5 Significant Differences (Attitudes) Separating Average and Higher Performance Teams
March 15, 2022
What would you say are the most significant differences separating average performers from those winning today?
In a word, it is the Attitude of THE Leader and how that impacts the Attitudes of the Leadership Team.
The leaders of growing systems almost always share a typical attitude.
So do the leaders of declining campuses.
And that attitude has a profound influence on the performance of the organization.
Attitude may not be everything, but it’s close.
Here are five attitudes that separate average from Higher Performance teams.
1. We Can v. We Can’t
Perhaps the most significant difference I see between Higher Performance teams and the average ones is the attitude around what’s possible.
Growing campus teams believe they can.
Average teams believe they can’t.
They’re both right.
One of my all-time favorite quotes is Henry Ford’s “Whether you believe you can or believe you can’t, you’re right.” He’s 100% correct.
Growing teams find (or make) a way when there’s no way, which seems to be the model of grit and faith needed to move the work forward in these challenging times.
Ask yourself when you and your team sit around the leadership table, do you come up with 20 ways to make it happen or 20 excuses why it won’t work? Your answer to that question tells you far more about your campus culture than you might imagine.
Growing teams believe they can. It’s that simple. And even if they’re wrong, at least they’ve tried and modeled the way of persistence and the discipline of taking smart risks.
2. Them v. Us
Declining teams focus on themselves.
Growing teams focus on the people they’re trying to reach.
If your leadership team conversations are primarily all about the needs and wants of your staff and not your mission, it’s a sure sign that your campus is inward-focused.
Correct me if I am wrong. The mission of your campus is to impact the prosperity of your community (and beyond). Growing campus cultures know that, and they live it.
Nobody likes to fight for the greatest good of others alongside self-centered people.
If your impact is becoming smaller and smaller, you may want to ask yourself if you’re becoming more about those on your payroll vs. those they are called to serve.
3. Principles v. Preferences
Declining systems focus on their people’s preferences.
Bill prefers to work from home.
Michelle wants reserved parking.
Fran wants to use the old LMS system.
And so, the leader swirls and scurries, trying to please everybody.
Declining systems bend to the preferences of their people.
Growing campuses take care of their people while bending to the needs of their mission.
In fact, they focus on the purpose-driven principles that will help them reach more people.
Is your leadership team principle or preference driven? There’s a world of difference between the two.
4. Proactive v. Reactive
This is a close cousin of points 2 and 3 above, but the difference is deadly or life-giving depending on where you land.
Growing campuses are proactive. They choose their agenda and immediately get on issues that can impact their future.
Declining campuses are reactive. They allow the preferences of the self-interested to determine the agenda and then react to those problems as they arise.
In fact, the educational systems in decline are so busy reacting to the noise on the inside that they literally can’t get around to charting a new course for the future.
Activating winning strategies are only available to the healthy.
If you cannot chart a course for the future, eventually, you will have no future.
Growing systems have a strong bias for setting their agendas based upon what the mission, vision, and values require.
Leaders serving growing campuses simply refuse to yield to the agenda of others that would take them off mission. As a result, they are far more effective and win more often.
But only if their measuring stick is outward-facing.
5. Now v. Eventually
Growing systems act. And they act now.
Declining systems don’t.
Declining campuses don’t actually say they won’t act. They just say they’ll get to it ‘eventually,’ or someday, or ‘when the time is right—which means never.
By contrast, great leaders and their teams banish the word ‘someday’ and other cowardly words from their vocabulary.
If you want to be effective, you act.
If you want to be ineffective, you don’t.
Talk without action has little value. And too many campus leaders specialize in talk.
In addition, too many campus teams meet for the sake of meeting.
To talk.
The world is moving fast.
If you can’t remember the last time you made a significant decision that altered the course of your system, your leadership culture is average and in need of a tune-up.
If you talk about the same issues meeting after meeting with no resolution, you’re spinning your wheels and at risk of losing your best talent.
Does that mean you have to act on everything? Well, yes and no.
If you’re not going to act, strike the item off the agenda and move on.
If you are going to act, act. Now.
Just make a decision and move on with it. Don’t get stuck in the no man’s land of believing the lie that talking about things solves things.
As my friend Dr. Ric Dressen says, "action produces traction." So act.
Break Through The Barriers That Prevent Your Campus From Growing.
