It's Your Pipeline Of Potential. Politics makes noise. Leadership makes change. While educational leaders obsess over executive orders targeting accreditation and DEI programs (The White House, 2025), the real emergency hides in plain sight: your leadership bench is thin . Yes, you have leaders. Everyone does. But are they the right kind? You need more than a title, degree, and certificate to win in the most challenging days ahead. The numbers don't lie: 20% leadership turnover in higher ed between 2022 and 2024 (Deloitte Insights, 2025) 59% struggle with attracting and keeping talent Half of your leaders have been in leadership roles for less than three years (Deloitte Insights, 2025) This isn't just about filling empty lines. It's the greater threat to staying in demand and profitable. Campus and district leaders are "continually pushed to produce results despite limited resources and complex, competing demands" (Center for Creative Leadership, 2025), and this pressure is crushing your pipeline of potential. When your leadership bench thins, everything else follows: Your capacity erodes as institutional knowledge walks out the door Your recruitment suffers as talented professionals seek organizations where "leaders foster trust and maintain genuine connections" (DDI, 2025) Your change initiatives join the two-thirds of educational initiatives that fail despite significant investment (Forward Pathway, 2025) Your outcomes plummet because "any effort to improve schools depends heavily on the effectiveness of quality leaders" (Learning Policy Institute, 2017) Meanwhile, 60% of faculty experience anxiety or depression, with half considering leaving the profession entirely (University Business, 2025). The tragedy is that most institutions still play a short game (managing each day) while facing a long-term crisis. The solution isn't complicated, but it is rare: Building your bench in-house is key to sustaining your success. Sadly, there are no “Seals of Excellence” or light pole banners to hang for this level of the work. Here's the brutal truth: Sporadic "professional development" is the wide road. It's crowded and comfortable and leads to loads of (what I call) development without delivery. Systematic leadership multiplication is the narrow way everyone needs but few have discovered. Even the 52% of campuses investing in upskilling are still missing the point (EDUCAUSE, 2025). They're treating symptoms, not building enduring systems. What works instead: Real competencies with real data - Leadership assessments that reveal actual strengths and gaps, not checkboxes (Korn Ferry, 2025) Systems that multiply, not just train - Creating a leadership development pipeline that produces more developer-leaders, not just better managers with fancy mounted certificates (Deloitte Insights, 2024) Learning that happens where work happens - Teams collaborating to transform their actual systems, not registering for exclusive pre-conference events. (Harvard GSE, 2025) Tools that create more toolmakers – Common tools and methodologies that leaders use to develop other leaders, building sustainable capacity (Training Magazine, 2025) The best educational organizations don't just develop leaders - they develop leader-developers. Like climbing sherpas who guide others to the summit, this model creates a cascade effect with measurable results: 37% higher engagement and 21% higher productivity (Bersin, 2023). The alternative? Keep obsessing over external pressures while your leadership bench diminishes. On average, organizations run at 60% capacity while 94% of employees would stay longer if you invested in their development (LinkedIn, 2023). The Question That Matters What's the single largest leadership gap in your organization today? What would change if you closed it? How would your bench improve if YOU were equipped to scale your team development? Remember: The noise from Washington will always be there. Leadership teams make your most important decisions. A weak or strong bench is the enduring legacy of THE LEADER. I SEE YOU If this hits home, know I don't think you can work harder. I feel the weight of the complexities and accountability surrounding our client work each week. Your mission matters to me. While complex and heavy, I assure you your success is within reach. We've worked with hundreds of leaders each year, many who started exactly where you are—with the same demands and hope-a-flickering. We have several strategies to help leaders get unstuck and reclaim momentum. The best first step is to set up a Virtual Coffee to learn more about you, your team, and your challenges. Take Action Now Schedule your Virtual Coffee HERE Without addressing this leadership-culture gap, your institution will continue experiencing the conundrum: talented individuals yielding underperforming teams. Your best people will burn out while carrying disproportionate responsibility, creating a revolving door of talented leaders but ultimately ineffective teams. By engaging with the LEADERSHIP & CULTURE INSTITUTE , you'll develop leaders who transform organizational culture, creating teams that execute at full capacity rather than the current 60% average. Your strategic initiatives will succeed where 77% fail, as your integrated leadership-culture approach creates sustainable transformation that advances your institution's mission. Schedule your Virtual Coffee to learn more. References Bersin, J. (2023). The definitive guide to leadership development. Bersin Research. Center for Creative Leadership. (2025). K-12 educational leadership training. CCL.org . Deloitte Insights. (2025). Higher education trends. Deloitte. Development Dimensions International. (2024). Leadership bench research. DDI. EDUCAUSE. (2025). Teaching and learning workforce in higher education. EDUCAUSE. Forward Pathway. (2025). Navigating chaos in higher education. Forward Pathway. Harvard Graduate School of Education. (2025). K-12 system leadership. Harvard. Learning Policy Institute. (2017). School leadership: Investing in leadership for learning. LPI. LinkedIn. (2023). Workplace learning report: Building the agile future. LinkedIn Learning. Training Magazine. (2025). Trends in learning, development, and leadership. Training Magazine. University Business. (2025). Navigating challenges in higher education. University Business.

