PK-12 Equity Director Role Stress Within the Equity Collaboration Configuration: An Organizational Autoethnography

Abstract

PK-12 Equity Directors (EDs) are tasked with addressing systemic inequities. The scope of their responsibilities is influenced by role configuration or placement within the organizational structure and the authority they are granted. Limited research has explored how role stress stemming from ambiguous or conflicting directives linked to role configuration affects EDs’ capacity to address systemic inequities. This organizational autoethnographic study examines how role stress because of my role configuration influenced my ability to address systemic inequities over 26 months, using reflective journal entries triangulated with artifacts and documents. The findings demonstrate that I experienced role ambiguity as my position had substantive unstructured time that sometimes made me feel I was not contributing to district goals of addressing systemic inequities. However, after recognizing my authority in different ways, this unstructured time allowed me to pursue projects aligned with my expertise and interests. I also encountered role conflict when leading employee teams who volunteered outside their contracted hours. The voluntary nature of their involvement limited consistent collaboration and forced me to be strategic about employee involvement in equity initiatives. The implications of this study suggest that supervisors should carefully balance EDs’ autonomy with structured support to foster sustainable equity efforts. Furthermore, district leaders must align volunteer committee members’ time commitments and expectations with the scope and demands of equity initiatives to ensure effective collaboration.

1. Introduction

PK-12 equity director (ED) roles have increasingly been created to address systemic inequities, such as differences in academic achievement, discipline disproportionality, and racism (Irby et al., 2022; Lewis et al., 2023; Matschiner, 2024). While the term ED is used in this article, the nomenclature for this leadership position encompasses many titles, including “equity director, chief equity officer, diversity officer, equity and engagement director, or equity specialist” (Irby et al., 2022, p. 450). To address systemic inequities, EDs engage in a variety of role responsibilities, such as crafting a vision for equitable change, engaging with their school community, facilitating professional learning, reforming policies, and strategic planning (Irby et al., 2021, 2022; Weiler & Stanley, 2023). Irby et al. (2022) suggest ED role responsibilities when addressing systemic inequities are shaped by their role configuration or “(a) the position of the role within the organizational structure and (b) the forms of organizational power and authority equity directors are afforded to carry out what becomes their assigned work” (p. 428). They identify four distinct ED role configurations, including (1) equity management and compliance configurations, (2) equity innovation and development, (3) equity collaboration configurations, and (4) equity seeding configurations. Each role configuration provides positional affordances and vulnerabilities that influence the ED’s ability to address systemic inequities (Irby et al., 2022). Despite recognizing factors that substantively shape ED role responsibilities, limited research analyzes how role stress within a specific configuration affects the leader’s ability to address systemic K-12 inequities.

This study aims to extend prior research by investigating how role stress arising from role configuration affects the ED’s capacity to address systemic inequities. Role stress results from ambiguous and conflicting directives from the employee’s supervisor (Rizzo et al., 1970). Employees experiencing role stress can lead to diminished job performance and satisfaction, which weakens the organization’s ability to achieve goals (Jackson & Schuler, 1985). Tubre and Collins (2000) argue that the complexity of contemporary work environments and shared job responsibilities across teams create inevitable role stress. EDs work in particularly complex environments where role stress could arise from several factors: the ambiguity of their authority to address systemic inequities, the directive to collaborate with community members and school district staff across multiple sites to identify inequities, and the challenge of navigating diverse perspectives on how best to address these concerns. Investigating the intersection of role configuration and role stress is essential for understanding how supervisors’ directives influence the ED’s ability to address systemic inequities.

This article extends prior research by exploring the role stress I experienced in an ED position configured for equity collaboration. Organizational autoethnography methods were utilized to address this gap in the literature, as the concept allows for a rigorous investigation of organizational practice and management through critical self-reflection (Doloriert & Sambrook, 2012). This study draws on reflective journal entries over approximately 26 months as a diversity, equity, and inclusion program manager (DEIPM) at Rogers Unified School District (RUSD).1 While I was not the chief equity director at RUSD, as the superintendent held that title, I was the only staff member at RUSD with equity in my job title. My role directly involved engaging in ED responsibilities to address systemic inequities, such as overseeing the development and implementation of district-wide equity-focused projects, including employee resource groups, site-based equity teams, and a yearly professional development conference for staff about anti-racism. Using role stress theory (Rizzo et al., 1970), this study asks:

RQ1: What role stress did I experience as an equity director whose position is configured for equity collaboration?

RQ2: How did I respond to role stress as an equity director whose position is configured for equity collaboration?

Through organizational autoethnographic methods, the findings from this study reveal that I experienced a form of role ambiguity where my supervisor assigned me concrete initiatives to lead but ensured I had unstructured time to pursue projects I believed would address systemic inequities within the RUSD system. Initially, the ambiguity surrounding the unstructured time allocated for pursuing projects of personal interest made me feel undervalued. However, recognizing my power and authority within the system empowered me to develop initiatives to support Black students and staff. Regarding role conflict, I observed that the stakeholder teams I led comprised RUSD employees volunteering their time due to organizational directives. This directive limited the time for volunteers to engage in equity initiatives, requiring additional work to occur outside their contracted hours. In response to this challenge, I employed a practical approach to fill gaps in leadership activity and limit the decision-making of volunteers on the committee I led. This approach constrained collaboration to maximize the committee’s ability to address systemic inequities. This study contributes to prior empirical research by offering a nuanced autoethnographic, longitudinal analysis of ED role stress in the equity collaboration configuration.

2. Literature Review: Equity Director Role Configurations

Scholars suggest that the ED position has antecedents in the 1950s school desegregation era (Rice-Boothe & Marshall, 2022). Miller (2025) identifies the intergroup relations specialist as a past iteration of the ED role, created in U.S. school districts to address responsibilities such as providing cultural learning resources, improving school culture, and fostering school-community collaboration to meet the needs of integrated students during the 1950s. The contemporary ED role has experienced rapid expansion, with nearly 40% of the largest 550 U.S. school districts establishing the position since 2021 (Matschiner, 2024). Scholars suggest this growth is driven by a commitment to addressing persistent disparities in educational outcomes and responding to sociopolitical movements (Irby et al., 2022; Lewis et al., 2023; Matschiner, 2024). Lewis et al. (2023) describe the contemporary ED role as addressing systemic disparities by strengthening equity-oriented leadership and instructional practices. Additionally, district leaders have responded to sociopolitical movements such as Black Lives Matter by creating the ED role (Irby et al., 2022; Lewis et al., 2023). Meyer et al. (2023) demonstrate that while the ED role often centers on racial equity, some districts have emphasized gender and sexual diversity, offering professional learning and creating policies to support these students.

