Higher Performance Insights | BLAMERS OR BUILDERS?

October 8, 2025
higher performance insights

Your Institution Has 18 Months, and Here's What 23 Leaders Did on October 1st to Model the Way Forward

"We've got about 18 months to figure this thing out."

That's the window educational leaders have to transform proactively—or be forced to transform reactively in survival mode.


On October 1st, 2025, twenty-three district superintendents and college presidents stopped planning alone and started building together. Not the leaders waiting for perfect strategic plans. Not the ones defending comfortable systems. The BUILDERS—leaders whose institutions have grown enrollment 15-40% despite demographic headwinds, who've launched partnerships generating $50M+ in regional economic impact, who've redesigned curricula around employer needs that traditional institutions haven't touched.


What emerged in those 60 minutes wasn't comfortable. It was clarifying.


Here's what 1.7 million lost higher education students and 1.2 million departed K-12 students since 2019 actually tell us: Students didn't drop out. They opted out. Traditional education lost not because our teaching failed, but because our thinking stayed small while the world moved fast.


The market already voted. And it didn't vote for more performance optics.


The Four Types of Leaders


DR. JOE HILL opened with a framework that landed hard:



Four types of leaders populate education today. Coasters worship stability and avoid controversy. Climbers optimize metrics but often overlook whether those metrics matter to students. Dreamers create gorgeous strategic plans that rarely launch. And Builders—rare, hungry, idealistic—who possess what Hill calls "moral ambition."


"We've got about 18 months to figure this thing out," Hill told the group spanning Silicon Valley to Romania, rural Wisconsin to inner-city Arkansas. "We can be builders now, or be forced to build in survival mode."


The room went quiet. Not because leaders disagreed. Because they knew this was right.


Twenty-eight colleges closed in the first nine months of 2024 alone. Each closure eliminates 265 jobs and $14 million in economic activity. The Federal Reserve predicts 80 more higher education institutions will close by 2029.


The question isn't whether disruption is coming; it's whether you're prepared for it. It's whether you're disrupting yourself or waiting for someone else to do it to you.

The Identity Crisis No One's Talking About


Gordon Amerson Ed.D.Superintendent of Alvord Unified School District in Southern California named the elephant in the room:


"We fundamentally became educators because we wanted to pour knowledge from our heads and hearts into children. AI stripped us of being the smartest person in the room. We're having to address the identity of what it means to be an educator—that's the crux of the issue."


This is the real disruption. Not technology replacing teachers. Technology redefining what teaching means.


This explains why faculty AI training fails. We're teaching tools when the real issue is existential. The institutions succeeding aren't mandating AI adoption—they're facilitating identity transformation.


Lee Lambert, Chancellor of Foothill-DeAnza Community College in Silicon Valley, added: "It's not just labor in terms of unions. It's not just faculty. Its administrators, too. This is really a people issue—it's about us humans and our willingness to adapt."


The pedagogical shift:


Before: Faculty as primary information source (sage on the stage) After: Faculty as curator, mentor, coach (guide on the side)


Mike Beighley, Superintendent of Whitehall School District in Wisconsin, demonstrated what this looks like in practice:


"We're leveraging AI on depth-of-knowledge level 1 and 2 content—giving us more time with our educators to start building capacity to learn. We can now do applied learning we never had time for because we were too busy teaching content."

Use AI to handle rote tasks. Free educators to build what we never had time for: applied learning, mentorship, human connection.


Your 24-hour action: Ask three faculty members: "If AI handled all the content delivery in your course, what would you do with the freed time that would transform student outcomes?"


Design Backwards from Employer Reality—Or Watch Students Walk


Before: Curriculum designed around what faculty can teach After: Curriculum designed around what employers need graduates to do day one


Dr. Jermaine Whirl, President of Savannah State University, shared the strategy that's working:


"I was at the Federal Reserve Board meeting with executives from Mercedes Benz, Home Depot, Universal Studios. I asked: How are you using AI in your companies? Then we designed backwards."


The Mercedes-Benz reality: They don't interview humans anymore for initial screening. AI bots conduct thousands of candidate interviews simultaneously, 24/7. Their HR staff shrunk from 20 to 2—but those two need skills most business schools don't teach: programming conversational AI, scripting predictive analytics, embedding organizational culture into algorithms.


The Home Depot revelation: They're hiring English majors specifically for AI prompt engineering. Why? English majors craft prompts and scripts better than technical majors. Starting salary: $65,000-$85,000.


"That's a different conversation than worrying about AI taking jobs," Whirl said. "We're worrying about what you're teaching and what your students have to be able to do when they get to us."