33% of Your Revenue is Walking Out the Door Revenue Impact : A 33% student attrition rate within three years represents millions in lost tuition revenue and potential alumni giving. Competitive Advantage : Institutions prioritizing engagement over enrollment see 23% higher completion rates and improved rankings Resource Efficiency : Retaining existing students costs 3- 5x less than recruiting new ones Reputational ROI : Student engagement directly correlates with institutional reputation metrics and positive word-of-mouth The Enrollment vs. Engagement Challenge Campus executive teams across the country obsess over one metric above all others: enrollment numbers. They celebrate when headcounts rise and panic when they fall. But here's the fiscal reality that most leaders won't acknowledge: getting students in the door is not the real financial challenge in education today. The actual crisis? Students are leaving at alarming rates, and institutional leaders would rather invest in another expensive CRM system than confront the uncomfortable truth about why. Each 1% improvement in retention translates to approximately $300,000 to $500,000 in preserved revenue for a mid-sized institution. The Data Behind the Dropout Crisis The numbers tell a devastating story that translates directly to institutional financial health: According to the American Institutes for Research, on average, 23% of students don't return for their sophomore year, and an additional 10% leave before their junior year, resulting in a staggering 33% dropout rate over the first three years. The U.S. News data reveals that "in many cases, 1 in 3 first-year students or more won't make it back for their second year" with reasons ranging "from family problems and loneliness to academic struggles and a lack of money." Even at community colleges, which have seen improvements, retention rates hover around 55%, meaning nearly half of students drop out after their first year. For institutional advancement professionals, this represents not just lost tuition but also diminished lifetime giving potential, as non-completers are 76% less likely to become donors. The Uber Education: Real-World Impact on Institutional Reputation Let me share something that happens with alarming regularity. In my work, I travel to dozens of campuses each week to serve their leaders and teams. During these travels, I spend considerable time in the back of Uber and Lyft rides. I've developed a habit of asking drivers if they know much about the campus I'm visiting. Consistently—and disturbingly—drivers tell me they used to attend that very institution. When I ask why they left, about half cite straightforward economic reasons: "I couldn't afford it." But the other half? Their responses represent walking negative advertisements for your institution: "I felt invisible there." "I was just a number." "The faculty didn't treat me with respect." "Nobody seemed to care if I showed up or not." What's most telling? These former students are literally driving others to the very campuses they abandoned. In marketing terms, this represents thousands of negative brand impressions that no social media campaign can overcome. The Structural Challenge: Institutional Inertia Why do institutions continue pouring resources into enrollment while neglecting retention? The answer lies in structural challenges and institutional inertia that affect even the most well-intentioned campus leaders. The enrollment-fixated culture persists because it aligns with traditional budget cycles and reporting structures. Enrollment creates immediate revenue and impressive statistics for board meetings. It doesn't require the cross-departmental coordination and long-term metrics that effective engagement strategies demand. When retention initiatives require fundamental reassessment of how institutions operate—from teaching methods to student support systems—organizational inertia often redirects focus back to the familiar territory of enrollment metrics. The emotional and financial investment in "round-the-clock caffeine-infused enrollment hustlers" represents a deeply ingrained institutional tradition that, while understandable, is increasingly at odds with financial sustainability in today's competitive landscape. The Empathetic Reality Check for Campus Professionals Let's acknowledge a brutal truth: the structural challenges that create this situation are deeply entrenched and not easily dismantled. Decades of institutional history, financial models, and academic traditions have developed systems that naturally resist transformation. This isn't about assigning blame to campus leaders. Those I serve genuinely care about student success but find themselves constrained by systems that measure and reward the wrong things. The enrollment-obsessed culture didn't develop overnight, and it won't be overturned with a single initiative or program. What's encouraging, however, is that professionals who successfully lead engagement transformations report accelerated career advancement and professional recognition, as their institutions outperform peers on key metrics that boards and accreditors increasingly prioritize. A Practical 3-Step Path Forward: Proven Approaches for Immediate Implementation 90-Day Quick Start Timeline Days 1-30: Audit existing engagement data sources and establish baseline metrics Days 31-60: Implement pilot engagement initiatives in the highest-attrition departments Days 61-90: Present initial findings to leadership with ROI projections 1. Establish Engagement as a Core Metric with Proven ROI Real-world proof it works: Georgia State University transformed its retention rates by analyzing over 800 student data points to identify engagement risks early, helping more than 2,000 students stay on track annually. This initiative generated an additional $3 million in tuition revenue and significantly enhanced the institution's rankings. 5 Engagement KPIs That Predict Retention with 90% Accuracy: Learning management system activity (frequency and duration) Assignment completion rates Faculty interaction frequency Student service utilization Co-curricular participation When restaurant chains receive poor customer satisfaction scores, they often overhaul their menus and retrain their staff. When airlines receive low Net Promoter Scores, executives face increased scrutiny from the board. Yet when students express disengagement through course evaluations or by leaving, we rarely see comparable institutional accountability. Implementing these metrics has provided advancement opportunities for forward-thinking professionals across institutions. 2. Realign Resources and Rewards for Career Advancement Real-world proof it works: Purdue University's "Back a Boiler" income share agreement program directly aligns institutional financial incentives with student success—the university only succeeds when graduates succeed. Meanwhile, Arizona State University ties executive compensation partly to student progression rates, and leaders who implemented these approaches have seen significant professional advancement. The evidence shows that professionals who champion engagement-centered initiatives are 40% more likely to advance to senior leadership positions within five years, as these initiatives deliver measurable institutional improvements that boards recognize and reward. Executives who have implemented retention-based compensation models report that these approaches not only improve student outcomes but also enhance departmental collaboration and innovation, key skills that accelerate professional development. 3. Create Institutional Accountability for Engagement Excellence Real-world proof it works: Amarillo College restructured its leadership around a "No Excuses" poverty initiative, making student success the primary institutional accountability metric. This resulted in a tripling of graduation rates within five years. This initiative earned the college the prestigious Aspen Rising Star award, garnering national recognition for the leadership team. Valencia College's similar approach helped them win the Aspen Prize for Community College Excellence, significantly enhancing the professional profiles of key administrators. Institutions that implement engagement accountability frameworks see an average 12% improvement in key performance indicators within two years, creating tangible success metrics for professionals who champion these approaches. The Transformative Opportunity for Institutional Advancement The institutions consistently gaining market share in today's competitive higher education landscape share one characteristic: they've shifted from an enrollment-fixated culture to one that values engagement equally, unlocking substantial revenue preservation and enhancement. This isn't just about boosting retention rates; it's also about enhancing overall customer experience. It's about strengthening institutional financial sustainability while fulfilling the core mission of higher education: transforming students' lives through meaningful learning experiences. The most successful campus professionals of the next decade will be those who recognize that engagement metrics aren't just nice-to-have supplements to enrollment data—they're essential predictors of institutional viability. It's not just good educational practice—it's a sound business strategy for the increasingly competitive education industry. Implementation Resources 5 Key Engagement Metrics to Start Tracking Tomorrow:  Student-faculty interaction frequency Learning management system engagement Participation in high-impact practices Sense of belonging indicators Academic performance progression What will you do differently next quarter? References: American Institutes for Research. (2023). The Overlooked Challenge of Second- to Third-Year Retention. Assunção, H., et al. (2020). University Student Engagement Inventory (USEI): Transcultural validity evidence across four continents. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–12. Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758-773. National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2024). Persistence and Retention. U.S. News & World Report. (2025). University Rankings by First-Year Retention Rate.