District leaders configured the ED role around the power and authority deemed as necessary to address the systemic disparities and concurrent sociopolitical movements impacting the school district (Irby et al., 2022). Irby et al. (2021) suggest four factors shape ED role configuration, which include (a) supervisory responsibility and authority, (b) influence on superintendent and board relations, (c) financial resources and budgetary discretion, and (d) influence on district professional development related to curricular and instructional matters. The manner in which EDs narrated their access to power and authority across the four previously mentioned factors is how Irby et al. (2022) determined the four ED role configurations:

(1) EDs in the equity management and compliance configuration described their core work as managing district partnerships, developing and overseeing district programs and initiatives, having substantive access to the superintendent, having discretion over their budgets, and supervising several direct reports.

(2) EDs in the equity innovation and development configuration described their core work as creating equity programs, initiatives, and professional learning. These leaders often partner closely with the superintendent and board, supervise several staff members, and have budgetary discretion and the ability to make decisions.

(3) EDs in the equity collaborations configuration described their core work as partnering with several stakeholders, such as school and community members, to implement equity initiatives. These leaders had limited supervisory responsibility, budget, and decision-making authority and were minimally connected with superintendents and board members.

(4) EDs in the equity seeding configuration are described as having limited supervisory responsibility in managing interns or select hires. Their core work focuses on drafting and revising documents, policies, or discourses, and they view their influence across the district as inconsequential unless they have supervisory approval from a superintendent or board.

Irby et al. (2022) point out that their categorization of ED role configurations is not static, as these administrators can engage in overlapping and divergent actions across these groups.

Irby et al. (2022) investigate how role vulnerability limits EDs from fulfilling their job responsibilities based on role configuration. Drawing on Mitchell et al. (2017), role vulnerability is defined as teachers’ exposure to psychological, emotional, physical harm, emotional labor, and confidence in performing in their new roles as assistant principals. Role vulnerability can lead to stress on assistant principals in the form of ambiguity and conflicting demands from supervisors that impact the ability of these leaders to complete their job responsibilities (Mitchell et al., 2017). Irby et al. (2022) draw on role vulnerability to examine how ED role configurations lead to positional affordances and constraints. Among the role vulnerabilities that Irby et al. (2022) describe is that the ED’s role can be both ambiguous and misaligned with their job responsibilities. In addition, Irby et al. (2022), citing Nir (2001), suggest that anyone experiencing role vulnerability should expect to experience role conflict. For example, Irby et al. (2022) highlight Lynne, an ED who narrated engaging in the equity seeding configuration. Lynne’s substantial role ambiguity prevented her from engaging in the work she believed was right due to shifting job demands and pressure, which the authors describe as a structural vulnerability of the position. While Irby et al. (2022) analyze how role vulnerability creates affordances and constraints, they do not fully explore how supervisors’ directives based on role configuration impact the achievement of organizational goals. The focus on role design overlooks the potential impact of conflicting directives on an ED’s ability to address systemic inequities.

This study builds on Irby and colleagues’ work by addressing the gap in their analysis, specifically how role ambiguity and conflict in the equity collaboration configuration affect EDs’ capacity to address systemic inequities. Role vulnerability stems from how the role was designed, limiting organizational goal achievement. Conversely, role stress focuses on the supervisor’s directives, limiting the achievement of organizational goals (Rizzo et al., 1970). The connection between these working conditions is that the supervisor issues directives based on how the role is designed. Unlike previous studies, which emphasize the vulnerabilities of role design, this research also investigates how supervisors’ conflicting directives limit EDs’ ability to achieve organizational goals. Irby et al.’ (2022) literature review alludes to the potential of role conflict to affect ED job performance. However, they do not investigate how contradictory directives from an ED supervisor impact their ability to address systemic inequities. In addition, while role ambiguity is defined as a structural vulnerability of the ED role in the equity seeding configuration, the authors do not fully describe how other role configurations, such as equity collaboration, are impacted.

This study builds upon prior scholarship by examining how role stress impacts the ability of EDs to address systemic inequities within the equity collaboration configuration. The consequences of role stress in non-educational settings are well-documented. Multiple meta-analytic studies indicate that ambiguous and conflicting directives can lead to adverse outcomes such as emotional exhaustion, diminished feelings of competence and achievement, reduced job satisfaction, lower commitment to organizational goals, decreased job performance, and a higher likelihood of job turnover (Örtqvist & Wincent, 2006; Tubre & Collins, 2000). Addressing role stress through strategies such as improving communication between supervisors and employees and implementing stress management techniques has been shown to enhance job satisfaction, reduce turnover intentions, and improve job performance (Atteya, 2012; Kemery et al., 1985). This study highlights the potential challenges that arise from role stress within equity collaboration configurations and examines how an ED navigates these challenges to continue pursuing efforts to address systemic inequities.

3. Theoretical Framework: Role Stress

EDs navigate substantive role stress based on their role configuration, including role ambiguity and conflict. There is limited research on the role ambiguities EDs experience and how the conflicting directives of their supervisors shape their ability to address systemic inequities. Drawing on the concept of role stress (Ho et al., 2023; Rizzo et al., 1970), I examine how I, as an ED, navigated ambiguous and conflicting directives from my supervisor. Role stress is derived from organizational theory, suggesting that when people receive clear directives from their supervisor, they should perform more effectively and achieve organizational goals (Rizzo et al., 1970). A role is defined as the expected behaviors in a job (Biddle, 1986). Role ambiguity can be defined as a person navigating unclear expectations of their role (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991). Pearce (1981) suggests role ambiguity can arise from four ways supervisors structure a position, including (1) the employee is working in an unusual setting, (2) changing job expectations, (3) job performance being judged by other people’s behavior, and (4) receiving delayed or absent feedback. Studies suggest that employees experiencing role ambiguity are associated with negative job performance and the employee negatively perceiving that they are correctly engaging in their roles (Tubre & Collins, 2000).