It can be discouraging to put your heart into your system and team while still seeing it plateau or, worse, decline. But that’s the reality facing many campuses leaders today.
According to one study, 94% of our public institutions aren’t growing. That means more than 9 out of 10 schools, districts, and colleges are stuck or losing ground.
Sadly, people in your community are experiencing widespread polarization and hopelessness, and they need healthy campus leaders more than ever. So, why does keeping people in your schools (much less attracting new learners) feel like such an uphill battle?
It’s time to reverse that trend through pivotal decisions with your leadership team.
Leader and Team Health are significantly connected to the overall strength of your Organization’s Performance. Accelerating Team Performance will prepare you for growth by removing obstacles in your control.
Learn how to navigate the Six Lead Measures of Organizational Health that will inject clarity and direction into your mission and help remove the barriers that stand between you and advancing your mission.
Learn more about Accelerating Team Performance Here:
P.S. Whenever you are ready here are the 2 best ways I can help you:
1) Get your FREE guide: 5 Evidence-Based Practices to Reclaim More Team Engagement with Less Effort: www.higherperformancegroup.com/reclaim
2) Schedule a Call. Let’s talk about the obstacles (and opportunities) that you & your team are currently facing. www.higherperformancegroup.com/schedule
More Blog Articles
Two lists exist in every cabinet meeting. What you don't control: State funding. Board dynamics. Demographic shifts. Competitor success. Generational attitudes. What you do control: How much time you spend on the first list. Do this math: 4.7 hours of uncontrollable discussion × 8 cabinet members × 42 working weeks × $140/hour = $221,060 per year. That's not strategic planning. That's expensive therapy without the breakthrough. The leaders who thrived post-pandemic weren't dealing with easier circumstances. Same enrollment pressures. Same board dynamics. Same funding constraints. The difference? They stopped cataloging what they couldn't change and started obsessing over what they could. You are ridiculously in charge of your institution's future. You've just forgotten which levers you actually pull. THE DIAGNOSIS: HOW BRILLIANT LEADERS LEARN TO FEEL HELPLESS Let's talk about this like adults who've survived at least one budget cycle that made you briefly reconsider your career choices. There's a neuroscience phenomenon called learned helplessness — and it doesn't happen to struggling leaders. It happens to brilliant ones. Here's how it works. Scientists put dogs on a mat with a small fence. Mild shock, but the dog could hit a lever to stop it. The dog learned: I have control over my circumstances. Then they disconnected the lever. The dog tries, still gets shocked. Tries again. Eventually stops. The brain literally changes — goes inactive. Depression sets in. Here's the devastating part: they removed the fence. The dog could simply hop off the mat. But it didn't. Because the brain had learned that action is useless. Monday, 7:30 AM. Your CFO wants to "preview concerns" before the 9 AM cabinet meeting. You're discussing the demographic cliff, declining birth rates, economic pressures facing your student population. None of which you control. Tuesday, 2:15 PM. Your Provost wants to "debrief" yesterday's board meeting. You're discussing board member personalities, their unrealistic expectations, their fundamental misunderstanding of higher ed economics. None of which you control. Wednesday, 10:00 AM. Cabinet meeting. Agenda item: "Enrollment Strategy." What actually happens: 90 minutes lamenting Gen Z work ethic, competitor pricing models, and the state funding formula. None of which you control. By Friday, your brain has learned: The lever doesn't work. Action is useless. Nothing I do matters. Psychologists call this the Three P's Personalization ("I'm not good enough") Pervasiveness ("the entire system is broken") Permanence ("this is the new normal") Once these three patterns solidify, you don't need actual constraints to feel powerless. Your brain manufactures helplessness even when the fence is gone. Here's what nobody says out loud: the most expensive line item in your budget isn't salaries. It's the cognitive and emotional energy your leadership team spends every week on variables they cannot influence — while the controllable levers that would actually move your institution sit untouched in the corner like the gym equipment you bought with great intentions and excellent guilt. Comment "FRIDAY" if this was literally your last week. THE FRAMEWORK: THE CONTEXT EXCUSE TEST Call this the Context Excuse Test . Or don't. It'll still explain why your strategic plan died somewhere between "approved by the board" and "implemented by the deans." Last semester, I worked with educational leaders in two different cities. Los Angeles area: "Enrollment growth would be easier if we were in a stable Midwest market — where people have roots and extended family networks." Chicago area, two days later: "Enrollment growth would be easier if we were in a market like LA — where there's