Nine Standard Practices To Get You Started FOREWORD: THE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT REALITY Let's face it: leadership development is a staple in every educational institution. While research suggests most programs produce minimal lasting impact despite their popularity, we continue to create them because, well, that's what everyone does. Organizations spend billions of dollars annually on leadership development with minimal return, yet the tradition persists. Every year, universities, colleges, and school districts introduce new leadership academies that appear well in promotional materials and annual reports. If you're looking to join this well-established tradition, this field guide provides a straightforward overview of the standard practices that will ensure your leadership program aligns comfortably within the realm of the average. THE AVERAGE LEADERSHIP ACADEMY EXPERIENCE: 9 STANDARD PRACTICES 1. Individual Skills Focus Most leadership programs naturally focus on individual skill-building rather than addressing systems or context. This is completely normal - after all, it's easier to talk about communication styles than to untangle complex institutional power dynamics. The Standard Approach : Develop a curriculum centered on generic leadership competencies that can be applied anywhere. Don't worry about your institution's unique challenges - keeping things general ensures participants receive the same experience they could get from any leadership book or YouTube video. 2. Presentations Over Practice While research suggests that most leadership development occurs through experience, the standard approach is to schedule numerous presentations and lectures. This is much easier to organize than messy real-world leadership challenges. The Standard Approach : Fill your program calendar with inspirational speakers, PowerPoint presentations, and group discussions. This comfortable format is familiar to everyone and requires minimal preparation beyond booking meeting rooms and warming the coffee. 3. Simple Satisfaction Surveys (Quick and Easy) Like most leadership programs, you'll want to distribute feedback forms at the end of each session. These provide immediate gratification and impressive quotes for your next brochure. The Standard Approach : Measure success through attendance rates and end-of-program surveys that ask participants if they "enjoyed" the experience. No need for complicated assessments of behavioral change - those are difficult and might not show the results you want. 4. Convenient Participant Selection Most programs select participants based on who is available, who has been waiting the longest, or who has the most seniority. This approach is standard practice and avoids difficult conversations about readiness or potential. The Standard Approach : Choose participants through a combination of self-nomination, seniority, and those who need a professional development opportunity for their annual review. This approach requires minimal effort and ensures a smooth workflow. 5. Event-Based Programming Despite evidence that leadership development is ongoing, most programs are designed as finite experiences with clear start and end dates. This is completely normal and aligns with academic calendars and budget cycles. The Standard Approach : Design your program as a series of scheduled workshops, culminating in a graduation ceremony. Once participants receive their certificates, your tour of duty is complete. 6. Comprehensive Content Coverage Typical leadership programs pride themselves on covering every timely leadership topic. The Standard Approach : Pack your program with numerous topics, theories, and guest speakers. The impressive stack of handouts and resources participants take home will feel substantial, even if they never refer to them again. 7. Universal Leadership Principles Most leadership programs rely on generic content that can be applied anywhere. This approach is common because it's much easier than customizing material for specific institutional challenges. The Standard Approach : Build your curriculum around timeless leadership concepts found in bestselling books. There's no need to address your institution's specific challenges - leadership is leadership, right? 8. Minimal Executive Involvement Leadership programs often operate with limited participation from senior leaders, typically relying on ceremonial appearances. This is normal - executives have many demands on their time. The Standard Approach : Invite senior leaders to make brief welcoming comments or perhaps deliver a session, but don't expect ongoing involvement. A quick photo opportunity at the graduation ceremony is the standard level of engagement. 9. Aspirational Standards It's perfectly normal to teach leadership approaches that don't align with how things actually work at your institution. Most programs promote idealized leadership that bears little resemblance to the messy reality of organizational life. The Standard Approach : Build your curriculum around leadership ideals that sound great in theory, even if they contradict how decisions are actually made at your institution. This gap between theory and practice is a familiar feature of most leadership development programs. THE ALTERNATIVE: BETTER PRACTICES OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT If you're actually interested in creating a leadership development initiative that delivers lasting impact, research suggests focusing on: Systems-Based Approaches that address organizational context alongside individual skills (Galli & Müller-Stewens, 2012) Experience-Driven Learning centered on real challenges rather than abstract concepts (McCall, 2010) Ongoing Development with coaching and application opportunities (Petrie, 2014) Meaningful Assessment that measures behavioral change and organizational impact (Avolio et al., 2010) Senior Leader Involvement that models and reinforces desired leadership behaviors (Gurdjian et al., 2014) A FINAL WORD: REAL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IS POSSIBLE We understand the challenges you face. Building effective leadership capacity while managing day-to-day operations is genuinely difficult. You're balancing competing priorities, limited resources, and increasing demands. Creating leadership development that produces lasting change requires thought, care, and expertise. The truth is that developing transformative leadership capacity is possible, but it doesn't happen through shortcuts or by following popular yet ineffective formulas. After working with hundreds of campus and district leaders across the country, we've developed a proven framework that transforms not just individual leaders but entire institutional cultures. JOIN THE LEADERSHIP & CULTURE {INSTITUTE} Develop the foundation and framework necessary to Become, Build, Lead, and MULTIPLY modern campus leadership development that works to scale and sustain across your entire organization. The Difference: Your people become YOUR GUIDES. Our 12-Month Leadership Experience includes: 1:1 Discovery and Natural Leadership Profile sessions for each leader Monthly world-class workshops (on-site or virtual) Comprehensive digital resource library Executive performance coaching Lead Team 360™ assessment Teams consistently achieve: Enhanced communication and trust Better team collaboration Stronger organizational alignment Restored team capacity Improved decision-making Reduced operational friction Intended results Don't settle for leadership development that merely checks a box when you can build genuine leadership capacity that transforms your institution. Ready to elevate your team's performance? Visit https://www.higherperformancegroup.com/lci to learn more about the LEADERSHIP & CULTURE {INSTITUTE}. The path to extraordinary leadership begins with understanding what really works. REFERENCES  Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Quisenberry, D. (2010). Estimating return on leadership development investment. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(4), 633-644. Beer, M., Finnström, M., & Schrader, D. (2016). Why leadership training fails—and what to do about it. Harvard Business Review, 94(10), 50-57. Conger, J. A., & Benjamin, B. (1999). Building leaders: How successful companies develop the next generation. Jossey-Bass. Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581-613. Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63-82. DeRue, D. S., & Myers, C. G. (2014). Leadership development: A review and agenda for future research. In D. V. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 832-855). Oxford University Press. Galli, E. B., & Müller-Stewens, G. (2012). How to build social capital with leadership development: Lessons from an explorative case study of a multibusiness firm. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 176-201. Gurdjian, P., Halbeisen, T., & Lane, K. (2014). Why leadership-development programs fail. McKinsey Quarterly, 1(1), 121-126. Hess, E. D., & Ludwig, K. (2017). Humility is the new smart: Rethinking human excellence in the smart machine age. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary things happen in organizations (6th ed.). Wiley. McCall, M. W. (2010). Recasting leadership development. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3(1), 3-19. Petrie, N. (2014). Future trends in leadership development. Center for Creative Leadership.

The Case for the Dynamic Authority Model The most EFFECTIVE campus leadership flows to whoever has the most relevant expertise for the current challenge. Here's a truth that might challenge you: The Command and Control, Servant Leadership, and even Shared Governance models that built our educational institutions are failing us. Command/Control leadership—the dominant paradigm in campus environments for decades—is crumbling under the weight of complexity. In a world of specialized knowledge and rapid change, no superintendent or president can possibly know enough to direct every decision. Yet many campus leaders still operate as if their position guarantees superior insight. The results are predictable: demoralized faculty, sluggish innovation, and implementation theater where compliance replaces commitment. Recent research shows that this approach significantly underperforms compared to a concept we call Dynamic Authority, where leadership flows to whoever has the most relevant expertise for the current challenge (Deszca et al., 2020). The Challenge Here's what might surprise you: Traditional leadership models all misallocate authority. They either: Concentrate it where knowledge is limited (command/control) Diffuse it to the point of paralysis (servant leadership) Distribute it based on representation rather than expertise (shared governance) And it gets worse. Servant Leadership emerged as a well-intentioned correction. By prioritizing the needs of staff and faculty above all else, these campus leaders hoped to create more humane institutions. But in practice, this approach often leads to endless consensus-building, decision paralysis, and confused priorities. As Heifetz & Linsky (2017) observed, true leadership sometimes requires challenging people rather than simply serving their immediate desires. Even Shared Governance —that sacred cow of campus culture—has revealed critical flaws. While theoretically democratic, shared governance structures often devolve into political battlegrounds where decisions reflect power dynamics rather than expertise. Research by Bahls (2019) documents how these systems frequently privilege institutional maintenance over innovation and can extend decision timelines to the point of irrelevance. Campus committees become where good ideas go to die, not where they flourish. Most concerning is how these traditional models systematically favor seniority over expertise. All too often, campus decision-making authority is allocated based on years of service rather than relevant knowledge or skills. This approach has outlived its usefulness and often discriminates against your youngest and brightest talent—precisely the innovative minds needed to navigate today's complex educational landscape (Johnson & Caraway, 2022). Dynamic Authority in Action In a world where yesterday's solutions rarely solve tomorrow's problems, campus leaders are searching for new models. The rigid hierarchies that once defined our K-12 districts and campus institutions are crumbling under the weight of complexity. Here's the truth: expertise no longer follows the organizational chart. Navy SEALs discovered this decades ago. Their response? A system they coined, Dynamic Subordination. This leadership approach flips traditional models on their head. Instead of fixed authority, leadership flows to whoever has the most relevant expertise for the current challenge (Willink & Babin, 2017). The commander becomes the follower. The specialist becomes the leader. Then they switch again. It's leadership as a verb, not a noun. In educational settings, this is what we now call Dynamic Authority . Consider these common campus scenarios: Crisis Management Command/Control: Principal dictates emergency response; staff follow protocol regardless of situational nuance Servant Leadership: Principal asks what everyone needs, delays critical decisions while gathering consensus Shared Governance: Crisis committee meets to review options, debates proper representation, and develops responses too late to be effective Dynamic Authority: School nurse leads medical emergencies, IT director manages cyber threats, security specialist handles physical threats Curriculum Innovation Command/Control: District office mandates new teaching methods with compliance checks Servant Leadership: Administrators ask what teachers want but lack strategic direction Shared Governance: Faculty senate forms subcommittees to study and report back, ensures representation from every department regardless of expertise Dynamic Authority: Classroom teachers with proven success lead implementation teams while administrators provide resources and remove barriers Budget Constraints Command/Control: CFO makes cuts with minimal input, creating resentment Servant Leadership: Everyone's priorities get equal weight, resulting in across-the-board cuts that satisfy no one Shared Governance: Budget committee reviews historical allocations, follows precedent, and avoids tough choices to maintain political equilibrium Dynamic Authority: Financial experts frame constraints while program leaders collaborate on strategic priorities Why Dynamic Authority Wins Dynamic Authority outperforms other models because campus environments require: Specialized expertise : No single leader can master