Role conflict focuses on the incompatible directives an employee receives from their supervisor (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991). Rizzo et al. (1970) define four types of role conflict an employee can experience, including (1) intra-role, or conflict between the employee’s internal standards or values and role behaviors; (2) intra-sender, or conflict between the time, resources, or capabilities of an employee to complete their role; (3) inter-role, or conflict between multiple roles that have incompatible behaviors for the role; and (4) inter-sender, or conflicts with organizational policies, directives from multiple people, or being inappropriately evaluated. The results of how role conflict impacts performance are less clear, as investigators found no meaningful impact on employees from the condition. However, professional, technical, and managerial staff had more detrimental experiences than service or clerical roles (Tubre & Collins, 2000).

Within educational research literature, role stress theory has been used to examine the experiences of assistant principals, school-based public relations practitioners, and teachers (Bunnell, 2006; Conley & You, 2014; Ho et al., 2023). For example, Ho et al. (2023) utilized the concept of role stress to examine the experiences of assistant principals. They argued that assistant principals need more explicit role boundaries due to role ambiguity. However, vagueness can empower these administrators to take on issues that fit their expertise and interests. While role conflict was felt by assistant principals whose personal beliefs and values were at odds with their principals, they mediated the issue by recognizing their supervisor had greater management responsibilities and focused on the moral purpose of their role (Ho et al., 2023). While educational research literature has taken up investigations utilizing role stress theory, the concept has not been used within ED scholarship.

This study utilizes role stress theory to critically investigate my experience as an ED navigating the equity collaboration configuration. Within this configuration, the supervisor’s directive mandates that the ED engage with multiple stakeholders across various initiatives. However, the lack of an articulated strategy for stakeholder collaboration resulted in ambiguity and conflicting directives that complicated efforts to address systemic inequities. Role stress theory provides a framework for exploring how such ambiguous or conflicting directives impede my capacity to address systemic inequities, whether from my supervisor’s or RUSD’s policies. Analyzing how these directives generate constraints will inform the development of strategies to better support EDs in their efforts to disrupt systemic inequities. Additionally, this study employs role stress theory as a central coding concept in developing the codebook for data analysis.

4. Research Methodology: Organizational Autoethnography

This study employs organizational autoethnography, a rigorous method in which I engage in self-reflective practices to explore my experiences as the DEIPM for RUSD (Doloriert & Sambrook, 2012). Organizational autoethnography provides a nuanced, insider account of leadership challenges, allowing the leader’s experiences to illuminate broader issues and dilemmas relatable to other leaders (Chang & Bilgen, 2020). Rather than positioning my experience as the ED at RUSD as unique, the organizational autoethnography frames the role stresses I faced as structural components of my equity collaboration role configuration, which other leaders in similar roles may also encounter.

Autoethnographers systematically collect and analyze data about their self-reflections, often through journaling. These journals typically describe situations that the autoethnographers experienced, the emotions those situations evoked, and the actions taken (Cooper & Lilyea, 2022). To offer a more layered account of their self-reflection, autoethnographers may incorporate “hard data”, such as personal communications, reports, and other relevant artifacts, to provide factual descriptions of the experiences under investigation (Wall, 2008, p. 45). A critical aspect of the research design is whether the autoethnographer chooses to respond to events or reflect later, as “One’s reflections in the moment are likely to differ from those at a later time” (Cooper & Lilyea, 2022, p. 199). For this study, I opted for reflection as close to the time it happened as it is impossible to recall events accurately from memory (Ellis et al., 2011).

A standard critique of autoethnographic research during the peer review process is that the author often does not triangulate their personal experiences with other perspectives, such as through interviews, focus groups, or member checking. This absence of triangulation can lead to concerns about the study’s representativeness or legitimacy (Holt, 2003). Such critiques are grounded in the belief that research must follow traditional methodological procedures, including triangulation, to be deemed valid or credible (Holt, 2003). However, a systematic autoethnographic analysis is valid without triangulating with other people’s perspectives or experiences because reliability is determined by the study’s credibility in providing factual evidence about the researcher’s experiences (Ellis et al., 2011). This study analyzes data sources such as personal communications, program guidance documents, and other artifacts to provide factual evidence and present a credible representation of my reflective journaling. Moreover, this approach to autoethnography is widely accepted and frequently utilized in educational research. Studies investigating the experiences of a Black male teacher (Goings, 2015) and a Black male superintendent (Joseph, 2023) demonstrate the credibility and effectiveness of this methodology. Including perspectives from others would shift the study away from its core autoethnographic nature, which focuses on the researcher’s lived experiences.

4.1. Setting

RUSD has approximately 19,000 students across five suburbs of a major city in the western United States. Over 80% of students at RUSD identify as people of color. RUSD employs over 2000 staff members. RUSD’s school board adopted an equity policy in September 2010, explicitly focusing on becoming an anti-racist organization that eradicates discrimination and disproportionality. RUSD was publicly lauded for its commitment to pursuing equity-focused change, as out-of-school suspensions dropped by 50% and graduation rates increased by 21% from 2012 to 2022.

4.2. Participant

I worked at RUSD as the DEIPM from March 2021 until June 2023. The DEIPM role was in the human resources department under an associate director. The role was configured to partner with stakeholders to implement equity initiatives (Irby et al., 2022). The purpose of the DEIPM role listed in the job description was to support the alignment and coordination of racial equity initiatives. Among the primary responsibilities of the DEIPM role were creating project plans, successfully implementing initiatives, advising staff on current research, maintaining communication, and collaborating across the community, central office, and school stakeholders. At RUSD, I oversaw and implemented several district equity-focused initiatives, including an employee resource group, site-based equity teams, and a conference about anti-racism. Across all of these projects, I either lead or co-lead a steering committee of 5–15 staff members to achieve the successful implementation of each project. Additionally, I worked on other projects as needed, such as community listening sessions, employee turnover reporting, and developing initiatives to retain historically marginalized educators.

The DEIPM role falls within the equity collaboration configuration because the core work has similarly limited authority regarding supervision, budget, and decision-making, with minimal connection to the superintendents and board members (Irby et al., 2022). My role as DEIPM lacked supervisory authority over staff members, so I could not hold committee stakeholders accountable for non-performance or for leaving the team. The DEIPM role did include access to a limited budget for contracting guest speakers, compensating staff for overtime related to steering committees or initiatives, and providing program resources such as training materials. The scope of decision-making was constrained as I lacked the autonomy to contract without supervisory approval or modify the programs I led meaningfully. For example, whenever I sought to contract with a community stakeholder to co-lead an employee resource group, I had to seek approval from my supervisor. Additionally, my connection with the district’s superintendents and board members was minimal, with approximately five meaningful interactions over the 26 months at RUSD.