Savannah State's response? Require IBM AI-search certification across all freshman courses. Day one. Psychology majors. English majors. Engineering majors. Every graduate leaves job-ready for basic AI functions employers demand today.


Stop asking "What can we teach?" Start asking "What do employers need graduates to do on day one?"


Your 24-hour action: Email one employer in your region. Ask: "How are you using AI, and what skills do you wish our graduates had on day one?" Listen without defending your curriculum.


Create Immediate Value—Not Just Deferred Promises


Before: Student investment pays off in 2-4 years (maybe) After: Students earn credentials, employment, and income while learning


Bradley Barrick, President of Montcalm Community College challenged the fundamental value proposition:


"If you take an accounting class and all you get is three credit hours toward an associate's degree that's two years away, what value are we adding?"


His answer: Embed industry certifications in every course.


  • Accounting course → Tax preparation certification → Seasonal employment earning $200-$500 per return
  • Biology course → Farm licensing → Agricultural work at $15-$22/hour
  • The college pays for certifications


Students aren't just earning credits. They're earning income while they're learning.


"Information is everywhere, but transformation happens through relationships," Barrick emphasized. "It happens through mentorship, it happens through community. We're not just delivering content—we're trying to reach the whole student."


Kate Ferrel, President of Nicolet College in Wisconsin, applied the same principle earlier in the pipeline:


"We partner with K-12 districts starting in fifth grade with intentional touchpoints. There won't be a single student in our catchment area who hasn't had conversations about careers, trajectories, work-based learning."


Notice what she didn't say: "We created a dual enrollment program." Every college has dual enrollment. Builders create systematic pathways that make college invisible to fifth-graders and inevitable by graduation.


The pattern: Students are leaving traditional education because value is entirely deferred. The builders are creating concurrent value—credentials, employment, income—alongside degrees.


Your 24-hour action: Identify one course where you could embed an industry certification this semester. Start with the conversation, not the perfect plan.


The AI Tension Nobody's Resolved


Not everyone in that room agreed on AI implementation—and that's valuable.


Dr. Jake Trippel, Dean of Concordia University-St. Paul College of Business and Technology, brought a corporate perspective:


"I just came from New York speaking to hundreds of executives. Believe me—corporations are struggling just as much as education with AI. We can learn 5, 10, even 25 times faster than we ever could before using these technologies."


But Manoj Patil, President of Little Priest Tribal College, issued a stark warning:


"Our best students at Harvard and Yale—they don't want to use AI. They're building the code for others to use, but they don't use it themselves. Why? The more we depend on ChatGPT to write an email, the more cognitive decline we'll see. The national average ACT is the lowest in history."


The builder's answer isn't choosing sides. It's designing when and how AI enters the learning journey at different developmental stages.


Dr. Nathan S. Schilling, CSBO, Superintendent of Lansing School District in Illinois, just built a $26 million primary center doubling down on play-based, low-screen-time education:


"At what point do you shift and start adding technology and AI? Where's the merge point?"


The question isn't if students will use AI. They already are. The question is: Who's designing the learning journey that makes AI a tool for human flourishing rather than human diminishment?


Don't ban AI. Don't embrace it blindly. Design the developmental pathway.


Build Ecosystems, Not Just Institutions


Before: Institutions optimize their enrollment (zero-sum competition) After: Regions choreograph student pathways (positive-sum collaboration)


RICK BAILEY, President of Southern Oregon University and retired Air Force colonel, reframed everything:


"The best place to hide a needle isn't in a haystack—it's in a stack of needles. That's the paradigm shift we're in. For students, it's not about accessing information anymore. It's about finding the right needle in an endless sea of needles."


We've been optimizing institutions for information scarcity. AI created information abundance. Our value isn't access—it's curation, context, and connection.


Martin Mahan, Superintendent of Fort Smith Public Schools in Arkansas, demonstrated ecosystem thinking:


He partnered with University of Arkansas - Fort Smith, Baptist Hospital, and Mercy Hospital to create the PEAK Innovation Center. Not a partnership on paper. Systematic integration where students get immersed in hospital classrooms regularly.


"Every program in that facility is concurrent credit or credential credit for career abilities. As they walk across the stage, they're quickly employable in this community."


Jermall D. Wright, Ed.D., Little Rock School District Superintendent, faced closing another high school. Traditional response? Consolidate and cut.


Builder response? "We're creating a brand new virtual-hybrid high school with untraditional staffing, untraditional curriculum, and untraditional paths to graduation. We're competing with the homeschool and micro-school movement."


The pattern: Highest-performing educational ecosystems don't compete for students. They choreograph student pathways across institutional boundaries and measure collective impact, not just individual enrollment.