constant population influx and people are actively seeking new opportunities." Different contexts. Identical excuses. Same helplessness pattern. Here's the reality check: if your context theory were true — that your specific circumstances make success impossible — then Apple wouldn't sell iPhones in your market. Netflix wouldn't have subscribers. Starbucks wouldn't have locations. But they do. Because while tactics must adapt to context, universal human needs remain constant. Your students need education. Your faculty need purpose. Your community needs the outcomes your institution provides. The question isn't whether your context is hard. The question is: are you adapting your tactics while everyone else is cataloging their constraints? And here's the deeper truth the Context Excuse Test reveals: when you keep asking "why is that?" about any organizational problem, you eventually land at the one person who can actually do something about it. That person is usually you. A global CEO once explained to his executive coach why his company missed quarterly targets. "We brought in this executive from a competitor, and he infected the culture..." Coach: "Why is that?" CEO: "Because he came from a different organizational culture..." Coach: "Why is that?" CEO: "Because I didn't properly vet cultural fit during hiring..." Coach: "Why is that?" CEO: "Because... I guess I am ridiculously in charge, aren't I?" Coach: Not always. Legitimate external constraints exist. But far more rarely than we pretend. THE CASE STUDY: THE QUARTER MILLION DOLLAR CONVERSATION Let me tell you about a superintendent I'll call Mark (not his real name, but Mark, your former CFO definitely knows this story is about your first six months together, and he's smirking right now). Mark led a mid-sized district — 8,000 students, six buildings, an eight-member cabinet, and an average of 19 years in leadership. Combined credentials that could stock a regional conference. Combined ability to stop discussing constraints and start building solutions? Roughly equivalent to a committee asked to agree on lunch while honoring everyone's dietary restrictions, philosophical beliefs about food systems, and strong opinions about parking. His cabinet meetings broke down like this: 45 minutes on state funding cuts, 30 minutes on board behavior patterns, 20 minutes on competitor enrollment trends, 15 minutes on staffing shortages. Controllable variables got 12 minutes — squeezed in at the end when everyone was already mentally ordering lunch. Mark kept going to conferences. Kept getting better at being a superintendent. Kept paying the translation tax trying to implement what he learned with a team that remained fundamentally unchanged. Then he did something radical. He recorded three consecutive cabinet meetings, counted the minutes, and calculated the annual cost. $247,000. He presented the data to his cabinet with one question: "Are we okay with this?" The room went silent. Then his Director of Curriculum said what everyone was thinking: "We're spending a quarter million dollars per year complaining. That's... actually insane." That single sentence changed everything. Not a consultant's recommendation. Not a conference framework. Just the data, held up to the light, in front of the people who created it. Here's what Marcus built over the next three months: a meeting protocol where the first 90 minutes covered controllable variables only — decisions, execution, systems. The final 30 minutes became an "Environmental Scan" where constraints could be named, but only to identify tactical adaptations, never to vent. He implemented a "3 Why's Test" — any problem brought to the cabinet had to answer why it was persisting and why they were the right people to solve it. If the answers kept pointing to uncontrollable externals, it didn't belong on the agenda. Six months later: cabinet meetings dropped from 3.5 hours to 90 minutes. Decision velocity tripled. Implementation completion went from 42% to 78%. Annual complaint cost dropped from $247K to $27K. Same people. Same board. Same funding challenges. Same enrollment pressures. Different system. What you focus on expands. Mark's cabinet was expanding helplessness. Now they're expanding agency. BEFORE THE APPLICATION: WHY MARK'S SHIFT STUCK The shift didn't happen because he attended another conference or hired another consultant. It happened because he built a team operating system that made agency automatic — not a one-time intervention, but a sequential change in how his cabinet thinks together. This is the pattern The TEAM INSTITUTE was built to eliminate at scale. While most leadership development gives you frameworks to translate back to your team alone, we build the operating system that makes the shift from helplessness to agency structural — through 8 monthly sessions that develop from trust to empowerment to collaboration to breakthrough results. We don't fix people. We multiply systems. But whether you ever join The TEAM INSTITUTE or not, here's what you can implement Monday morning... THE APPLICATION: YOUR CONTROL AUDIT Here's what to do Monday morning (assuming you're not in crisis mode — in which case, bookmark this and do it Tuesday): STEP 1: RUN THE COMPLAINT AUDIT (45 