4.3. Data Collection

The primary data collection method for investigating the role stress I experienced as DEIPM was reflective journaling. Reflective journaling is suited to analyze role stress in the equity collaboration configuration. As Cooper and Lilyea (2022) suggest, writing about your experiences and perceptions can elicit the factual, social, and emotional elements related to the topic of study. Reflective journaling began in March 2021 when I started my role and ended when I left my position in June 2023. When I started journaling, I wrote with two questions in mind: (1) How does my cultural background as a Black man impact my ability to engage as a district racial equity leader? (2) What political or cultural systems impact my ability to engage as a district racial equity leader? By August 2021, or about five months after I started reflective journaling, I shifted away from my initial prompts to provide myself with more structure. The new prompts include three questions: (1) What is the issue/topic at hand? (2) How is the situation making me feel? (3) What am I going to do as a result of this issue/topic? From March 2021 until June 2023, the journal entries span 42 single-spaced typed pages. Journal entries were typically created within four days of a relevant event occurring.

When engaging in autoethnography, the researcher must triangulate their subjective opinions with data such as emails, memos, or other documents and artifacts (Cooper & Lilyea, 2022; Duncan, 2004; Wall, 2008). Similarly, I triangulated the opinions I journaled about by collecting objective “hard data”, including emails I sent/received, slide deck presentations, my DEIPM job description, program guidance documents for projects I led/facilitated, quarterly program progress reports to my supervisor, news stories, newsletters, documents received from local and state education agencies, meeting agendas, and meeting minutes.

4.4. Data Analysis

I engaged in a thematic analysis (Terry et al., 2017) of the data to familiarize myself with it, create codes, and develop themes. Familiarization is reviewing the data multiple times before coding (Terry et al., 2017). Familiarization with the data set occurred from July 2023 through February 2024. The codebook development method by MacQueen et al. (2008) was utilized to standardize the application of codes by tracking the definition of each concept, specifying when to use each code and when not to use it, and providing examples for each code used to create the initial codebook. Preliminary codes were initially developed deductively utilizing concepts from role stress, such as role conflict, including inter-role, inter-sender, intra-role, and intra-sender. Additionally, reviewing the data led to the development of inductive codes regarding how situations made me feel and my responses to various role stresses. Examples of my responses to role stress included program development, scheduling a follow-up meeting, no response, and building relationships. In addition, analytic memos were written to support familiarization with the data set, refine my codebook, develop themes, and make analytic decisions to narrow the focus of the study (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Themes were developed during memoing by collating codes and testing them against the data set (Terry et al., 2017). Lastly, the write-up centered on an analytic autoethnography paradigm by using reviewed literature to develop themes rather than focusing on storytelling (Anderson, 2006).

5. Data Quality

Developing trustworthy claims is a paramount concern when conducting autoethnographic research. Multiple steps were taken to ensure a trustworthy data collection and analysis process was completed through valid and reliable methods. Duncan (2004) suggests that a systematic reflective journal is critical to validly investigating a researcher’s experience. Keeping a systematic reflective journal was accomplished in multiple ways. First, I created and tracked inquiry-based questions, including what was happening, what I felt, and how I would respond to the situation as I navigated my ED role responsibilities. Additionally, reflective journaling was completed monthly. However, Cooper and Lilyea (2022) suggest that “reflections in the moment are likely to be different than reflections at a later point (p. 199)”. Thus, I recorded entries more frequently to document influential situations and track my initial feelings as I navigated the circumstances, rather than retrospectively analyzing my response to an event. A common issue cited that negatively impacts the reliability of autoethnographic research is that it focuses on one data source: self-reported experiences (Doloriert & Sambrook, 2012). Multiple data sources, including emails, job descriptions, learning resources developed, and presentations about the various initiatives, were collected and analyzed to triangulate journal entries. Triangulating reflective journaling with additional data sources helps to establish the reliability of the autoethnographic account (Duncan, 2004).

A systematic approach was employed to analyze the data through multiple structured steps. First, a qualitative coding scheme was implemented to minimize bias in the analysis. Cooper and Lilyea (2022) argue that a coding scheme enables the researcher to describe data accurately, capture the essence of recorded reflections, and remain open to various aspects of the experience. To enhance consistency in code application, I employed the codebook development method outlined by MacQueen et al. (2008), which involved creating clear definitions and examples to guide when and how codes should be applied. Role stress theory guided code development, aligning themes with established concepts and minimizing subjectivity in the coding process. Codes were applied iteratively to refine themes and achieve interpretative saturation. Additionally, analytic memos were generated throughout the research process to document code application, identify emerging patterns, and provide a rationale for higher inference claims. These methodological steps ensured a trustworthy interpretation of the data.

5.1. Positionality

My identity as a Black male scholar-practitioner profoundly influenced how I approached my responsibilities as an ED and shaped my subsequent analysis. Growing up in a lower-middle-class neighborhood, I frequently encountered low expectations from teachers and witnessed schools operating with limited resources. During my student teaching, I worked in high- and low-income schools, where I observed a stark contrast in the educational opportunities available to students based on the resources provided. These early experiences left a lasting impact and fueled my commitment to addressing systemic inequities through educational leadership.

When I began my role as an ED, I was also pursuing my doctoral studies in educational leadership, where I developed an understanding of how systemic change could be enacted in PK-12 school systems. A key concept that resonated with me was the importance of democratic decision-making in addressing systemic inequities. I believed involving students, staff, and the community in decision-making was essential for addressing the issues that directly affected their lives. I felt strongly that the voices of those impacted by decisions should be central when designing action plans or initiatives.

Upon assuming my ED role, I prioritized building relationships across the district and avoiding working in isolation. I sought to create diverse committees that could collaboratively tackle the pressing issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. As I transitioned into my role as a scholar-practitioner, I became increasingly interested in how individuals engage in decision-making processes and make their voices heard, especially when addressing complex inequities. This interest in inclusive decision-making became a central theme in my scholarship as I explored how it could contribute to systemic change.

