Lee, 2017; HERI, 1996; Klumpyan & Langdon, 2001; Mayhew et al., 2016). The Social Change Model was created with college students in mind based on the belief that colleges and universities were distinctive environments where values such as collaboration and common purpose were critical to the overall function of the institution and thus, important to students interested in becoming leaders for social change.
The group of higher education administrators and educators who created the model, known as The Working Ensemble, contended that a new model was needed to best prepare the new generation of leaders; a model that centers service, social justice and a nonhierarchical approach to leadership and social change (HERI, 1996). As a result, they came up with seven values, popularly known as the 7 C’s, that work interconnectedly to achieve social change. Each value is categorized under three domains: individual, group and societal/community. This model was developed from work that Helen Astin had conducted on woman leaders and was based on feminist principles of leadership. It was a corrective to hierarchical and patriarchal views of leadership.
Individual values. The individual value domain consists of three values: Consciousness of Self, Commitment and Congruence. Consciousness of Self means being cognizant of your personal values, attitudes, and beliefs that may motivate you to act. Komives and Wagner (2016) argue that the more self-aware one is, the more likely they are to be successful in working with others across different value systems and cultures. Commitment is all about the investment one puts into a task. Commitment requires a significant amount of time, energy and patience from the individual. Congruence argues that there should be consistency in one’s values and beliefs and their actions.
Group values. Collaboration, Common Purpose and Controversy with Civility are the three values located within the group value domain. Collaboration is tied to the foundational premise that leadership is a group process. Collaboration takes into consideration the talents and perspectives of individuals to make a cohesive, dynamic group that works to enact change. Astin (1996) also contends that collaboration is about developing human relationships towards a shared purpose and responsibility. Common Purpose means working with shared aims and values and a collective vision. Having a common purpose helps produce a strong level of trust. Controversy with Civility attempts to highlight the importance of speaking across differences and highlights the notion that disagreement is inevitable. However, Controversy with Civility implies respect for others and “the exercise of restraint in criticizing the views and actions of others” (HERI, 1996, p. 23).
Community/societal values. In its current iteration, Citizenship is the only value within this domain. Citizenship is a process where the individual and the group become one with the community and the larger society, feeling a sense of responsibility to act and to care.
Though it has been widely used (Mayhew et al., 2016), the Social Change Model of Leadership Development is not without its pitfalls and shortcomings. A few critiques point to some important considerations that we build on in this article. In particular, since it was developed, there has been greater openness to discuss power in relation to leadership and a rising appreciation for the need for more revolutionary tactics to upend the current social order. Most recently, the National Institute for Transformation and Equity and the National Center for Institutional Diversity introduced a new leadership framework, the Social Action, Leadership, and Transformation (SALT) model, that centers the systemic forces such as oppression that oppose social justice (Museus et al., 2018).
The most prevalent critique of the Social Change Model is that the model is marketed as a “one size fits all” approach to leadership that names desirable traits that all leaders should aspire and perpetuates dominant leadership narratives such as collaboration and civility (Cabrera, et al., 2019). There is a possibility that dominant leadership narratives are perpetuated in leadership education due to the fact that 85% of leadership educators are white (Jenkins & Owen, 2016), and leadership educators tend to draw on their own lived experiences, previous leadership roles, and professional experiences in the process of conceptualizing and facilitating leadership (Priest & Seemiller, 2018). Racially minoritized students might have different experiences leading change using more unconventional or unorthodox strategies and practices (e.g., Black Lives Matter protests and die-ins). In higher education more specifically, some examples include staging protests, storming senior-level administrative offices, and engaging in acts of resistance. Some of these examples are possible within the constraints of the model, but the model does not encourage such action. Given the experience and background of leadership educators and the lack of direct exploration of power in current development, leadership educators may be less likely to teach students how to engage in resistance or how to storm the President’s office. Nonetheless, forms of resistance have resulted in noteworthy policy and practice changes (Hoffman & Mitchell, 2016; Morgan & Davis, 2019). Leadership educators and student affairs practitioners infrequently focus on these less orthodox approaches to change. This, in turn, makes it increasingly difficult for racially minoritized students to locate themselves within the model or to participate in programs that use this model as a framework for leadership development.