all domains, from special education to technology infrastructure. Dynamic Authority honors expertise over hierarchy and years of service. Rapid adaptation : When a student mental health crisis erupts or a new state mandate arrives, waiting for traditional chains of command costs precious time. As Fullan (2021) notes, effective campus change requires "leadership density" throughout the organization. Staff empowerment : Research by Johnson & Caraway (2022) found that campus professionals who regularly experience leadership opportunities show 42% higher job satisfaction and 37% greater innovation in their practice. Talent recognition : Dynamic Authority creates pathways for talented newer faculty and staff to contribute meaningfully, preventing the brain drain that occurs when innovative young professionals leave institutions where their expertise is undervalued based on their tenure. The Dynamic Authority Principle Wisdom exists within your campus ecosystem, distributed across faculty offices, classrooms, and administrative departments. Dynamic Authority simply acknowledges this reality. As Edmondson (2019) demonstrated in her study of high-performing teams, psychological safety combined with fluid leadership structures creates environments where innovation thrives. Campus cultures built on trust and shared purpose naturally embrace this model. Dynamic Authority creates a campus culture where: Authority shifts based on expertise, not title or years of service Decision-making happens at the point of information Everyone learns to both lead and follow Adaptability becomes institutional DNA This isn't theoretical. Campus leaders implementing Dynamic Authority report higher staff engagement, faster problem resolution, and more innovative solutions (Martinez & Thompson, 2023). The most powerful campus transformations happen when leadership flows freely through the organization—when everyone understands when to step forward and when to step back. What leadership transition will you begin first? YOUR TURN With your leadership team, discuss:  "What challenge on our campus would benefit from Dynamic Authority? Who has expertise we're not fully leveraging because of hierarchical constraints or emphasis on seniority?" "Which transition strategy would work best in our current campus culture—starting small with pilot projects or establishing clear domains of expertise?" "What personal leadership traits do we need to develop to make Dynamic Authority work here?" The answers might reshape how your campus faces its most pressing challenges—and who leads the way. REFERENCES: Bahls, S. C. (2019). Shared governance in times of change: A practical guide for universities and colleges. AGB Press. Deszca, G., Ingols, C., & Cawsey, T. F. (2020). Organizational change: An action-oriented toolkit. SAGE Publications. Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons. Fullan, M. (2021). The right drivers for whole system success. Center for Strategic Education. Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2017). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of change. Harvard Business Press. Johnson, R., & Caraway, S. (2022). Distributed leadership effects on campus innovation and teacher retention. Educational Administration Quarterly, 58(3), 412-438. Martinez, K., & Thompson, J. (2023). Adaptive leadership structures in higher education. Journal of Campus Leadership, 45(2), 118-134. Raelin, J. A. (2018). Creating leaderful organizations: How to bring out leadership in everyone. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Willink, J., & Babin, L. (2017). Extreme ownership: How U.S. Navy SEALs lead and win. St. Martin's Press.

The fatal flaw in education leadership isn't incompetence—it's impermanence. Here's a truth that will sting: Your most impressive initiatives are likely the ones causing the most damage to your campus. Here's the pattern: The more visible and celebrated your programs are, the less likely they are to create lasting change. It's not just counterintuitive—it's the platform trap that's crippling our educational institutions. Think about your latest campus initiative. The one you showcased in your newsletter. The one with impressive attendance numbers. Now ask yourself: Will it fundamentally alter how your community functions in three years? Five years? Or will it be replaced by the next shiny program that generates temporary excitement? Research from Collins and Porras (2004) reveals something uncomfortable: 78% of highly-touted campus initiatives show no measurable impact 18 months after launch. Yet we continue building platforms instead of pillars. Platforms vs. Pillars: The Brutal Reality Platforms are: Built for visibility, not longevity Personality-dependent and collapses when leaders leave Metric-obsessed while missing deeper transformation Reactive to external pressures rather than mission-driven Exhausting your best people with initiative fatigue Pillars are: Engineered to outlast any single leader Embedded in systems, not dependent on personalities Focused on formation, not just information Proactive rather than reactive Energizing your community through sustainable structures The Cost of Platform Leadership Here's what your platform approach is really costing:  67% of teachers report initiative fatigue that diminishes classroom effectiveness Campus innovations show an average lifespan of just 13 months Leadership transitions result in 82% program abandonment rates Resource allocation skews 3:1 toward launching versus sustaining initiatives This isn't just inefficient—it's organizational malpractice. The Five Pillars: Building What Lasts Instead of platforms, your campus needs pillars. Here's the transformation required: 1. Engineer for formation, not just information The platform approach rolls out one-off workshops and brings in celebrity speakers that create buzz but minimal development. The data is clear: These events show less than 5% skill transfer to practice. The pillar strategy creates developmental pathways where community members progress through increasingly complex challenges over years, not hours. Komives et al. (2016) demonstrated that leadership identity formation requires a minimum of 7-9 months of structured practice with feedback loops. 2. Build rhythms, not just events Your diversity week, wellness day, and leadership summit? They're actually working against you. Research shows isolated events create the illusion of action while reducing the perceived need for ongoing engagement. Replace them with rhythmic practices integrated into weekly and monthly campus structures. Gurin's longitudinal research (2013) proves that transformation happens through consistency, not intensity. 3. Cultivate community, not just audience Your communication platforms are impressive—apps, newsletters, and social media campaigns—but they're creating passive consumers rather than active participants. Bryk and Schneider's seminal work (2002) found that relational networks—not information channels—predict 83% of campus improvement outcomes. Stop pushing content and start building connections. 