By Kalifa Madden, Communications Manager, Network
Dr. Marya C. Endriga has held a range of leadership roles at Sacramento State, from department chair to interim dean. She also served as team lead during the Network’s 2019–20 Middle Leadership Academy (Academy) cohort and later returned as a team facilitator. Building on our Academy Impacts Q and A series with Dr. Ellie Ertle at Chico State and Dr. Ioakim Boutakidis at CSU Fullerton, Dr. Endriga reflects on the complexities of leading a cross-functional equity-focused project, the challenges of accessing institutional data, and the lasting leadership and relationship-building impacts of the Academy.
Kalifa Madden: Thank you for joining us. To get started, can you tell me about your career journey in higher education and if the Academy or the Network has helped contribute to that journey?
Marya Endriga: Sure, I’m happy to. My career journey in higher ed has been pretty traditional, getting my doctoral degree, completing an internship and postdoc, and then joining Sacramento State as an assistant professor. I worked my way up to associate and then full professor. My first official leadership position was department chair, which I held for about five years, followed by a directorship in the Office of Graduate Studies. From there, I became associate dean for about eight years before stepping into the interim dean role.
I did my first leadership institute in 2010, which was the Leadership for Women in Psychology Academy. That experience made me a huge fan of professional education in leadership. Over the next 12 years, I did about a dozen leadership trainings. One of the more recent and impactful ones was the Academy, which I participated in from 2019 to 2022 as a team lead in 2019 and then as a facilitator in 2020 and 2021.
“I found the Academy was tremendously helpful. It filled knowledge gaps for me in terms of articles, literature, book chapters and discussions that focused on leadership and particularly middle leadership and equity. The focus on middle leadership was particularly valuable and fit me really well, both my identities, as a professional and then my areas of interest.”
I really understood what it meant to lead from the middle. This idea of managing up and managing down and how unique a situation that is. Most people are excited about the project component of the Academy, but for me, the leadership development aspect both within and apart from the project was the most valuable. It was generalizable and exactly what I needed at that time.
KM: You were the team lead for Sacramento State at the Academy in 2019–20. What was your team’s focus that year?
ME: Our project focused on impaction. It made sense for me to lead since psychology, my department, has long been one of the impacted programs. At Sacramento State, we refer to the “expressed interest group,” students who enter undeclared but express interest in psychology. These students, like those interested in other impacted majors, must complete a supplemental application process.
According to the Chancellor’s Office, when selecting students through impaction, campuses must demonstrate that no specific demographic group is adversely impacted, particularly underrepresented groups in your selection process. That includes gender, race, first-generation status, and Pell eligibility. At the time, we lacked access to the data needed to evaluate whether our selection processes were equitable.
Our goal was to analyze data from impacted programs across campus to identify equity concerns, and also recommend and inform the campus [about] how we could have ready sources of data for chairs to be able to monitor any potential inequities in what kinds of students were selected for majors through the supplemental application process, which relies primarily on a GPA cutoff. So at the time there were impacted programs in Arts and Letters, Health and Human Services, Business, Natural Sciences and Mathematics, as well as my home college Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary Studies.
KM: Can you tell me about your experiences on the Academy team during the year?
ME: I was well-positioned to lead the team due to my experience with impaction in psychology. Another faculty member from Academic Affairs, active in the Senate, had initially raised the issue and joined the project.
What stood out to me was forming a cross-divisional, cross-functional team. That was new for me. We intentionally brought in members from different areas, and due to the nature of the project we made sure we had a data person that had expertise to run the analysis. We also had members from Student Affairs and Academic Affairs. I was the only member with a more administrative role. I really enjoyed that aspect of it and that we all learned from one another.
We would have campus meetings, where each person was able to articulate their leadership goals, not just their project goals. I really enjoyed that part of leading discussions regarding career and leadership goals and how the Academy could support them in meeting those goals. That kind of conversation didn’t continue when I transitioned into a facilitator role, and I think that was a missed opportunity.
One of the experiences I appreciated most was building a logic model, it was new to me, and incredibly useful and very hands on. But the biggest challenge was that we couldn’t access the data we needed to complete or implement the project. I look back at that, and I think that when forming a cross-functional team, I realized it isn’t just across divisions at the same level. I needed more variation vertically in the hierarchy. Unfortunately, the data person we brought on didn’t have enough management authority to get access to the data that we needed. Being a middle leader, one of the things I learned is that when you are leading from the middle, oftentimes you will run into these barriers because you don’t have the authority to necessarily make the project work at a higher level.
KM: What happened back on campus in relation to the project? Were portions of it implemented?