Controversy with Civility is a dubious value embedded within the Social Change Model. Framed as a positive and optimistic value, it can allow white students to maintain their dominance, further preventing racially minoritized students from straying from their marginalized positions into positions of voice, power, and agency. Borrowing from the communications discipline, Moon (1999) argues that “the tyranny of bourgeois decorum” creates spaces where dominant ideologies are seldom challenged for the sake of harmony, thus skeptics are silenced and urged to bite their tongues. While the intent of the Working Ensemble was to get people to talk across differences (HERI, 1996), this value (controversy with civility) can reinforce the social norms that govern appropriate speech. Consequently, Controversy with Civility is in direct tension with one of the foundational premises of the model, inclusivity. We posit that Controversy with Civility is challenging, perhaps tenuous, in discussions around racism, power, and oppression given the emotionally charged experiences people may have with these topics. Perhaps here it would be beneficial to borrow the reframing from the SALT model, controversy with courage which encourages individuals to bring up discussions that will make people uncomfortable and may seem uncivil to some (Museus et al., 2018).
Another critique is that the Social Change Model of Leadership is neutral with respect to social identities. The Social Change Model asks for students to behave in congruence with their beliefs and values. However, social identities influence social change leadership efforts, perceptions and outcomes. Pendakur and Furr (2016) believe there are stronger consequences for racially minoritized students who act on their beliefs, values, and emotions. For example, a group of students may believe that the only way to persuade their institution to increase the number of Black and Latinx tenured and tenure-track faculty is to storm the President’s office with a list of demands. If Black and Brown students stormed the office, people may view them as deviant and unruly which only reinforces media and societal messages about certain groups of people. Therefore, it is important for students to understand the level of scrutiny they may face for their unconventional and sometimes unaccepted actions and stand confidently in their decisions to remain true to their values, beliefs and emotions on issues that matter to them.
Research shows that Black students and other racially minoritized students report a greater interest in leadership, specifically as a mechanism for social change, than their white counterparts (Dugan, et al., 2008; Oaks et al., 2013; Harper & Quaye, 2007). This increased interest coupled with the critiques of the Social Change Model for Leadership Development presents a timely and unique opportunity to extend the model beyond its current iteration. To truly reach the social change goals outlined in the Social Change Model, additional values need to be considered that would create a more inclusive and equitable approach to leadership development. To properly do so, it is imperative for practitioners to center the histories and experiences of students of color in an effort to challenge who is a leader and how leadership and change are enacted (Boren, 2001; Cabrera, et al., 2019; Rhoads, 1998).
Reviewing Community Cultural Wealth
Cultural capital theory, conceptualized by Pierre Bourdieu (1986), emerged from a Marxian concept of economic capital. His theory of cultural capital exposed how white, western, wealthy knowledge, skills, and dispositions are valued over others, becoming a gold-standard that then was embedded into social and political systems by the dominant group and used to instantiate and reproduce their privilege over others (Neri, et al., forthcoming). Cultural capital theory disadvantages the non-dominant group, asking them to abandon their authentic selves in an effort to achieve social mobility and gain access to different spaces and opportunities. Bourdieu’s work has been used to promulgate students of color at a disadvantage due to their ongoing struggle to assimilate to dominant, white values, and knowledge, skills to access exclusive spaces including academia. Many critiques of Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory emerged in the years following its inception (Clegg, 2011; Goldthorpe, 2007; Tichavakunda, 2019).
First introduced in 2005, community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005) emerged from a critique of Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory using critical race theory (Solórzano, 1997; 1998). Yosso (2005) offers a counterargument that communities of color exist as spaces of wealth and therefore students that come from communities of color come to formal education systems with a substantial accumulation of knowledge and capital to help them succeed and persist in spaces not built with them in mind. Community cultural wealth also actively challenges racism and white supremacy in the schooling system (Neri, et al, forthcoming). Yosso outlines six forms of capital that compose community cultural wealth: navigational capital, social capital, linguistic capital, aspirational capital, resistant capital and familial capital. These forms of capital are phenomena that build on one another, but also have the power to stand alone. Each capital is outlined in detail below.