Your 24-hour action: Identify one "competitor" who could become your most valuable partner. Email them asking: "What's one thing about serving students that keeps you up at night?"


The Governance Challenge Nobody Wants


Ric Dressen, roundtable facilitator, issued a critical warning:


"Foundationally, governance in an AI world is essential. We're federally saying no governance at a federal level because we want AI wide open. That puts pressure on you as a leader and your boards to say what the safe guidelines are, what the secure guidelines are, and what the potentials are."


Translation: While Washington debates, you must decide now.


"Rules are tools," Dressen emphasized. "If we can create the borders, we can play very innovatively inside. But if we don't, it's wide open and the dangers really fall."


The institutions thriving aren't waiting for federal policy. They're establishing AI governance that enables innovation within guardrails.


The Non-Negotiable: 20% Strategic Thinking Time


Hill's mandate to every leader:


"You had to have the title of president or superintendent to be on this call because you are the strategic thought leaders of your system. If you default on that, irrelevance will come quickly. 20% of your time must be strategic thinking."


Not operational firefighting. Not email management. Strategic thinking: environmental scanning, scenario planning, ecosystem relationship building, innovation incubation.


Research confirms: High-performing organizations have CEOs spending 28% of time on strategic activities. Low-performing organizations? 11%.


Hill's closing challenge: "Go build something the market really can't ignore. Cause everybody's just watching the market right now. Build something so irresistible that they can't ignore you."


Here's What's Next


The 23 leaders in that October roundtable didn't wait for permission. They didn't wait for the perfect strategic plan. They started building—together.


We're meeting again on November 5th. Limited to 25 voices because the conversation can't scale beyond intimate strategic dialogue.


Here's the uncomfortable question those leaders are answering: Is your strategic plan designed to defend what you have, or to build what students need?


Because students have already voted. And they didn't vote for more performance optics.


The leaders in that room aren't optimizing their institutions. They're disrupting them before someone else does.


When you plan alone, you optimize your institution. When you build together, you transform the entire educational ecosystem.


Coasters? Climbers? Dreamers?


Builders passing on your left.


Your turn: Tag one leader from a different educational sector who should see this. Who's your uncommon collaborator?


If you're a superintendent or college president ready to join the November 5th Builder Roundtable: Email info@higherperformancegroup.com with your name, institution, and one strategic question you can't solve alone.



#EducationalLeadership #BuilderMindset #AIinEducation #HigherEducation #K12Leadership



Do you want more leadership topics and guides?

Join THE GROUP


An online community for higher education leaders, where we offer a library of lessons and guides that can be utilized during your leadership sessions and other resources.

JOIN THE GROUP

Help Spread the Word

If you found value in this post, we’d love your help spreading the word! Please consider sharing this on your favorite social media platform and tag Higher Performance Group and Dr. Joe Hill. Your support helps us reach and inspire more awesome people like you!

Like What You've Read?


Get practical, research-based ideas to Accelerate Higher Team Performance delivered straight to your inbox every Tuesday.