5.2. Limitations

Limitations existed in the creation of this autoethnographic study. One limitation of autoethnography is that the method foregrounds my experience rather than providing a meaningful platform for those I worked with to discuss how they are represented (Wall, 2008). Although I triangulated my experience with hard data, my RUSD colleagues did not provide their perspectives on how they were represented. Since my colleagues cannot respond to how they are represented, I sought to be critical of organizational policy and practices rather than focus on the deficiencies of my RUSD colleagues. The point I aimed to highlight in this study is that my ability to address systemic inequity is influenced by role configuration and role stress. My RUSD colleagues were committed to addressing systemic inequity through thoughtful action and evaluation.

Irby et al. (2022) note that EDs cannot be statically sorted into a role configuration. This study focuses on my experience as an ED that falls within the equity collaboration configuration, which statically categorizes my time working at RUSD. I focus on the collaboration role configuration because this categorization exemplifies my ED leadership activity at RUSD. However, a case could be made that I engaged in overlapping role activities as I developed community partnerships and professional learning for staff, indicating the equity innovation and development configuration. A future study might investigate the role stress an ED experiences as they switch between role configurations.

6. Findings

The findings from this study answer my research questions: What role stress did I experience as an equity director whose position is configured for equity collaboration? How did I respond to role stress as an equity director whose position is configured for equity collaboration? The findings suggest that I may have experienced role ambiguity due to my supervisor not assigning me a full-time workload. This role ambiguity allowed me to develop new relationships, identify systemic inequities, and develop initiatives to address the challenges I was interested in disrupting. Additionally, I identified a role conflict regarding the equity collaboration configuration that emanated from the directive of district leaders to staff the committees I led with volunteers. Working with volunteer committees led me to take on more responsibilities and limit group decision-making, resulting to decreased collaboration. Each finding is contextualized with my journal entries and hard data and connected to prior research literature.

6.1. Navigating Unstructured Time

My ED experience in the equity collaboration configuration was filled with substantial role ambiguity. I experienced role ambiguity similar to that of previously researched EDs who described having an unclear and inconsistent workload (Irby et al., 2022). I quickly noticed that the projects I led within the equity collaborations configuration often took a fraction of my weekly scheduled hours to complete. In early spring 2021, weeks into starting my ED position, I journaled about the ambiguity of my role. I wrote,

My position is really undefined. I am really unsure about what I will be doing moving forward. I have talked with my supervisor several times about projects I might be on, but really my job right now is to observe, attend meetings, and get to know the district.

The unclear nature of my role presented a challenge, as I was eager to take proactive steps to address systemic inequities. A key responsibility outlined in my job description was to support “the alignment and coordination of racial equity initiatives” within RUSD. However, when I sought guidance from my supervisor regarding my actions, I received limited feedback (Rizzo et al., 1970). Since I did not receive substantive feedback, I had unclear expectations for fulfilling critical aspects of my role. Despite this initial uncertainty, I recognized the value of my early observations because they allowed me to build meaningful relationships with other district leaders. I journaled about this mid-spring 2021.

Something that has been good about my job so far is the opportunity to meet many of the key players in our district. I have either had [or] will have meetings with every cabinet member, several department heads, and other middle managers. I feel like there is value placed on my role to connect with people across the district. Plus, I do have substantive time to build relationships. I do feel like I still am not exactly sure what my job as an equity leader for the district is but I do feel like people want me involved in what is going on.

Within the equity collaboration configuration, the core of the work is connecting with stakeholders such as community members, students, and district staff to implement initiatives (Irby et al., 2022). My reflection highlighted that ambiguity was present because, although I connected with colleagues, I did not lead substantive initiatives. Until the summer of 2021, my ED leadership activity was marked by being a process observer sitting in on meetings, providing limited feedback, and learning about what was occurring within the RUSD system. My supervisor setting me up to have an ambiguous workload made me feel that I was not contributing to our district’s goals of addressing systemic inequities.

In the late summer of 2021, I created a presentation for our district executive leadership team. I noted seven initiatives where school or department leaders met with me and asked for my support. In this presentation, I provided data and rationale for why I should join two of these initiatives by discussing relevant information on staff climate and RUSD’s five-year changes in the recruitment and retention of staff by race. Engaging with leaders across the RUSD system underscored the perceived value of my role, as evidenced by their willingness to allocate time to meet with me and ask for support. As I took on leadership of various equity initiatives, whether directly related to or separate from the presentation, I leveraged the relationships I had developed with the central office and school leaders in those early meetings. These relationships strengthened my ability to recruit them or their staff to serve on steering committees and actively participate in the initiatives I led.

While I did not understand it until later, I realized that my supervisor at RUSD shielded some time so my schedule would be free to address systemic inequities, which I thought was important. I reflected on my supervisor’s choice during a journaling session. I wrote, “…there was a comment essentially the director of our department said [the DEIPM] needs to be on this type of project because it legitimizes [their] role”, and “I know several people at the district that are asking for me to be on projects yet I am unaware of the actual projects”. My supervisor shielding my time created role ambiguity because my department head’s comments confirmed there were initiatives other leaders in the system wanted me to address. As time passed, I recognized the positive impact of having this ambiguity because it meant I had unstructured time to build relationships, identify problems, and develop plans to address issues I saw as pertinent. For example, issues that I identified in my district were that we were not doing enough when responding to violence directed toward Black communities, such as the murder of unarmed Black Americans by police officers. I believe that RUSD should have more spaces for Black students or staff to process sociopolitical issues impacting their community and stay connected to their identity. So, I used my unstructured time to address the needs of Black staff and students in our district. In a journal entry in winter 2023, I reflected on an email I sent to staff about the Memphis Police murder of Tyre Nichols, an unarmed Black man, stating:

I sent the below message in response to the Memphis police murder to the Black Male employee resource group and reached out to the Black Women’s group who sent their message to their listerv. I know sending the message on a Friday evening and a fairly quick response to the issue but I also wanted to recognize that our district often responds very slowly and with minimal care for our staff. So I reached out to Black male employee resource group co-lead to craft the following message: We hosted a session for staff on the Monday after the event to process the situation together. The agenda was not overly prescribed we just wanted to give staff a chance to talk about how they feel and if they needed any support. Myself I felt like this event was in a long line of anti-Black violence perpetrated by the police. It was healing to be able to talk to and receive support from other Black staff members. Recognizing that we are all witnessing and going through similar emotions was healing. Plus, the [camaraderie] to be in a space where I know I have other people who support me made me feel better. The issue of anti-Blackness is not going to stop but the ways we support each other and create space to discuss our feelings through the torrent of these experiences is sometimes all we can do.