Navigational Capital. Navigational capital refers to the characteristics and abilities used to maneuver through various systems and institutions that may be “permeated by racism” (Yosso, 2005, p. 80) or not constructed with communities of color in mind. Navigational capital is unique in that it often relies on the other forms of capital (i.e., social capital, aspirational capital). In other words, students of color must have a set of college and career aspirations and people to turn to if they are to effectively navigate a system not built for them, like higher education. Studies of students of color identified that they use navigational capital to withstand hostile environments found within their respective college departments in an effort to persist to completion (Espino, 2014).
Social Capital. Social capital is best understood as networks of people and community resources that can provide emotional support to people of color as they navigate hostile and historically white spaces (Yosso, 2005). The tradition of “lifting as we climb” illuminates in this particular form of capital. As people of color attempt to overcome oppression, racism, and inequality, they must help each other and tap into their communities and support networks to persist.
Linguistic Capital. Linguistic capital focuses explicitly on the intellectual and social skills attained through communication experiences in one’s community (Yosso, 2005). This includes, but is not limited to, slang, other languages, or storytelling. Bringing different linguistic communication styles into a formal educational setting goes against the white, upper, middle-class norm set in many educational spaces. Bringing personal stories to classroom spaces and engaging in the art of storytelling in academic spaces help students of color share their testimonies and experiences and allows them to connect their personal life to the content in their curriculum.
Aspirational Capital. Aspirational capital focuses on the ability to maintain hopes and dreams for the future despite “real and perceived barriers” (Yosso, 2005, p. 77). To attain aspirational capital, one must look beyond present-day situations and inequalities and persist, nonetheless. Students of color initiate aspirational capital daily when they step foot on their respective college campuses. Many of them share that their enrollment in college and degree attainment is not just for them, but for their families as well.
Resistant Capital. Resistant capital refers to the knowledge and skills developed through “resistance to subordination” (Yosso, 2005, p. 80). This form of capital nurtures attitudes that challenge the status quo and perpetuation of inequality. It champions actively resisting dominant ideologies, institutions or situations that may not service the student of color. Espino (2014) found that some Mexican American Ph.D. students actively resisted the norms of who society views as faculty members by becoming faculty members to mentor other students of color.
Familial Capital. Familial capital is the last form of capital outlined in community cultural wealth. Familial capital recognizes the fact that cultural knowledge nurtured among kin and extended family carries a sense of community history, memory, cultural intuition, and even traditions (Yosso, 2005). Familial capital also helps to understand the importance of keeping connected to our communities. Similar to aspirational capital, familial capital keeps students of color connected to the communities that they came from. Students of color obtain knowledge from colleges and universities and return back to their community to share the knowledge learned.
With students from communities of color bringing varying forms of capital to a leadership education space, there is an opportunity for them to activate this capital to help them not only persist to completion but also provide the group ways to think about different and necessary strategies and practices to enact social change. For example, a student’s familial capital may remind them of the importance of returning back to the community to enact positive change that will better the lives of people in the community the student came from. Additionally, resistant capital suggests that, no matter what the dominant, white, theories and models say, there are opportunities to enact positive social change beyond working within the system.
Identity, and thus, the capital that emerges from experiences within racial and ethnic identity groups, plays an essential role in the leadership development process. In order for students to further develop their leadership capacities, they must first be able to see themselves as leaders and qualified to participate in the practice of leadership (Kezar & Moriarty, 2000; Turman, Garcia & Howes, 2018). If the goals of leadership educators are to utilize a leadership development model that supports and is inclusive of students of color, then the Social Change Model should be improved by adding new values that support these students.
Adding New Values to the Social Change Model
The Social Change Model, in its current iteration, misses the mark; it fails to address power, oppression, and the knowledge students bring from communities of color. Barnes, and colleagues (2018) argue that “ignoring the power dynamics that shape leadership development divorces marginalized leaders from the products of their labor, delegitimizes protest and civil disobedience as leadership activities and denies minority populations from seeing themselves represented in the leadership canon” (p. 79-80). Oppression is often not directly discussed when describing leadership development theories and models. While persuasion might be discussed as a manifestation of power, power is often not explicitly mentioned—particularly negative uses such as oppression. Without an explicit call out of the role of power in leadership, power remains unproblematized.
In this section, we extract values that emerge from community cultural wealth to add to the Social Change Model for Leadership Development that makes explicit reference to power dynamics and its role in the leadership process adding in areas that would reflect the experiences of non-dominant groups. Figure one provides an overview of the new values we posit and connects them into the existing Social Change Model. The new values are integrated with the traditional values that make up the Social Change Model of Leadership in the figure below.