minutes across two meetings) Have someone track — with timestamps — time spent on controllable vs. uncontrollable variables. Three columns. Tally the minutes. Calculate the annual cost using Marcus's formula. Then ask your cabinet Mark's question: "Are we okay with this?" Don't editorialize. Don't present solutions. Just hold the data up to the light and let the room sit in it. What this reveals: if uncontrollable discussion outnumbers controllable action 3-to-1, you have a learned helplessness crisis, not a strategy problem. And if nobody wants to track this in the first place — your team already knows what the numbers will say. STEP 2: RUN THE CONTEXT EXCUSE INVENTORY (30 minutes) Put this question on your next cabinet agenda: "What would have to be true for us to succeed despite our constraints?" Have each person list the three constraints they cite most frequently, then — this is the part that matters — what they would do differently if those constraints never changed. Go around the room. Read answers out loud. Watch what happens when every "if only..." statement reveals a corresponding "but we could..." action that's been sitting right next to it, ignored. If answers keep pointing to external changes needed, you're waiting for rescue. If someone says, "There's nothing we can do until X changes," they've adopted learned helplessness as a professional identity. That's a different conversation, but a necessary one. STEP 3: THE 30-DAY CONTROLLABLE SPRINT (Ongoing) For 30 days, 80% of cabinet meeting time covers variables your team directly controls. Track two numbers weekly: Complaint Ratio: Uncontrollable discussion ÷ Controllable action time Implementation Velocity: Days from decision to execution start After 30 days, measure whether the ratios moved. If they didn't, someone on your team is invested in the current story — and that's worth a very direct conversation. OBJECTION: "We don't have time for this" You're currently spending 245 hours per year generating helplessness. You're underwater BECAUSE your team invests energy in uncontrollables, not despite it. What feels like "we're too busy" is almost always "we're afraid of what the data will reveal." OBJECTION: "My board keeps demanding answers about uncontrollables" Your board is asking about uncontrollables because you haven't given them confidence in your controllables. Boards don't micromanage competence. They micromanage uncertainty. When you shift from "here's why we can't..." to "here's what we're doing about what we CAN control," the temperature in the room changes. Your board is paying you to exercise agency — not to be a sophisticated narrator of external circumstances. Which of these objections is your system's default? Drop it in the comments. THE MATURITY SHIFT Immature leaders think: "If only our context were different, we could succeed." Mature leaders think: "What can we control that creates success despite our context?" Immature leaders collect constraints like Pokemon cards — gotta catalog 'em all, display them in meetings, occasionally take them out to admire how impossible everything is. Mature leaders acknowledge constraints once, then obsessively focus on controllable variables. Immature leaders wait for circumstances to improve. Mature leaders improve their response to circumstances. The difference is the difference between a superintendent who survives until retirement and a superintendent whose district becomes the model everyone else studies. One explains to the board why demographic shifts make growth impossible. One shows the board enrollment growth data despite demographic shifts. The Three P's aren't permanent. The lever might not have worked yesterday. But the fence is gone. You can hop off the mat anytime you choose. Your turn: what's one constraint you've been citing for the past year that — if you're honest — you've been using as an excuse to avoid action on controllable variables? Drop it in the comments. Naming it is the first step past it. Tag a cabinet member who's ready to make this shift. Or screenshot this and text it to your CFO with the message: "We're spending 4.7 hours complaining. Let's calculate our actual number Tuesday." IF YOU'RE TIRED OF TRANSLATING INSIGHTS ALONE You just diagnosed the gap — a cabinet spending a quarter million dollars annually on variables no one in the room can change, while the controllable levers sit untouched. That pattern is the symptom. The cause is operating at 60% capacity while funding 100%. Research shows that most leadership teams perform at only 60% of their potential — not because they lack talent, but because brilliant individuals never learned to multiply their intelligence together. If your cabinet costs $1M annually, the 40% gap represents $400K in annual burn. When 100% workload hits 60% capacity, you rotate through three bad options: Lower Standards Burnout Public Failure Most teams cycle through all three while the market decides. The problem isn't your people. It's the model. You're trying to multiply intelligence using addition. Multiplication requires a different system. THE TEAM INSTITUTE: 8 Months From Helplessness to Agency The TEAM INSTITUTE is a sequential developmental journey that transforms your cabinet from individually