My authority to establish a processing space regarding the murder of Tyre Nichols for Black staff was ambiguous. However, I recognized the necessity for such spaces due to the district’s often minimal responses to instances of unarmed Black Americans being murdered by police. Typically, RUSD’s response involved sending emails with learning resources, which I perceived as inadequate in meeting the needs of Black staff. In response to situations where Black staff and students were not being sufficiently supported, I took the initiative to create spaces designed to support Black students and staff. For example, from winter 2022 to spring 2023, I created and co-led a monthly Black Male Employee Resource Group. The group’s dual purpose was to support participants in maintaining connections to their Black identity and providing a space to process instances of violence against Black communities. A topic from our inaugural meeting included a discussion of an excerpt from Ellison’s (1952) Invisible Man, where we explored whether RUSD made participants feel compelled to conceal aspects of their Black identity and what actions could be taken to address this issue. Ellison’s work discusses the African American experience in navigating contemporary sociopolitical issues in the United States.

Additionally, I initially supported and later co-led a Black student group at an elementary school, which was initiated after I received an email from an assistant principal in winter 2022. Starting spring 2023, I led the group in five meetings, during which I developed a slide deck that included discussions on topics such as Maya Angelou’s poem “Still I Rise”, a mapping exercise to examine the impact of housing segregation within the RUSD community, and issues surrounding hair discrimination. My approach to identifying and addressing issues impacting Black students and staff at RUSD was driven by my expertise and a personal commitment, which reflects a similar response to assistant principals who experienced role ambiguity (Ho et al., 2023).

It is important to note that developing these initiatives to address issues impacting Black students and staff was not explicitly part of my job responsibilities. The ambiguity within my role allowed me to build relationships with staff members, listen to their concerns, and gain insight into how RUSD’s systems did not appropriately respond to the needs of Black students and staff. My unstructured time allowed me to develop initiatives that supported Black students and staff, an opportunity I might not have had if my role had been fully defined or assigned a complete work portfolio. Consequently, this space to innovate and act outside the scope of predefined responsibilities facilitated the development of initiatives crucial to addressing inequities at RUSD.

6.2. Leading Volunteer Committees in the Equity Collaborations Configuration

In 2017, RUSD created a strategic plan to guide the district’s efforts in addressing inequity across its system. The school board approved the plan, emphasizing, “Our strategic plan is our equity plan” and “All staff members are charged with recognizing and speaking out when we are not meeting our vision of being an equity-focused district”. This approach was operationalized by empowering all staff members to take responsibility for addressing inequity rather than creating a dedicated equity office. As a result, the district made notable progress on its equity goals, including reductions in out-of-school suspensions, increased attendance, and improved achievement scores. In fall 2019, a national educational research organization published a case study on RUSD, lauding the district’s progress in addressing systemic inequity. The study highlighted how central office staff, principals, teachers, and support staff were empowered to recognize their roles and actively engage in leadership actions essential to advancing the equity goals outlined in the strategic plan.

RUSD’s approach to equity, which views all staff as contributors to the effort, was reflected in my job description. The DEIPM job description emphasizes collaboration across departments and with community stakeholders to implement the district’s equity policy. It also includes the responsibility to “serve as a resource and advisor” on racial equity matters, aligning with the district’s broader mandate for collaborative equity work. My role connected to the core work of the equity collaboration configuration as I partnered with multiple stakeholders to address inequities, as I worked across schools and departments (Irby et al., 2022). Within the first month of my employment with RUSD, I reflected on the choice not to have an equity department journaling in spring 2021:

RUSD created my position with an understanding that racial equity work is everyone’s job rather than developing an office of diversity, equity, and inclusion or a similar departmental configuration. I think this is interesting because it is common in the surrounding districts that they have an equity department. For example, Gamma School District has five staff members, Sigma School District has a department with 10+ people, and Beta School District has at least two people I know of. My question is, how will this support or hinder the work moving forward?

RUSD positively disrupted inequities because everyone in the school system was empowered to address identified issues. However, my reflection notes the opportunities and challenges to disrupting the inequities I was tasked to address because of how RUSD staffed its equity initiatives. One such challenge area was the DEIPM’s responsibility, which involved leading committees of 5–15 individuals on projects such as an employee resource group, site-based equity teams, and an anti-racism conference. For example, as co-lead of the anti-racism conference, the goal was to guide a committee in organizing what our promotional materials described as the “annual event where all RUSD staff come together to engage in dialogue and learning” on anti-racism. Our recruitment materials for committee members asked them to “commit to one hour per week for Zoom meetings, with additional asynchronous tasks and summer meetings”. Committee members would engage in activities such as selecting presentations, preparing presenters, developing promotional materials, ensuring our technology needs were met, and providing learning resources.

RUSD’s organizational directive for engaging in equity work was consistently misaligned with my directive to collaborate with stakeholders in addressing inequities. RUSD’s policy for staffing the stakeholder teams I lead was implemented by RUSD employees who volunteered outside their contracted hours. Although my role was structured to focus on leading steering committees, stakeholders typically volunteered 1–2 h a week outside their regular hours. This setup created an inter-sender role conflict (Rizzo et al., 1970), as RUSD’s organizational directive limited collaboration time, which led to high turnover rates and limited engagement. I observed the impact of limited time capacity early in my tenure as an anti-racism conference planning committee member, noting this challenge in my journal in spring, 2021:

I recently joined the anti-racism conference planning committee. anti-racism conference is a one-day training that every staff member participates in on different topics of equity. The planning committee is really diverse. We staff from around the district participated including principals, teachers, counselors, executive assistants. A challenge I have seen is a few members leaving the committee already and we have had a few meetings. We have two co-leads, which are doing a great job to move our work forward. But, it also seems like a lot of work for them because they are doing this work in addition to their own job. I wonder how they experience this double duty to plan such a big event and do their day-to-day responsibilities.