Figure 1: New configuration of Social Change Model for Leadership
(asterisk* denotes new value)
Liberation. Liberation is an ongoing process in which one is in a constant state of becoming and should be the driving value of the Social Change Model. In other words, without liberation there is no meaningful social change. The Social Change Model is built on the premise that everyone should see themselves as leaders regardless of the formal leadership position they hold. However, there is no direct value that gets at this. Liberation is an intimate matter, thus situated in this expansion of the model as an individual value, where one begins to understand the values, beliefs and experiences that make them who they are, but also asks critical questions regarding power and oppression (e.g., What identities afford me power? What identities label me oppressed? What does my racial and/or ethnic identities have to do with individual or collective liberation?). We posit that the liberation value is different from the consciousness of self-value because consciousness of self does not capture the unshackling racially minoritized students have to do in order to escape harmful messages and stereotypes projected onto them from society. Therefore, liberation derives from aspirational capital as it refers to the ability to actively and authentically participate in leadership regardless of the real and perceived barriers the group or society may create.
Storytelling. Storytelling has the ability to illuminate the past, present and future towards small- and large-scale change. Individual stories help us see the world and situations from other people’s perspectives. Linguistic capital reflects the idea that racially minoritized students arrive at educational institutions with multiple language and communication skills that may deviate from the dominant culture. Strong and effective leaders should be able to tell unique, difficult, and inspiring stories in order to communicate to others their values and beliefs as individuals and to mobilize groups and stakeholders towards action. Storytelling is critical to creating a shared vision, as well as motivating and providing a persuasive message. Stories also help to provide clarity. Research shows that people are more likely to engage in change if a meaningful and relevant story is communicated to them—a storytelling canvas (Kernbach, 2018). When dealing with difficult issues and topics, students should be able to formulate a story that resonates. Storytelling is situated in this adaptation of the model as an individual value because it has been historically used in communities of color and labeled a “vehicle by which voices from the margins are heard” (Reynolds & Mayweather, 2017, p. 288). However, it is an individual value that also has significance for the scope of the group and should be taught as a group value as well. Sharing personal stories and creating a collective story can liberate individuals and unite a group as they work together as leaders towards change.
System Challenging. System challenging focuses on denouncing and actively confronting oppressive systems, policies, and practices that prohibit real change. To actively challenge a system means to diverge from what society or those in positions of power view as normal or even acceptable. Ways to challenge systems include participating in sit-ins and protests or writing and signing demand letters. System challenging is an important value to this new iteration of the Social Change Model because the original model privileges normative and dominant ways of enacting change that may not be deep or systemic. The Social Change Model deviates from traditional leadership models and theories, therefore it is appropriate for there to be a value that deviates from what is traditionally understood or accepted when it comes to social change. Teaching students to challenge systems actively pushes against notions of white supremacy and helps them see that deep and systemic change occurs when you challenge oppressive and inequitable systems. Resistant capital fits into this value as it refers to those knowledge and skills fostered through oppositional behavior. The Social Change Model for Leadership focuses on achieving change through shared processes that can perpetuate interest convergence and the loss-gain dichotomy. Many of the group values in the Social Change Model for Leadership are built around hegemonic behaviors such as controversy with civility and collaboration. Inserting a group value of system challenging acknowledges, or values, that unconventional and creative methods and ideas are sometimes the only ways to achieve change. System challenging asks for the group at large to be tempered radicals (Kezar et al., 2011), working within the system but also finding ways around it to enact change.
Power and Oppression Acknowledgment. The Power and Oppression Acknowledgement is an extensive, intentional process where the group works together to understand and eradicate power imbalances by sharing personal anecdotes and experiences to comprehend the social other. This group value arises from navigational capital which refers to one’s ability to navigate various social institutions, especially institutions not created with certain communities in mind. Therefore, there is a great deal of personal and group acknowledgment needed in order to enact change in these spaces. In earlier sections, we illuminated the argument being made in critical leadership scholarship about the missing discussion of power as it relates to the practice and teaching of leadership. Here, we posit that a true disservice is done if power and oppression are not explicitly called out in leadership processes and development opportunities. Power and oppression are always at play in leadership. In other words, there is usually a person or group who has more power and a person or group that is experiencing less power, perhaps oppression. Encouraging an explicit acknowledgement of power dynamics ensures this aspect cannot be ignored. In acknowledging the power and oppression dynamics in the room, the group, together, can think about the ways in which power dynamics shape leadership processes, raise questions about who speaks, ensure voice for all, and help leaders to call on support networks if they are not feeling comfortable.