More Blog Articles

By HPG Info August 18, 2026
AUGUST ROUNDTABLE · SPECIAL EDITION Here's a pattern nobody names out loud in the corner office: the leader who insists they've “got it handled” is usually one enrollment cycle away from finding out they didn't. On the morning of August 5, leaders logged on anyway and named it. K-12 superintendents from Florida, Minnesota, and Alabama, and — for the first time in the Series — the CEO of a regional service cooperative sitting at the table as a peer, not a vendor. It was the smallest room in the history of Higher Performance Group's Peer-to-Peer Leadership Roundtable — and, by DR. JOE HILL 's account, one of the most resonant. Small didn't mean small stakes. It meant something sharper: room for specifics. A dollar figure. A percentage. A partner named out loud instead of gestured at. What follows is that room's conversation — and the argument underneath it that every leader in education needs to sit with this fall: Self-sufficiency is no longer a virtue. It's a liability wearing a virtue's clothes. And the leaders who understand that first are the ones who stay in demand. — the argument the room built together Why This Matters More Than It Sounds Like It Should In our research on leadership archetypes, we map leaders across two axes — ambition and idealism. High on both, and you get what we call Builders — the leaders who don't just want to win; they want to build something that outlasts their tenure. Low on either axis, and eventually you get Coasters — the steady-staters running out the clock on a system that's already changed underneath them.
By HPG Info August 12, 2026
Why your best TEAMS keep producing average results — and the seven-force system underneath it. There's a villain running in every cabinet meeting that never makes the agenda. It doesn't show up in the accreditation report. It doesn't show up in the strategic plan everyone signed with real applause eleven months ago. It shows up in the parking lot — the conversation two people have on the walk to their cars that never once got said in the room. Nearly a thousand leadership teams told us the same thing, almost word for word: Individually, this cabinet is exceptional. Collectively, it runs at about 60% of what it can actually do. (That's roughly the batting average of the last consultant's deck you paid for.) So here's the only question worth asking: what if the people were never the problem? That gap has a name. Seven names, actually. Once you see them, you won't sit through a cabinet meeting the same way again. This also hits differently depending on the week you're reading it. The Diagnosis Let's talk about this like adults who've sat through enough retreats to know the difference between a "sweet tote-bag vibe" and actual change. You've done the retreat. Facilitator, breakout groups, a conversation on the drive home more honest than anything said in the room. (Somewhere, the whiteboard from that retreat is still standing in a hallway, unerased, like a crime scene nobody's cleared.) You came back with a plan. Three weeks later, it's a shared-drive folder nobody opens. Your best people have gone quiet in meetings — not out of ideas, out of reasons to keep offering them. Two departments have solved the same problem twice, six months apart, neither knowing the other already did the work. None of that is a hiring problem or a motivation problem. It's what the system does. That folder nobody opens — what does it actually cost you? Not dollars. The thing that's harder to name: how many of your best people still believe change is possible here. (This is exactly what the Burnout Force Check measures — three minutes, no guessing, a clear read on which of seven forces is costing your cabinet the most. More on that shortly.) Burnout at the team level isn't seven unrelated problems. It's one system wearing seven faces. Four build on each other in a straight line. The other three are what happens once those four feel normal. Timing · The Force Behind the Forces One more interruption before the framework. Read this in August — cabinet freshly reassembled, year still shaped like a plan — and it lands as a preview. Read it in February, board meeting Thursday, budget doing whatever it’s doing this year, and it lands as a mirror. Same seven forces. Same diagnosis. Completely different weight depending on where your cabinet is standing when it lands. That's not a flaw in the framework — that's the first thing worth knowing about it. Every team carries a pain point. Not every team is standing in the moment to act on it. A cabinet three weeks into a transition has different capacity than one eighteen months into a stable run. So, plainly: if you read the seven forces below and think “yes, but not now” — that’s not the wrong answer. Timing isn’t a character flaw. But “not now” only works with a date attached. Without a date, “not now” is just Drift wearing a calendar as a disguise. Name the pain. Then name the moment. If the moment's wrong, don't force it — build the plan for when it's right. Everything below still applies. Just on your timeline, not somebody else's September. The Tuning System · Why Your Best Cabinet Sounds Off-Key Twenty years ago, I bought a piano. Baby grand, delivered to a house my family hadn't asked to move into — three kids uprooted from the only childhood they'd known, distinctly unimpressed with dad's new title. We'd already done ice cream. Then a puppy. Then this. The piano was the exclamation point on my bribery campaign. The day it arrived, that piano was about as close to perfect as an instrument gets. Every string hand-tensioned. Every hammer weighted exactly right. Seven notes to the octave, every one of them true. My kids played it, but nobody had to really even touch it to lessen the quality. The daily temperature shifts and the humidity drifts were enough — the wood and wire quietly answering back, a fraction of a millimeter at a time. Nobody ever touched a tuning peg. The room just kept pulling on it. All three of my kids grew up on that piano. The ones playing it every day were the last people on earth to hear the drift. They adjusted without ever noticing they were adjusting. It took our tuner — a woman who came once a year, someone who hadn't been living inside that slow drift — to sit down and wince at the first chord. Your Team: Nobody lowered their bar. Nobody had to. Seven forces pull on your leadership team constantly. Four build the whole engine, one causing the next: FRAGMENTATION — The Silo Tax. MIT's Human Dynamics Lab found fragmented teams burn up to 60% of their energy