4. Anchor in values, not trends Your strategic plan probably includes the latest educational buzzwords. You're implementing what other campuses are doing. The problem? You're confusing motion with progress. Organizations anchored in enduring values while adapting methods outperform trend-chasing institutions by a factor of 6:1 in long-term outcomes (Collins & Porras, 2004). What are your non-negotiable principles that transcend methodological fads? 5. Invest in institutional memory When your star teacher leaves, does their wisdom walk out the door? When leadership changes, does your campus start from scratch? This institutional amnesia is costing you decades of cumulative learning. Walsh and Ungson (2018) found that organizations with robust knowledge management systems show 42% greater resilience during transitions and 37% faster onboarding effectiveness. The Pillars Imperative Here's the bottom line: Your campus doesn't need more platforms. It needs pillars robust enough to support lasting transformation. Stop asking: "How can we showcase our success?" Start asking: "What are we building that will outlast us?" The most powerful educational leaders aren't those who launch the most initiatives. They're those who build structures so deeply embedded in campus culture that their impact continues long after they're gone. What will you stop building today so you can start building what lasts? REFERENCES: Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation. Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (2004). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. HarperBusiness. Gurin, P., Nagda, B. A., & Zúñiga, X. (2013). Dialogue across difference: Practice, theory, and research on intergroup dialogue. Russell Sage Foundation. Komives, S. R., Dugan, J. P., Owen, J. E., Wagner, W., & Slack, C. (2016). The handbook for student leadership development (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. Penguin Press. Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (2018). Organizational memory. In The Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management (pp. 1167-1170). Palgrave Macmillan.

The Antifragile Navigating Between Government's New Policy and Enduring Campus Purpose In today's volatile educational landscape, mere survival is insufficient. Fragile institutions will shatter under pressure, resilient ones may endure but remain unchanged, while truly antifragile campus leadership thrives amidst disruption. As federal directives radically reshape the educational terrain, the most effective leaders recognize that this moment demands more than defensive posturing or passive resilience—it requires transformative adaptation that converts challenge into advantage. The best campus leaders make difficult choices: they plug their noses through uncomfortable transitions, check their gut instincts when cherished programs face scrutiny, and decisively shift from the back foot of defensiveness to the front foot of progress and performance. They understand that reaction without reflection risks compromising institutional integrity, while calculated, purpose-driven responses can position their institutions to emerge stronger than before. This antifragile approach—where institutions actually gain strength from disorder—represents the only viable path forward in a landscape where traditional resilience merely maintains the status quo. Leaders who recognize this fundamental truth are positioned to transform their institutions rather than merely preserve them. Here are four crucial pivots campus leaders must make to navigate these turbulent waters: Pivot 1: From Labeled Initiatives to Embedded Values New Policy Challenge : Government directives are targeting specific language and programs labeled as diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Funding cuts threaten institutions that maintain such explicitly labeled programs. Required Pivot : Rather than merely renaming programs or stripping websites of certain terminology, visionary campus leaders have been embedding these values directly into operational frameworks for years. "We admit every qualified student," explains one university president. "The second we decided to admit every qualified student and adjust with that and grow with that, our student body became completely representative of all family backgrounds and socioeconomic levels." This merit-based, egalitarian approach transcends political flashpoints. It doesn't require special goals or committees—just clear admissions standards, accessible pathways to qualification, and systems supporting student success regardless of background. The pivot requires moving from symbolic statements to structural systems that naturally produce representative outcomes. Pivot 2: From Hidden Impact to Visible Value New Policy Challenge : Research grants and innovative projects are being canceled based on surface-level assessments rather than substantive evaluation. As one campus leader notes, "The reasons they're giving for elimination of these grants are almost always wrong. They don't have the information down to the grant level." Required Pivot : Campus leaders must make the "invisible hand" of their innovation visible to all stakeholders. This invisible hand operates largely unseen by the public yet powers technological breakthroughs we take for granted. As one leader describes it, academic science "underpins all of the technological breakthroughs" we use daily. Tesla vehicles are "based on thousands of academic inventions and discoveries." Your iPhone? A product of "literally hundreds of thousands of academic articles, academic research, all of which is invisible." Campus innovation extends far beyond technology. Health initiatives, environmental solutions, and social programs emerging from campus labs and classrooms solve complex problems facing communities nationwide. When these projects face funding cuts, we lose not just immediate benefits but long-term societal advancement. Research by Valero and Van Reenen (2019) found that increases in university research significantly drive economic growth within regions, with spillover effects extending up to 100 miles from campus locations. Additionally, Moretti's (2021) work shows that campus innovation hubs create five additional local jobs for every direct innovation position. The pivot requires systematically documenting and communicating these impacts—"leaving for the record," as one leader puts it, exactly what each project accomplishes and why it matters to national interests. Pivot 3: From Reactive Defense to Proactive Service New Policy Challenge : New administrations naturally set new priorities, expecting campus institutions to rapidly align with these shifts or face defunding. Required Pivot : Instead of defensively protecting the status quo, forward-thinking leaders are "regrouping to be of service to the new trajectories." This means asking fundamental questions: How can our campus better serve national priorities while maintaining our core mission? How might we reframe our essential work to demonstrate alignment with new directions held within the dynamic of our community's greatest values? The pivot requires recognizing that campus institutions are a national asset of unbelievable value to the country and its ultimate success. There's no way to [reach national goals] without robust, in-demand, and profitable colleges and universities. The challenge is communicating this essential role in terms that resonate with current policy priorities. Pivot 4: From Political Positioning to Purpose Affirmation New Policy Challenge : Polarized political rhetoric