Support Networks. The Social Change Model for Leadership reinforces the idea that leadership is relational and not positional. Thus, it seems natural that there would also be a value encouraging people working within this model to lean on their support networks for guidance, support and motivation towards making impactful change. Advancing support networks as a group value allows for the group to confide in and find support in people outside of the group actively working to create change. These support networks provide an unbiased, detached view from the problem allowing group members to get different opinions about the issue, how to tackle the issue, or just simple support in the challenging process of change. Support networks as a value comes directly from Yosso’s social capital that notes the importance of networks of people and community resources.
Fellowship. Fellowship refers to the connectedness of a group or community beyond the problem they are trying to change. Familial capital embraces the idea that, through kinship ties, one learns the importance of maintaining a healthy connection to their community and its resources. Through fellowship, isolation is minimized, and relationships can be built outside of the issue the group is trying to change. Presented as a community value, the importance of fellowship is a supplement to the value of citizenship as there must be a level of comradeship to positively enact change. Fellowship also places a burden on those with privileged identities to see ways that members of a leadership team may feel disconnected and to rectify this isolation.
We believe that a revised Social Change Model of Leadership that includes these new values will better support the leadership development of racialized minorities specifically and likely other marginalized groups. In general, we hope this article helps leadership development practitioners to become critical of existing models and the need for revision and extension. Instead of creating wholly new models, we believe that modification can work to rectify many existing models. In the information above we allude to what these new values mean for the activities related to leadership development. In this section, we more explicitly describe how these new values can be enacted and leadership development activities that can foster these values.
In terms of enacting the liberation value we recommend journaling and reflection activities that help student leaders to consider ways they have experienced oppression as well as ways they have overcome barriers and what kinds of situations and people give them hope. This process can be guided by key questions and here are some questions to get students started:
Think about the identities that you carry. Detail a time when you felt liberated from the stereotypes that burden your identity group.
What does freedom and liberation mean to you? Hope?
What privileges do you hold? Do you feel any of those privileges prevent you from experiencing liberation? Why or why not?
In what spaces do you feel like you can be your free, authentic self? What do you like about these spaces? How can you create these spaces in other aspects of your life as a leader?
Sharing narratives and collecting stories from cohorts of students who undergo leadership development programs can be an important way to help students consider and process the value of liberation. One approach that is powerful is digital storytelling where students use videos to describe and chapter responses to reflection questions or simple share their journey to date with liberation. We have worked with digital storytelling projects as part of other projects and see how they could be fruitfully used as part of leadership development programs. The liberation activities that utilize storytelling activities also help promote the storytelling value. By sharing stories through digital storytelling and reflecting on other leaders’ stories. they learn the value and promise of stories for inspiration, wellness, and breaking isolation.
In terms of system challenging, students can learn about examples that demonstrate the value of challenging oppressive systems and consider situations through case studies where it has or can be used to consider their own application of this value. As we noted earlier, there are many times in history where system challenging occurred, and change emerged from it. It is beneficial for students to take a look into those moments in history and from that exploration, list out strategies and practices they too can use in their own pursuits for social change.
With the power and oppression acknowledgement value, reflection questions and activities can be included in new leadership development programs. Here are a few questions that might be used to get the group started on the acknowledgment process:
Share a story about a time in your life when you wanted/needed to feel seen, heard, or understood—and you were. What did this allow you to do and/or be?
Think back to a specific time, either professionally or personally, when you felt most alive, most connected to your heart or your values. What was powerful about the experience? What was the outcome or impact of this experience for you personally?
Share a personal story about a healing experience, what was powerful about it and what did this enable you to do or to be? When people hear your name and see your face, what do they think/say about who you are? Give two very specific examples and talk about how this is different or the same from what you think about yourself.