brilliant to collectively unstoppable — not through episodic workshops forgotten in 30 days, but through capability building applied directly to your actual challenges. Month 1: Base Camp — Team Profile and {BEST FIT} framework Month 2: Building Trust — The foundation that makes honest problem-solving possible Month 3: Empowerment — Distributing authority over controllable variables Month 4: Collaboration — Multiplying intelligence instead of fragmenting it Month 5: Broadening Influence — Leading beyond positional authority Month 6: Managing Change — Transformation without casualties Month 7: Managing Conflict — Using friction as refinement Month 8: Developing Others — Multiplying agency across your organization Each 2-hour monthly session builds on the previous foundation. You can't skip trust and jump to empowerment — that's abandonment, not leadership. What's Included: Team {BEST FIT} assessment and mapping. Team 360 baseline and follow-up. Type-specific protocols for your team's configuration. Monthly expert facilitation on your actual challenges. Between-session accountability. Executive coaching for senior leaders. The Results: 3x performance improvement. 29% higher engagement. 27% better organizational outcomes. Zero burnout increase. The Requirement: Full leadership team participation. Partial engagement produces partial results. If you're ready to stop explaining why things are impossible and start demonstrating what's controllable — let's talk. Schedule a 30-minute consultation to explore whether The Team Institute is the right intervention for your context. We'll discuss your team's current patterns, explore readiness, and determine whether this produces the systematic agency your institution requires. This isn't a sales pitch. It's a conversation between people who refuse to accept that learned helplessness is permanent. [LEARN MORE] [SCHEDULE CONSULTATION] FOUND VALUE IN THIS? Help other educational leaders discover it: → Repost with your calculated complaint tax — 4.7 hours × your team size × 42 weeks × hourly rate. Drop your number. → Tag a leader who's paying the learned helplessness tax right now → Comment with the constraint you've been using as an excuse — your honesty helps others feel less alone. The more leaders who shift from learned helplessness to ridiculous agency, the better our educational systems become. Follow DR. JOE HILL and Higher Performance Group for weekly Team Intelligence insights.
Last semester, I watched the same thing happen: The boss announced a major initiative. Everyone nodded. Three weeks later? Eight separate executions masquerading as one strategy. Your cabinet doesn't have a dysfunction problem. You have a pronoun problem—and it's costing you $400K in wasted capacity each year. Count how many times someone in your last meeting said "myself" instead of "me." Then count how many times anyone said "we." That ratio? It predicts everything about your team's performance. Here's the pattern: "The board and myself decided..." "Between the Provost and myself..." "My cabinet and myself are aligned..." Two syllables instead of one. Grammatically incorrect. Functionally revealing. We've inflated from "me" to "MYSELF"—and in that linguistic upgrade, we lost the only word that actually creates multiplication: "we." Your cabinet has a multiplication problem. Eight talented leaders who've mastered individual excellence but haven't built the collective infrastructure that turns good performance into breakthrough performance. That gap between good and great? It's about shifting from "myself" to "we." And most leaders never learn how because "myself" has been rewarded your entire career. THE DIAGNOSIS: GOOD AT ADDITION, MISSING MULTIPLICATION Let's talk about this like adults who've led talented teams that perform well but wonder "what if?" Tuesday, 9 AM cabinet meeting. Everyone's prepared. Updates are thorough. Questions are smart. The meeting runs professionally. (Everyone nods in agreement. The strategic plan gets approved. Then eight people leave the room and interpret it eight different ways. This is what we call "alignment.") But when you announce a major initiative, you can see the mental calculation behind eight sets of eyes: "How does this affect MY area? What do I need to protect? How much can I delegate vs. do myself?" Three weeks later, the initiative moves forward. Sort of. Everyone executes their part. Professionally. Competently. But it feels like eight separate projects that happen to share a name , not one integrated effort multiplying collective intelligence. Or this: Your CFO and Provost are both brilliant. They collaborate when required. They're not territorial. But they've never called each other just to think through a complex problem together. They coordinate. They don't co-create. (They schedule "sync meetings" to align before the actual meeting. Then debrief after. That's not collaboration—that's collaboration theater with intermission.) Here's Why This Keeps Happening You hired for individual excellence. You measured individual performance. You rewarded individual achievement. Then you put eight individual high-performers in a room and expected them to spontaneously operate as a multiplied "we." They can't. Because