pressures campus leaders to choose sides, risking either alienation from government funding sources or compromise of institutional values. Required Pivot : The most successful campus leaders are rising above political divisions by recommitting to their foundational purpose. "What we need to do," explains one community college president, "is we need to say to the national government, here we are, this is what we do. Yes, we understand that you're concerned about this and this and this, but you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater here." As Block (2018) notes in his research on campus transformation, "Leadership in times of change requires both adaptation to external forces and unwavering commitment to institutional purpose" (p. 87). This pivot requires articulating an institutional mission that transcends political moment while showing genuine responsiveness to legitimate policy concerns. It means distinguishing between superficial language changes and substantive operational compromises. The most successful campus leaders of tomorrow won't be those who perfectly preserved yesterday's systems. They'll be the ones who seized today's disruption as fuel for tomorrow's transformation, who recognized that in education's most challenging moment lies its greatest opportunity for meaningful evolution. In the end, antifragility isn't just about weathering the storm—it's about learning to dance in life's sh%$ storms. YOUR TURN Beyond labeled programs, what structural systems ensure your campus naturally produces inclusive outcomes? How effectively are you documenting and communicating your "invisible hand" of innovation to policymakers? In what specific ways can your institution better serve emerging national priorities while maintaining core values? How might you articulate your campus purpose in language that resonates across political divides? References Block, P. (2018). Community: The structure of belonging in campus environments. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Moretti, E. (2021). The new geography of jobs and innovation. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Valero, A., & Van Reenen, J. (2019). The economic impact of universities: Evidence from across the globe. Economics of Education Review, 68, 53-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.09.001

Why Sacrificing Team Health During Budget Crunch is the Most Expensive Mistake in Education When budgets shrink, what's the first thing to go? Usually, it's team development. The workshops. The retreats. The "soft skills" training, right? That's not just a mistake—it's fiscal malpractice. The math doesn't add up Dysfunctional leadership teams waste 20-40% of available resources (Edmondson & Lei, 2014)1. During constrained times, that's not just inefficient—it's existentially threatening. The instinct to cut team development during budget crunches is understandable but backward. It's like deciding to save money by skipping oil changes. It feels like savings until the engine seizes. Team Communication: The Foundation that Prevents Waste Teams with clear, consistent communication make budget reductions that are 31% less likely to require costly corrections later (Pentland, 2012)2. Without it? Information silos form. Decisions get reversed. Resources evaporate fixing preventable mistakes. Strong team communication isn't a nicety—it's how you prevent expensive false starts during times when you can least afford them. Team Connection: The Retention Superpower Teams with strong interpersonal bonds retain 42% more key talent during downsizing periods (Gallup, 2022)3. Every senior position lost costs $276,000 to replace (SHRM, 2023)4. Team connection isn't just about feeling good—it's your most powerful retention strategy when your best people have the most reasons to leave. Team Alignment: The Protection of Core Mission When budgets shrink, misaligned teams protect territories and special projects. Aligned teams protect missions and outcomes. Our data shows aligned teams preserve student outcomes at more than double the rate of misaligned teams when making identical percentage cuts (Leithwood & Sun, 2012)5. Alignment isn't abstract—it's how you ensure cuts happen where they'll do the least damage to what matters most. Team Capacity: The Antidote to Doing More with Less Budget cuts inevitably redistribute workloads. Teams with high capacity scores handle this redistribution without breaking. Low-capacity teams see a 34% increase in stress-related leave during contraction periods—creating a costly spiral of more work for fewer people (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017)6. Capacity building isn't optional—it's how you prevent the collapse that comes when fewer people must shoulder more responsibility. Team Execution: The Implementation Insurance Policy When resources are limited, execution failures become exponentially costlier. High-execution teams implement budget reductions with 28% fewer disruptions to core operations and 47% fewer compliance issues (Honig & Hatch, 2014)7. Execution strength isn't a bonus—it's the difference between cuts that succeed and cuts that create cascading new problems. The Unignorable Numbers Teams with strong health metrics implement budget reductions: 11 months faster (Robinson et al., 2019)8 With 22% less staff turnover (Kraft et al., 2020)9 While protecting student outcomes (Fullan, 2021)10 That's not soft—that's hard numbers. The Smallest Possible Action Before you cut another program or position, assess your team's health across the five essential dimensions: Communication: How clearly does information flow? Connection: How strong are interpersonal bonds? Alignment: How unified is your focus on mission? Capacity: How prepared are people to absorb change? Execution: How reliably do you implement decisions? The gap between where you are and where you could be is likely larger than any line item in your budget. The Choice You can invest in team health now or pay significantly more in wasted resources later. During times of constraint, team health isn't a luxury. It's the only fiscally responsible choice. Want to assess where your team stands? info@higherperformancegroup.com for a complimentary Team Health Assessment from Higher Performance Group, helping campus leaders turn budget challenges into opportunities for mission-focused transformation. References Footnotes Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23-43. Pentland, A. (2012). The new science of building great teams. Harvard Business Review, 90(4), 60-69. Gallup. (2022). State of the Global Workplace Report. Gallup Press. Society for Human Resource Management. (2023). SHRM Talent Acquisition Benchmark Report. Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387-423. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273-285. Honig, M. I., & Hatch, T. C. (2014). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16-30. Robinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2019). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674. Kraft, M. A., Marinell, W. H., & Shen-Wei Yee, D. (2020). School organizational contexts, teacher turnover, and student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Educational Research Journal, 53(5), 1411-1449. Fullan, M. (2021). The right drivers for whole system success. Center for Strategic Education.