In terms of the social supports one way for practitioners to practice this value would be to integrate a social network analysis type of activity where the group is able to think about their network outside of the room and what they can bring to the table to support the student leaders. Fellowship can be practiced by having groups consider times when they have felt left out of a group and identify ways they wish they had been reached out to. Student leaders can also learn about and practice social networking skills that help develop fellowship.
Intergroup dialogue activities (Alimo, et al., 2002; Zuniga et al., 2007) could be integrated into leadership development to foster fellowship. Intergroup dialogues allow groups with different social identities (e.g. Black and white students; first generation and non-first generation; Muslims and Christians) to meet and discuss their experiences, views of each other, and to ask questions. These types of activities can help groups to build a stronger understanding of each other and to build social bonds that can help with social support by better understanding another group and enhance also possibilities for fellowship. As seen from these examples, many activities are related to developing one or more of the new values.
We acknowledge that our critiques and added values focus on racially minoritized students, but we are confident that this discussion and addition of values has implications for other marginalized groups such as first-generation, low income, and veteran students. While we imagine that the result of these activities and reflection questions will significantly differ depending on the identity of students, all of the activities discussed in this implications section can be utilized with other marginalized groups and are not specific to racially minoritized students. We know there may be specific values that emerge when considering other identities or groups and hope other researchers will use our ideas and extend our thinking to these groups. Leadership educators can build on our beginning recommended practices and approaches for improving and revitalizing leadership development. We hope our critique provides the rationale for rethinking your leadership development approaches. While we focus on the Social Change Model, system challenging, fellowship or liberation can be included in any leadership development model and are important for reconceptualizing leadership in general. We also encourage other additions to the model as the experiences of new populations become apparent. It is important to keep this conversation going to help us meet the goals of all leaders feeling that their experience, views, and perspective are included in leadership development models and programming.
Alimo, C., Kelly, R., & Clark, C. (2002). Diversity initiatives in higher education: Intergroup dialogue program student outcomes and implications for campus radical climate: A case study. Multicultural Education, 10(1), 49.
Astin, H. S., & Astin, A. W. (1996). A social change model of leadership development guidebook. Version III. Los Angeles: UCLA Higher Education Research Institute.
Barnes, A. C., Olson, T. H., & Reynolds, D. J. (2018). Teaching power as an inconvenient but imperative dimension of critical leadership development. New directions for student leadership, 2018(159), 77-90.
Boren, M. E. (2001). Student resistance: A history of the unruly subject. New York: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Burns, J.M. (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Cabrera, N. L., Utt, J. R., & Corces-Zimmerman, C. Engaging White Students. In S. J. Quaye, S. R. Harper, & S. L. Pendakur (2019) (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations (3rd ed). New York, NY: Routledge.
Clegg, S. (2011). Cultural capital and agency: Connecting critique and curriculum in higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 32(1), 93-108.
Dugan, J. P., Komives, S. R., & Segar, T. C. (2008). College student capacity for socially responsible leadership: Understanding norms and influences of race, gender, and sexual orientation. NASPA Journal, 45(4), 475–500.
Espino, M. M. (2014). Exploring the role of community cultural wealth in graduate school access and persistence for Mexican American PhDs. American Journal of Education, 120(4), 545-574.
Fine, L. E., & Lee, C. (2017). Meeting learning objectives in a multicultural leadership course: Using assessment to inform pedagogical practice. Journal of Leadership Education, 16(2), 40-58.
French, A. (2017). Toward a New Conceptual Model: Integrating the Social Change Model of Leadership Development and Tinto’s Model of Student Persistence. Journal of Leadership Education, 16(3).
Goldthorpe, J. (2007) ‘Cultural capital’: Some critical observations. In: S Scherer et al. (eds) From Origin to Destination: Trends and Mechanisms in Social Stratification Research, pp. 78–101. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (2007). Student organizations as venues for black identity expression and development among African American male student leaders. Journal of College Student Development, 48(2), 127–144.
Higher Education Research Institute. (1996). A social change model of leadership development: Guidebook version III. College Park, MD: National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs.
Hoffman, G. D., & Mitchell, T. D. (2016). Making diversity “everyone’s business”: A discourse analysis of institutional responses to student activism for equity and inclusion. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 9(3), 277.
Jenkins, D. M., & Owen, J. E. (2016). Who teaches leadership? A comparative analysis of faculty and student affairs leadership educators and implications for leadership learning. Journal of Leadership Education, 15(2), 98-113.