on coordination drag alone. (Your cabinet isn't lazy. It's just really, really good at scheduling meetings about the meeting.) EXHAUSTION — The Parking Brake. When coordination breaks, someone absorbs the gap. Not a personality trait. A structural bill, and it always comes due inside somebody's calendar. ISOLATION — The Solo Sport. Exhausted people stop reaching — not because they've stopped caring, because vulnerability became a cost the system taught them they can't afford. SCARCITY — The Empty Table. Isolated people compete for a recognition supply the system made feel finite. Not a mindset problem. An accurate read of a rationed room. COMPARISON, NOISE, and DRIFT are what a culture does once those four feel normal — peaking, respectively, during budget season, right before a board vote, and in year three or four of a tenure, not at the crisis but in the calm after it. Call her Daniela — a college provost with a team that, on paper, should've been unstoppable. Eight people, decades of combined experience, individually excellent by every metric that shows up on a résumé. Their meetings ran long, produced consensus, changed almost nothing. Her VP of Student Success had started emailing ideas instead of raising them in the room — safer, she said, than watching them get nodded at and forgotten. Here's the part that matters for timing: Daniela ran the Burnout Check in February — mid-year, mid-fatigue, three weeks after a board member asked a hard question about retention nobody answered well. Not because February is special. Because that's when her cabinet was finally ready. She ran the Launch Check on the next initiative — three questions, out loud, before anything left the room: What problem are we actually solving? Who else needs to know this exists? What breaks if we don't coordinate here? Not a retreat. A five-minute habit, applied every time. Eight months later — back at the start of a new academic year — her cabinet wasn't just aligned, it was audible. Her VP started raising ideas in the room again, because the room had finally started keeping them. The Application · What To Run, Whenever "Now" Actually Is Here's what to run at your next meeting — not a retreat, not a new initiative. Three moves, one gut-check on timing first. Move 0 — Locate yourselves. (5 min) Where's your cabinet actually standing? New year? Mid-year plateau? Weeks from a board vote? Mid-transition? Say it out loud. The forces don't change. Your capacity to act on them right now does. Move 1 — Run the Launch Check. (10 min, next agenda item) What problem are we actually solving? Who else needs to know this exists? What breaks if we don't coordinate here? (Can't answer the third one? You just found your fragmentation. Congratulations — you're now self-aware, which is more than most teams manage before they don't.) Move 2 — Audit the brake. (15 min, this week) Ask everyone to name one task this week that exists only because something upstream is broken. Pick one. Abandon it, publicly. Move 3 — Name what counts. (Every meeting) Before you close, name one contribution from the last week — specifically. Not “great job.” More like: “That question you asked Tuesday saved us from a decision we’d have regretted.” Two objections, handled straight: “We don’t have time for this.” How many hours did your cabinet spend last week on work that only exists because something upstream never got fixed? Teams we've studied average 40% of a week there. What's forty percent of your week actually worth? “The timing’s genuinely bad.” Then don’t run all three this week. Run Move 0. Name the moment, out loud, and put a real date on the calendar for the rest. A named delay is a plan. An unnamed one is Drift. The Maturity Shift Immature cabinets think: “We need better communicators.” Mature cabinets think: “We need a coordination system nobody has to remember to use.” Immature cabinets think: “Wrong time — skip it.” Mature cabinets think: “Wrong time — name the date.” Immature cabinets treat the retreat as the fix. Mature cabinets treat it as the invitation — and the Monday after, whatever month it falls in, as the actual work. (Immature cabinets also still have that whiteboard in the hallway. Someone should really erase that.) Uncomfortable math: the average leadership team we've studied runs at 60% of its own potential — not because the people are average, but because seven forces are quietly pulling on an instrument nobody's been asked to keep tuned. One word. Which force is eating your cabinet right now? One more, honestly: is now the moment you act, or the moment you name when you will? Go Tune Your Own Cabinet — On Your Own Timeline Most cabinets never get past naming the problem. They diagnose it beautifully at a retreat, then go back Monday to the same untuned instrument. One more question, honest answer this time: if this stays exactly this shape for the next two years, what does that cost? Not the institution's numbers. You. The part of you that took this seat to build something, not just keep it running. What would it mean to know — not guess, know — which of these seven forces is costing your cabinet the most, and whether right now is the moment to act on it? The Burnout Force Check takes about three minutes and shows you exactly where your cabinet sits across all seven forces — same research behind this framework, built to tell you the diagnosis and the timing: https://burnoutforce.higherperformancegroup.com/ That baby grand is still standing in my living room. My kids are grown now — gone, building their own lives, with their own drift to manage. My grandkids are the ones on the bench these days. Same instrument. Same seven strings. I didn't understand it twenty years ago, but I never bought that piano for me. I bought it for whoever showed up next. That's the whole case for the Burnout Force Keynote , honestly. Every leader eventually leaves the seat. The only question is whether the next person inherits a system that's still drifting, or a signal that holds without you in the room: https://www.higherperformancegroup.com/burnout-force Across 987 leadership teams in 43 states, the cabinets that ran this framework saw real, measurable movement on all seven forces — because the system finally got named, tuned, and named again at the right moment. The diagnosis doesn't change with the season. Your capacity to act on it does. What's the first force worth naming out loud in your next meeting? Found Something in This? Message us. We read every one. info@higherperformancegroup.com Follow DR. JOE HILL and Higher Performance Group | THE BURNOUT FORCE
Show More