Many higher education institutions use community engagement as a way to partner with communities to collaboratively address pressing societal needs. A growing body of literature documents that quality authentic community engagement can generate mutual benefits for higher education and communities. Nevertheless, many colleges and universities struggle to understand and institutionalize community engagement, defined as collaboration between institutions of higher education and their larger communities (local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity (NERCHE, 2016). The aim of this qualitative single-case study was to describe and understand how leaders at a selected land-grant university attempted to institutionalize community engagement. Specifically, the institutionalization of community engagement was examined using Hollands assessment matrix for institutionalizing community engagement, and boundary-spanning roles and activities were examined using Weerts and Sandmanns boundary-spanning framework. The study was guided by three research questions: (a) What are key characteristics of the institutionalization of community engagement? (b) According to university leaders, what qualities do community engagement boundary spanners possess? and (c) In what ways do university leaders address the institutionalization of community engagement as an adaptive challenge? The study participants included leaders from a single university who had previously attended the Engagement Academy for University Leaders. Thematic analysis and constant comparison were used to examine data from university artifacts and transcripts from open-ended survey questions, focus groups, and semi-structured interviews. Findings showed that institutionalizing community engagement represented an adaptive challenge that required a critical mass of boundary spanners enacting a variety of roles inside the university. Three conclusions were drawn from the study finding. First, the case institution created conditions for personnel to experiment with community engagement. Second, the university engaged in strategic thinking and planning around the sustainability of community engagement. Third, in its institutionalization efforts, the case institution fostered an adaptive braid model.