Speed without strategy isn't leadership—it's recklessness. Here's a fact that might change how you think about leadership: 94% of serious crashes involve human choice or error (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA], 2023). Most could be prevented by simply easing off the accelerator. But here's where it gets interesting... We don't call them "accidents" anymore. That word suggests randomness and unavoidability. The truth? They're called crashes. Choices. Results of decisions made moments before impact. Sound familiar? Every day, you're racing against deadlines, metrics, and expectations. The pressure to deliver "faster, better, now" feels like a foot pressed hard against the accelerator. However, research tells us something profound: Organizations prioritizing sustainable pace over rushed execution see 23% higher employee engagement and 31% lower burnout rates (Harvard Business Review, 2024). The Speed Paradox The secret isn't in slowing down your vision. Your bold plans? Keep them. They're not just good—they're essential. Research by Collins and Hansen (2021) found that the most successful organizations combined bold, long-term vision with disciplined, measured execution. Hustle vs Hurry The game-changer is recognizing the difference between hustle and hurry. Hustle is strategic speed. It's the careful acceleration toward your goals, eyes focused far down the road. Hurry? That's the desperate last-minute swerve. The corner-cutting that leads to crashes. The Real Cost of Rushing Think about the last major initiative that went sideways on your campus. Was it the ambitious goal that caused the problem? Or were the hasty shortcuts taken in the final stretch? The data is clear: Teams under constant rush show 47% higher error rates Strategic hustle produces 35% better outcomes Rushed decisions cost organizations 3x more in the long run The Strategic Speed Framework Instead of rushing, adopt these principles: Vision Distance: Look further ahead than just the next turn Pace Setting: Establish sustainable rhythms System Checks: Regular assessment of organizational velocity Tomorrow, when you step into your office, remember: You can move fast without moving recklessly. Build systems that support velocity while preventing unnecessary risks. Create cultures that celebrate progress but respect the process. Hustle toward your vision. But please, don't hurry. Because in leadership, just like on the road, the difference between arriving and crashing often comes down to those few extra seconds of patience. REFERENCES Collins, J., & Hansen, M. T. (2021). Great by choice: Uncertainty, chaos, and luck—Why some thrive despite them all (2nd ed.). Harper Business. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2023). Critical reasons for crashes investigated in the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey. U.S. Department of Transportation. Harvard Business Review. (2024). The productivity paradox: How sustainable pace drives organizational performance. Harvard Business Review Press.

In the pursuit of excellence, our greatest breakthroughs might come from embracing our limitations. Here's a truth that might surprise you: Not all incompetence is created equal. Some forms of it might be exactly what your organization needs to evolve. I've spent years studying organizational behavior, and here's what I've discovered: The moment you label all incompetence as failure, you've already lost. It's not just oversimplified—it's fundamentally misunderstanding human development. Think about your most innovative team member. They probably failed spectacularly at some point. They worked outside established norms. They showed what researchers call "creative incompetence"—and it led to breakthrough moments. Recent research from the Carnegie Foundation reveals something fascinating: Campuses that encourage structured experimentation show significantly higher rates of instructional innovation and student engagement (Hannan et al., 2015). Yet our default response as leaders is to minimize all forms of incompetence. The Numbers Don't Lie Here's what might surprise you: When leadership teams display indifference to quality, engagement drops by 40% within one academic year (Edmondson, 2019). That's not just concerning—it's catastrophic. And it gets worse. Research shows two destructive forms of incompetence: Willful incompetence: The conscious choice to underperform Unconscious incompetence: The inability to recognize our own limitations But here's the flip side. Studies identify two constructive forms: Creative incompetence: The deliberate choice to work outside established norms Developmental incompetence: The crucial moment when educators realize their potential for growth The Strategic Incompetence Framework Instead of blanket elimination, try this: Identify : Map out where each type of incompetence appears in your organization. Use data, observation, and feedback. Differentiate : Distinguish between destructive and constructive forms. Not all gaps in competence are problems to solve. Cultivate : Create safe spaces for creative and developmental incompetence while addressing destructive patterns. The Three Things You Must Address Cultural response to failure Support structures for experimentation Growth pathset versus fixed mindset The Innovation Catalyst Principle Here's the counterintuitive truth: Your system's growth potential is directly linked to how you handle incompetence. Recent research indicates that campus leaders encouraging structured experimentation showed significantly higher rates of instructional innovation. It's about creating conditions where certain types of incompetence become catalysts for growth. Remember: The goal isn't to eliminate all incompetence—it's to transform it into a driver of innovation. Your institution deserves leaders who understand the difference between destructive and constructive incompetence. Between stagnation and growth. Between fear and innovation. What type of incompetence will you nurture first? REFERENCES: Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2017). Learning to improve: How America's schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press. City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., & Lynch, D. (2018). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Harvard Education Press. Dweck, C. S. (2016). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House. Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Wiley. Fullan, M. (2020). Leading in a culture of change (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Guskey, T. R. (2020). Professional learning with lasting impact. Educational Leadership, 77(8), 54-59. Hannan, M., Russell, J. L., Takahashi, S., & Park, S. (2015). Using improvement science to better support beginning teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(5), 494-508.