The co-leaders I worked with or supported had to balance their regular duties with the additional responsibility of leading committees, which added a significant workload. Additionally, committee members, burdened with competing responsibilities, would resign mid-project or lack time to prepare for meetings. For example, I co-led the anti-racism conference planning in 2022. I received a message from a colleague stating they needed to resign from the anti-racism conference planning committee to focus on other professional responsibilities. Similarly, due to personal obligations, two committee members messaged about resigning during the anti-racism conference planning in 2023. It was common to have three to five committee members leave the anti-racism conference planning team. Staff turnover during the planning process was typical and often due to legitimate reasons such as burnout, family responsibilities, and increased workload from their regular duties. While it is understandable that staff should be able to step away from responsibilities when necessary, their departures meant that the remaining team members had to do disproportionate work. Committee members leaving midway through planning demonstrated that I had limited power and authority to mandate my team stay together.

Additionally, I frequently worked with stakeholders who did not have time to properly engage with the scheduled sessions when I led or participated in teams. For example, in December 2021, I penned a journal entry reflecting on my thoughts about two meetings, one where I led an employee resource group steering committee meeting and another where I participated in the site-based equity team steering committee. I wrote:

With the support of the employee resource group steering committee, we are getting close to launching the program. I think the employee resource group steering committee has been really supportive in adding some really good ideas to push the work. The seven members of the employee resource group steering committee have worked together to determine group guidelines, support we will provide facilitators, and other important aspects of the work. So far employee resource group steering committee is moving things forward. I am starting to think about the differences in being on this committee versus something like the site-based equity team committee where I am starting to feel like we are not gaining much traction in the work. Sometimes I feel like not much planning from the co-leads of site-based equity team steering committee is occurring when we meet so we both do not have a map or destination in mind about [what we are doing]. With employee resource group we have several people on the team working toward the plan I lead out and that feels like part of the reason we have made some headway.

My journal entry reveals my frustration with the quality of the planning and the multiple organizational demands being placed on the staff members, which prevented the committee from moving toward addressing systemic inequities. In the situation of site-based equity team committee leaders, the inter-sender role conflict (Rizzo et al., 1970) stems from an organizational directive that these leaders have to complete their regular job duties, leaving limited bandwidth to plan effective committee meetings. Given the number of people leaving the committees midway through planning and the limited time staff had to engage with the work, my response was to look for opportunities to step up and support the work. In a journal entry in Fall 2022, I wrote about my response to the limited capacity of the site-based equity team committee co-leads, stating:

I have been working with [public relations] to create a website and email address for the site-based equity team committee. The main reason I have undertaken this process is because I think the committee needs a central place where [RUSD] staff can go to access resources after our trainings. In addition, have a way to contact us so we can support them in their work. The site and email addresses are now officially up and running. Also, more broadly I have tried to take on more of a leadership role within site-based equity team committee because I feel like I have been noticing that we are often not working in the most strategic way possible. I feel like the leads are very busy with their day jobs which prevent them from fully investing in leading this committee. So, I have tried to put some structures in place to help us plan as co-leads and have more productive meetings. As co-leads we meet and plan an agenda for the full member sessions. This has been helpful because I feel like there is more logic in how we plan. Also, I have tried to set up a committee structure so when we get into meetings we can try and have smaller focus areas which I hope will lead to us moving our work forward. One is an outreach committee to different teams, one team that plans for [district wide professional learning] trainings, and one team that is set up us [to] evaluate our work.

My approach to the site-based equity team committee situation aligns with my typical strategy for leading or participating in district-wide committees. I routinely assessed the capacity of team members to engage with committee work and then took steps to supplement the efforts where necessary. For instance, in Fall 2022, I noted receiving praise from site-based equity team committee co-leads for developing a website in collaboration with the district’s public relations team. This website housed essential learning resources, contact information, and team bios. Supplementing committee work was needed to keep initiatives moving forward, and at other times, my goal was streamlining processes to optimize efficiency. I would often restrict the committee’s decision-making power, narrowing options to two or three feasible choices or curating statistics for focused discussion instead of providing raw data for analysis. These choices were typically made in collaboration with co-leads during regularly scheduled meetings or via email. For example, in these co-lead meetings, we participated in activities such as setting the agenda for full committee meetings, making decisions about the topics we wanted the full committee to provide input on, and determining possible times to host professional development sessions.

The role conflict, in which I was tasked with working with volunteers who had minimal time to engage in the work, necessitated the implementation of structures that maximized their limited availability. Moreover, recognizing that the ED might need to step in to address gaps in leadership was essential for keeping projects moving forward in the equity collaboration configuration. This approach exemplifies a practical strategy for managing limited bandwidth and time while ensuring the committee remains on track to achieve its objectives.

7. Discussion

This research study examines two interrelated questions: (1) What role stress did I experience as an equity director whose position is configured for equity collaboration? (2) How did I respond to role stress as an equity director whose position is configured for equity collaboration? This organizational autoethnography answers the research questions by investigating ED role stress in the equity collaboration configuration. Engaging in an organizational autoethnography (Doloriert & Sambrook, 2012) helped illuminate how the role stresses I experienced stemmed from directives issued by my RUSD supervisors.

This investigation confirms prior scholarship suggesting that EDs navigate substantial role ambiguity to address systemic inequities (Irby et al., 2022). Irby et al. (2022) point to the ambiguity of the ED role stemming from structural choices of how the role is configured. Similarly, my supervisor’s directives led to structuring my role as ED in the equity collaboration configuration, resulting in a work portfolio that did not include full-time tasks. The ambiguity of my supervisor’s directives initially challenged me because I did not receive explicit guidance about my role behaviors. However, the choice to limit my work portfolio allowed me to explore my power and authority to address different issues of anti-Blackness. I identified problems of practice, built relationships, and developed programs with stakeholders to address the needs of Black students and staff. My experience in the equity collaboration configuration with role ambiguity was similar to prior scholarship on assistant principals who use their vaguely directed time to address issues that fit their interests and expertise (Ho et al., 2023). Since the ED role is not overly prescribed about what or how the leaders complete their role responsibilities, it leaves considerable terrain for an ED to look for and exercise power and authority when there are ambiguous directives from their supervisor.