multiplication requires different infrastructure than addition. Here's what nobody admits at leadership conferences (because we're all performing competence for each other): You hired people whose entire identity is built on being individually exceptional. Then you put them in roles where their primary job is to make OTHER people successful. That's asking Olympic sprinters to suddenly care more about the relay team's time than their individual split. They'd rather protect their reputation as "the smart one" than risk looking average by actually multiplying with others. Your "good" cabinet is actively choosing addition over multiplication because multiplication requires vulnerability they've spent careers avoiding. The real problem? You've built a cabinet optimized for individual excellence in roles that require collective multiplication. The Team Intelligence Formula: TQ = IQ × EQ × PQ Notice it's multiplication, not addition. Any dimension near zero collapses everything. IQ: Individual competence. You hired for this. Your cabinet is brilliant. EQ: Common language for communication and culture. This is where "myself" performers fragment—eight people fluent in different languages trying to have strategic conversations. PQ: Understanding how each person is wired and how roles multiply. Your CFO doesn't have to lead innovation just because they're smart. When any dimension is low, multiplication collapses to addition. Your cabinet isn't broken. It's just never been built to multiply. THE FRAMEWORK: THE A/50 VS B+/3 PATTERN Your cabinet is full of A/50 performers —people who earned A grades by investing 50 hours of effort. Grinding. Perfecting. Out-working everyone. The formula that built their careers: More effort = Better results. A/50 performers struggle with collective multiplication. (And yes, they're exhausted. Which they mention. Frequently. Usually in the context of explaining why someone else's approach won't work.) They've been rewarded for individual excellence through heroic effort. They don't know how to operate in "we multiply together" mode because they're still counting contributions. "I stayed until 8pm Tuesday." "I sent three emails over the weekend." "My section is more thorough than yours." This is why your high-performer cabinet operates at 60% capacity despite 100% effort. Because A/50 performers can't multiply—they can only add and compare. B+/3 performers? They earned B+ grades with just 3 hours of effort. Not the highest grade, but remarkable efficiency. Smarter strategy beats harder grinding. Here's what they figured out: Study groups beat solo grinding (collaboration multiplies understanding) Asking the right questions beats reading everything (leverage others' knowledge) Good enough on time beats perfect too late (execution matters more than perfection) Who gets credit doesn't matter if the team wins (ego takes back seat to results) B+/3 performers default to "we" because "I alone" was never enough. They say things like: "What if we combined your approach with mine?" "Who else should be thinking about this?" "This got better because of what you added." They've developed the one skill A/50 performers never needed: multiplication instinct. (Your A/50 performers secretly think B+/3 people are lazy. Your B+/3 performers know A/50 people are inefficient. Both are right. Neither is winning.) "A/50 performers earned success by grinding harder. B+/3 performers earned it by thinking smarter. Your cabinet is full of A/50s trying to multiply. That's why good stays good instead of becoming great." If your entire cabinet is A/50, you've built a team of individual excellence that underperforms collectively. That's why multiplication feels impossible. THE 60% CAPACITY CRISIS Research shows leadership teams typically perform at 60% of their potential. If your cabinet costs $1M annually, that's $400K burning every year. Not from incompetence. From interference. High IQ leaders who lack common language (EQ) and understanding of how each person is wired (PQ). Here's the good news that changes everything: Your cabinet isn't broken. They're not resistant. They're not incompetent. They're operating on addition infrastructure while attempting multiplication work. That's a design problem, not a people problem. Design problems are solvable through architecture, not heroics. You don't need different people. You need different infrastructure. The talent is already there. The potential is already funded. You're just missing the multiplication system that turns "good" into "great." Your turn: The Multiplication Audit Think about your last three strategic initiatives. For each one: Did it fragment into eight separate executions? (+1 for each YES) Did anyone call someone ELSE just to think through a problem together? (+1 for each YES) Did results feel like stapled-together work or genuinely integrated thinking? (+1 if integrated) Score: 0-2: Addition mode. $400K+ burning annually. 3-5: Transitioning. Some multiplication happening. 