Kernbach, S. (2018). Storytelling Canvas: A visual framework for developing and delivering resonating stories. In 2018 22nd International Conference Information Visualization (IV) (pp. 390-395). IEEE.
Kezar, A., Bertram Gallant, T., & Lester, J. (2011). Everyday people making a difference on college campuses: The tempered grassroots leadership tactics of faculty and staff. Studies in Higher Education, 36(2), 129-151.
Kezar, A., & Moriarty, D. (2000). Expanding our understanding of student leadership development: A study exploring gender and ethnic identity. Journal of College Student Development.
Kezar, A., Carducci, R., & Contreras-McGavin, M. (2006). Rethinking the” L” word in higher education: The revolution of research on leadership: ASHE higher education report. John Wiley & Sons.
Klumpyan, T., & Langdon, E. (2001). Non-Hierarchical Leadership in Action: Creating Change on Our College Campus. In C. L. Outcalt, S. K. Faris, & K. N. McMahon, Developing Non-Hierarchical Leadership on Campus: Case Studies and Best Practices in Higher Education. Greenwood Publishing Group
Komives, S. R., & Wagner, W. (Eds.). (2016). Leadership for a better world: Understanding the social change model of leadership development. John Wiley & Sons.
Mayhew, M. J., Rockenbach, A. N., Bowman, N. A., Seifert, T. A., & Wolniak, G. C. (2016). How college affects students: 21st century evidence that higher education works. John Wiley & Sons.
Moon, D. (1999). White enculturalism and bourgeois ideology: The discursive production of “good (white) girls.” In T. K. Nakayama & J. N. Martin (Eds.), Whiteness: The communication of a social identity (pp. 177–197). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Morgan, D. L., & Davis III, C. H. (2019). Student activism, politics, and campus climate in higher education. Routledge.
Museus, S. D., Lee, N. L., Calhoun, K., Sanchez-Parkinson, L., & Ting, M. P. (2018). The Social Action, Leadership, and Transformation (SALT) Model. Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Institutional Diversity
Neri, R.C., Rios-Augilar C., Huerta, A. (Forthcoming). Surfacing Deep Challenges for Social-Educational Justice: Putting Funds, Wealth, and Capital Frameworks into Dialogue
Oaks, D. J., Duckett, K., Suddeth, T., & Kennedy-Phillips, L. (2013). Leadership development and the African American male college experience. Journal of College & Character, 14(4), 331-340.
Pendakur , V. , & Furr , S. C. ( 2016 ). Critical leadership pedagogy: Engaging power, identity, and culture in leadership education for college students of color. In K. L. Guthrie , & L. Osteen (Eds.), New directions for higher education, no. 174, reclaiming higher education’s purpose in leadership development (pp. 45 – 56 ). San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass
Priest, K. L., & Jenkins, D. M. (2019). Developing a vision of leadership educator professional practice. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2019(164), 9-22.
Reynolds, R., & Mayweather, D. (2017). Recounting racism, resistance and repression: Examining the experiences and #hashtag activism of college students with critical race theory and counter-narratives. Journal of Negro Education, 86(3), pp. 283-304.
Rhoads, R. A. (1998). Freedom’s web: Student activism in an age of cultural diversity. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Solórzano, D. (1997) Images and words that wound: critical race theory, racial stereotyping and teacher education, Teacher Education Quarterly, 24, 5–19.
Solórzano, D. (1998) Critical race theory, racial and gender microaggressions, and the experiences of Chicana and Chicano Scholars, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11, 121–136.
Tichavakunda, A. A. (2019). An Overdue Theoretical Discourse: Pierre Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice and Critical Race Theory in Education. Educational Studies, 55(6), 651-666.
Turman, N. T., Garcia, K. C. A., & Howes, S. (2018). Deepening Attention to Social Location in Building Leader and Leadership Efficacy. New directions for student leadership, 2018(159), 65-76.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race ethnicity and education, 8(1), 69-91.
Zuniga, X., Nagda, B. R. A., Chesler, M., & Cytron-Walker, A. (2007). Intergroup Dialogue in Higher Education: Meaningful Learning About Social Justice: ASHE Higher Education Report, Volume 32, Number 4. John Wiley & Sons.