ME: Unfortunately, we weren’t able to implement the project. We hit a major barrier which was access to data. At the time, conversations were just beginning around who could access sensitive campus data, especially those protected by Title IX. We started to think about who gets access to what kinds of data on campus pertaining to gender, race, and socioeconomic status, for example.
What we needed was individual level data on race and gender, for example, so that we could do the kinds of say, multifactorial analysis that we had planned to be able to answer our questions about whether there was any inequity in the process of selecting majors for an impacted program. Even though we had a team member that was on staff that had access to the data, we were ultimately denied access, and that brought the project to a halt.
Looking back, I didn’t know at the time that you could have a multi-year project. I think at the time the project ended because of the barriers that we faced. I didn’t feel comfortable or that I had enough authority to continue to press on the issue, or at least give the project another year to give us time to figure out what we could do differently or how we could go about being more successful. We just needed more time.
KM: Was there administrator buy-in and support?
ME: Yes, but mostly at a conceptual or pledge level. Our champions supported us early on, but they didn’t necessarily know what the project would require. I don’t think we framed our asks clearly enough. We had one cabinet-level champion, but they were too busy to stay involved and ended up delegating. The person they delegated to ultimately said “No,” which was a barrier I couldn’t navigate at the time. In hindsight, I think Academy teams could benefit from coaching on how to approach champions, how to frame the asks, set expectations, and ensure they’re involved throughout the project.
KM: Thinking about the team as a whole, can you share any areas where the Academy impacted campus policies or any changes in leadership development related to relationship building?
ME: There weren’t any major policy or practice changes on campus as a result of our project, but the leadership development outcomes were significant. One team member left the university, likely due to frustrations from this experience. But others, including myself, advanced in our leadership roles. One person earned a doctorate and became a director. I moved from associate dean to interim dean. The experience helped all of us grow professionally, even if the project itself wasn’t implemented. The relationship building piece was significant and did make an impact. We formed a network of colleagues across divisions, and those connections have endured. We still collaborate, write letters of reference and recommendations, and reach out for support. That part of the Academy had a lasting impact.
KM: From your perspective, how has Sacramento State organized its efforts to meet GI 2025 goals for increasing graduation rates and closing equity gaps?
Our campus has done incredibly well and received national recognition for our growth in graduation rates through GI 2025. Large-scale, centralized efforts like Finish in Four, Provost Summer Grants, and course-level DFW tracking were instrumental. We also decentralized advising through student success centers tailored to each college. In my college, we continued to push ourselves even when the university stopped monitoring college-level goals. So I think even at the college level, we all worked really hard and had some really great results. I mean, indirectly, I would attribute the Academy because it takes a tremendous amount of leadership to make this big of a lift from our original four year grad rate of 8%. That took a concerted effort from all levels–chairs, deans, AVPs, and VPs–and I’m really proud of our campus for the success we’ve had. The Academy contributed indirectly by strengthening the leadership skills of those involved.
KM: Did you or other Academy members have roles in efforts to meet GI 2025 goals?
ME: Yes. One Academy team member now directs a student success center, so they are having a larger impact on the quality of advising in their college than they would have had they stayed a staff member per se. I think for me, moving from associate dean into a dean position allowed me to have greater authority on GI 2025, and also as an associate dean from a chair position, I also led efforts for our student success center. And so I think because of the Academy and the success of our team members in advancing their careers, we were put in positions of relatively higher authority to make decisions related to GI 2025. I think that the Academy has had a very significant influence in how we go about doing any of our student success tasks, because it helped us change our lens in how we define what creates student success and how we go about implementing our programs more inclusively.
KM: From your perspective, how has Sacramento State organized its team development for the Academy? Has there been a campus liaison or administrator for the Academy?
ME: At the time, the Office of Undergraduate Studies handled that role, but it wasn’t very visible. There weren’t presentations to the Senate or department chairs. I think we need more visibility, events, updates, or some kind of public forum. I brought this up during my time in the Academy, and an advisory board member agreed. I don’t know where I might recommend that administrator or liaison to sit on our campus. We have a lot of campus leadership change right now, but it would be good for us to know in whose portfolio the Academy program should live, so I think we have work to do there.
Dr. Endriga’s reflections highlight both the promise and the complexity of equity-driven leadership work in higher education. While her team’s project faced barriers to implementation, the personal and professional growth of team members underscores the broader value of Academy participation. Her call for stronger campus infrastructure and sustained support for equity projects offers timely insight for campuses looking to build on the momentum of the Academy.
This Q and A has been edited for readability and punctuation.
Read more in the Academy Impacts Q and A series:
Q&A with Ioakim Boutakidis: Reflecting on His Impact at the Middle Leadership Academy