These findings provide implications for navigating role ambiguity in equity collaboration configuration such as balancing an ED’s autonomy with developing sustainable initiatives. The autonomy of my supervisor’s directive led me to develop innovative initiatives that supported Black students and staff. However, there is a potential drawback to the autonomy because much of the work I engaged in occurred because I had an expertise and personal connection that may not be present if the ED position is eliminated or the next person does not have a similar skill set. Scholars suggest spaces created for Black communities to feel a sense of connection, process violent experiences against their community, and build a positive sense of identity are often temporary or under the constant threat of foreclosure (Baldridge, 2020; Ross, 2020). Furthermore, Matschiner (2024) suggests that an ED can often be seen as “just checking a box” or signaling an organizational commitment that is often not backed by meaningful changes to organizational policy and practice. These studies point to the critical thought and steps that must be implemented to ensure an ED’s autonomy to create innovative initiatives to disrupt systemic inequities is sustained rather than create temporary solutions that go away with the person currently in the ED role. To ensure the continuity of ED-developed initiatives, the district must become thoughtful about preparing future EDs via ongoing professional learning. EDs are not required to have standardized credentials or training before taking on the position (Lewis et al., 2023), which may account for variance in the skills and strategies individuals bring to the role. If districts prepare future EDs to continue initiatives with thoughtful preparation, there is a greater chance that an initiative can be sustained. A future study might investigate how districts sustain the initiatives of EDs in the equity collaboration configuration after they leave their roles, which could include how they prepare future leaders for the role.

This investigation highlights a key role conflict EDs face in equity collaboration configurations. Specifically, it demonstrates the challenge of navigating the limited capacity of volunteer committee members. Irby et al. (2022) suggest that the core work of EDs in the equity collaboration configuration is partnering with various stakeholders to address systemic inequities. As an ED, the committees I led were predominantly composed of volunteers who frequently faced constraints on their time. These volunteer committees created an inter-sender role conflict (Rizzo et al., 1970), as their participation in the equity initiative was in addition to their primary full-time job responsibilities because of an organizational directive. Committee members experienced burnout, competing family obligations, or additional job responsibilities, often leading to their departure from the team or diminishing their capacity to contribute meaningfully to the equity initiatives. Additionally, Irby et al. (2022) highlight how EDs in the equity collaboration configuration are constrained by limited supervisory authority. This situation was similar to my experience leading volunteer committees without formal supervisory control, as I could not hold my team accountable for their participation or ensure that teams remained intact. These structural limitations of the role resulted in a misalignment between my directives as an ED and the capacity of the volunteer committee members, ultimately limiting our ability to engage in effective forms of collaboration to address systemic inequities.

These findings offer important implications for navigating role conflict in the equity collaboration configuration, such as ensuring a proper release of time for volunteer committee members and developing systems for accountability. My response to these volunteer committees was to limit our collaborative activities and take on more responsibilities rather than delegate to other team members. Suppose the district wants to ensure they do not fall into the category of checking a box. In that case, they must adequately allocate financial and human resources, a common challenge identified in prior literature on EDs (Irby et al., 2022; Matschiner, 2024). This means the district should set more realistic expectations regarding the time and energy required from volunteers and align a release of time during contracted hours within the scope of the initiatives. Otherwise, the work of their ED is nothing more than an add-on to the core work of the district. Furthermore, the limited supervisory authority of EDs in the equity collaboration configuration must be addressed (Irby et al., 2022). EDs having greater supervisory authority means establishing a more formalized structure for volunteer accountability, such as setting specific and measurable goals for participation, providing professional learning opportunities, evaluating performance, and having regular check-ins.

8. Conclusions

While this study focuses on the equity collaboration configuration, more in-depth and longitudinal studies of EDs navigating role stress in other role configurations could strengthen our understanding of the position. In addition, future studies might examine role stress and how EDs across multiple school districts navigate the issues they experience. Lastly, this study foregrounded my reflective journaling as a strategy to help me navigate role stress. As currently situated in the ED literature, we know little about how EDs engage in critically reflexive practices to support them in addressing systemic inequities. A future study might explore how journaling supports ED’s practice in addressing systemic inequity.

A second area for further research connected to this study is expanding the theoretical framework to analyze how external, historical, or racial factors contribute to ED role stress. Investigating these factors lies outside the scope of the data gathered in this study, as the primary focus was on organizational elements, such as how my supervisor’s directives and established district policies impacted my ability to address systemic inequities. For instance, my reflective journaling included minimal investigation into external factors, such as how shifting federal and state legislation might contribute to role ambiguity or conflicting directives. At the time of this study, my role was highly valued at both the local and state levels, to the point that the state mandated diversity, equity, and inclusion training for all staff in certificated and administrative roles in PK-12 schools.

Since I focused on organizational directives and was not tracking external factors, I did not fully consider how these forms of role stress influenced my work. However, recent shifts in federal and state legislation regarding DEI policies and practices have created considerable terrain that warrants exploration, particularly regarding how EDs experience role stress. For example, LoBue and Douglass (2023) describe the chilling effect that state-level legislation has had on superintendents and school board members’ engagement in policies and practices addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion. Many EDs are directly supervised by superintendents and routinely report to school board members about their support of district goals to remove barriers that perpetuate diversity, equity, and inclusion issues (Irby et al., 2022; Lewis et al., 2023; Matschiner, 2024). Integrating a theoretical lens, such as Wake Work (Sharpe, 2016), into role stress theory could offer a crucial analytic framework for investigating how external factors and race contribute to ED role stress. Role stress theory, as it stands, does not explicitly address societal or racial dynamics when exploring why workers navigate ambiguous and conflicting directives. In contrast, Wake Work theory examines how Black communities understand and engage in practices to navigate societal and institutional dynamics tied to the enduring legacy of slavery. Incorporating Wake Work into role stress theory could provide a more comprehensive analysis by examining how superintendents and school boards respond to federal or state legislation and shift directives to EDs, creating ambiguous or conflicting expectations on issues affecting Black communities.

This study provides a robust contribution to the literature, as Irby et al. (2022) suggest more research on ED role configuration, which replicates aspects of their study with a more extensive and longitudinal description of how the position addresses systemic inequities is necessary. This study connects to prior scholarship by foregrounding the role stress an ED experiences in the equity collaboration configuration over 26 months. This study recognizes the agency of EDs to exercise power and authority over the role ambiguity they experience by stepping up to address systemic inequities they have an interest and expertise to address. Additionally, the volunteerism inherent in equity collaboration configurations suggests the need for designated release time for volunteer committee members and the establishment of accountability systems to help EDs collaborate more effectively with the committees they lead.