6-9: You've cracked the code. You're multiplying. Drop your score below. THE APPLICATION: BUILDING MULTIPLICATION INFRASTRUCTURE STEP 1: The Pronoun Audit (15 minutes, solo) Open your last three cabinet meeting notes. Count pronouns: How many times: "I," "me," "my," "myself" How many times: "we," "us," "our" "If 'I/me/myself' outnumbers 'we/us/our' by more than 2:1, you don't have a team. You have a meeting where individuals report progress on separate projects that happen to share a budget." (If this exercise makes you defensive—"but context matters!" "But nuance!"—that's data too. Multiplication doesn't require defending yourself from your own meeting notes.) STEP 2: The Monday Morning "We" Ritual (20 minutes) Start every cabinet meeting with this question. You answer first. "What's one thing happening in your life—work or personal—that you're genuinely excited about OR struggling with? Real answer. Not your portfolio update. Something true about you as a human." Go around the room. Just listen. Don't fix. Don't problem-solve. After everyone shares: "Thank you for trusting us with that." Do this for 8 weeks. Watch your pronouns shift from "myself" to "we." STEP 3: The Multiplication Question (30 minutes in the next cabinet meeting) Put this on your agenda: "How do we shift from coordinating excellence to multiplying it?" Ask: "Was our last initiative eight excellent individual executions that got coordinated? Or one integrated effort where the whole exceeded the parts?" Then: "What would need to be true for us to multiply intelligence instead of just adding it?" Write down 3-5 agreements. This becomes your multiplication infrastructure. THE MATURITY SHIFT: FROM ADDITION TO MULTIPLICATION Immature leaders think: "My team is good enough." Mature leaders think: "Good is the enemy of great, and multiplication is how we get there." Immature leaders accept professional collaboration. Mature leaders architect collective multiplication. Immature leaders think "we" happens naturally among talented people. Mature leaders know "we" requires intentional infrastructure. "Immature leaders accept professional collaboration. Mature leaders architect collective multiplication. The difference is the difference between a cabinet that works hard and a cabinet that works exponentially." One produces solid results through heroic individual effort. One produces breakthrough results through collective intelligence. Your cabinet is good. The question is: Are you ready to build great? Real talk: Which of your cabinet members is an A/50 performer (heroic individual effort) vs. B+/3 performer (multiplication instinct)? Don't name names publicly—but if you counted and your entire cabinet is A/50, that's not a people problem. That's a hiring-for-the-wrong-variable problem. Comment below: How many of your cabinet members have multiplication instinct vs. addition mindset? Your honest answer reveals whether you're one hire away from transformation or one system away. Tag someone on your team who defaults to "we" before "myself"—they've earned the recognition. THE TEAM INSTITUTE : FROM ADDITION TO MULTIPLICATION IN 8 MONTHS Your cabinet just diagnosed the gap between addition and multiplication. That gap? It represents every strategic initiative that fragments, every decision that requires three follow-up meetings, every brilliant idea that dies in translation. This is the pattern The Team Institute was built to eliminate. While most leadership development teaches YOU frameworks to translate back to your team (hello, translation tax), we build the multiplication infrastructure WITH your entire team—through 8 monthly sessions that develop from trust to empowerment to collaboration to breakthrough results. We don't fix people. We multiply systems. The 8-Month Architecture: Month 1: Base Camp - Understanding your Team Profile Month 2: Building Trust - The foundation of multiplication Month 3: Empowerment - "We" distribute authority Month 4: Collaboration - "We" create together Month 5: Broadening Influence - "We" lead beyond hierarchy Month 6: Managing Change - "We" transform without casualties Month 7: Managing Conflict - "We" use friction as refinement Month 8: Developing Others - "We" multiply talent What's Included: Team {BEST FIT} assessment revealing addition vs. multiplication patterns Team 360 baseline measuring current EQ and PQ Monthly expert facilitation applied to your actual challenges Between-session accountability that embeds multiplication Executive coaching for senior leaders The Results: 3x performance improvement. 29% higher engagement. 27% better organizational outcomes. Zero burnout increase. The Requirement: Full team participation. You can't build multiplication with "some of us." YOUR NEXT MOVE If you're ready to transform addition into multiplication—if you sense your good cabinet could be great—let's talk. Schedule a 30-minute consultation to explore whether THE TEAM INSTITUTE will build the multiplication infrastructure your organization requires. This isn't about selling you something. This is about whether you're ready to build multiplication. [SCHEDULE CONSULTATION ] Found this valuable? Help other leaders discover it: → Repost with your honest answer: "Does my cabinet add or multiply?" → Tag a leader building multiplication infrastructure → Comment with your Multiplication Audit score The more leaders who shift from addition to multiplication, the better education becomes. Follow DR. JOE HILL and Higher Performance Group