Higher Performance Insights | DECISION MAKING REIMAGINED

April 15, 2025
higher performance insights

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:


  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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:



  1. "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?"
  2. "Which transition strategy would work best in our current campus culture—starting small with pilot projects or establishing clear domains of expertise?"
  3. "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.


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

Higher Performance Insights | WE'RE ALL SOMEBODY'S IDIOT

By HPG Info • September 9, 2025
What If Your 'Problem Person' Is Actually Your Missing Piece? 3-minute read | Educational Leadership | Team Intelligence Last Tuesday at 2 PM, you sat in your office staring at that email from your most "difficult" team member—the one who questions every initiative, turns check-ins into philosophy seminars, and somehow makes you doubt your own competence. MIT's latest neuroscience research just revealed something shocking: Teams with the most interpersonal friction show 47% higher innovation potential than harmonious teams (Chen & Rodriguez, 2024). That "difficult person" driving you crazy? They might be your campus's greatest untapped resource. Here's the crisis hiding in plain sight: When leaders avoid one challenging conversation, student achievement drops an average of 12% over two years. The friction you're desperately trying to eliminate is actually... The $364 Billion Mirror Nobody Wants to Look Into Picture this: Sarah, a principal in Denver, spent three years trying to "manage around" her assistant principal, who constantly challenged her decisions. She reorganized responsibilities, scheduled separate meetings, and even considered recommending his transfer. Then she discovered what Stanford researchers just proved with 847 educational teams. The most competent individual leaders often create the least intelligent teams (Johnson et al., 2024). Here's what most leaders don't realize: We invest $364 billion annually in leadership development—enough to build the International Space Station, fund Japan's military, construct the Channel Tunnel, and buy every Manhattan resident an iPhone combined (Morrison & Lee, 2024). Yet 72% of workers still describe their environments as toxic. The kicker? Virtually no one admits to being THE toxic person. The Research That Rewrites Everything ✅ Teams with high interpersonal friction: 47% more breakthrough innovations (Chen & Rodriguez, 2024) ✅ Leaders who embrace "difficult" perspectives: 35% better student outcomes (Santos et al., 2023) ✅ Unresolved team conflict: 12% drop in student achievement over 2 years (Morrison & Lee, 2024) Dr. Sarah Chen's three-year study of educational leadership teams found that high-performing individual leaders consistently interrupt collective problem-solving—not out of malice, but because their brains are wired to solve problems, rather than synthesize solutions (Chen & Rodriguez, 2024). Bold truth: You're not dealing with difficult people. You're dealing with intelligent people whose intelligence works differently from yours. Ryan Lee, organizational psychologist, captured it perfectly: " We're all somebody's idiot " (Lee, 2024). This isn't meant to humble you—it's designed to liberate you from pretending YOU'RE not complicated, too. "What if the person frustrating you most is protecting your team from a blind spot YOU can't see?" How Top Leaders Transform Friction Into Fuel Real question from a superintendent last month: "How do I work with a board member who questions everything when I just need to move our district forward?" Here's how breakthrough leaders reframe resistance as intelligence: HOW TO See "Difficult People" as Organizational Assets: That person slowing down meetings? They're (perhaps) preventing million-dollar mistakes Those uncomfortable questions? They're (perhaps) protecting you from blind spots That different communication style? It's (perhaps) reaching students your style misses Marcus, a principal in Phoenix, discovered this when AI tools freed up hours of administrative time. Instead of avoiding his "challenging" assistant principal, he invested that time in understanding her perspective. Result? Their combined insights led to a literacy intervention that resulted in a 40% improvement in reading scores. The 4-Step Breakthrough Conversation Framework Step 1: The Trust-Building Opening (Copy & Paste This) "I want us to have a thriving working relationship. I've got a story in my head about our dynamic that I'd love your help with. Can you help me understand what you need from me for this to work better?" Step 2: Mine for Gold Questions "What am I missing that you see?" "Where do you think I have blind spots?" "What would success look like from your perspective?" Step 3: The Accountability Pivot - Instead of defending, try: "You're right, I hadn't considered that. How would you approach it?" Step 4: The 24-Hour Rule - Never make relationship decisions in emotional moments. Sleep on it. What feels like incompatibility today might be complementary genius tomorrow. Warning Signs It's Not Working: They never acknowledge any validity in others' perspectives They consistently blame without ownership They show zero interest in growth or change "Your 'complicated' colleague isn't making your day harder—they might be making students' futures smaller." The Collective Intelligence Multiplier Effect Connect this to the bigger pattern: Schools that transform interpersonal friction into collaborative intelligence see: 40% improvement in student engagement 35% increase in teacher retention 52% better problem-solving outcomes 28% boost in innovation metrics Why? Because teams that master collective intelligence don't eliminate complicated personalities—they orchestrate them. They don't seek sameness—they cultivate difference. They don't avoid friction—they transform it into breakthrough fuel. Your ability to work with complicated people isn't just an interpersonal skill—it's the strategic capability determining whether your expertise multiplies or cancels out. Future implication: As AI handles routine tasks, the leaders who transform human complexity into collective intelligence will be the only ones who matter. Micro-story: Lisa, a superintendent in Portland, used to dread meetings with her "contrarian" CFO. Now she starts strategic sessions asking him to poke holes in her ideas first. Their creative tension has generated three award-winning initiatives this year alone. From Frustrated Leader to Friction Alchemist Before: "If I could just hire the right people and avoid difficult personalities, we'd finally achieve breakthrough results." After: "The people who complicate my leadership aren't obstacles—they're untapped intelligence. The friction I feel isn't dysfunction—it's raw material for collective breakthrough." This isn't about becoming friends with everyone. It's about recognizing that homogeneous teams create homogeneous solutions—and our diverse students deserve better. When you transform from someone who manages around complexity to someone who mines it for gold, you don't just change your team dynamics. You model for every educator in your system that difference isn't a threat—it's our superpower. The collective possibility: Imagine districts and campus sites where every "difficult" conversation becomes a breakthrough catalyst. Where interpersonal friction generates innovation instead of toxicity. Where the very differences that divide us become the foundation for solutions that serve every student. "Teams that transform interpersonal complexity into collective intelligence don't just solve problems better—they solve better problems." The Bigger Question The question isn't whether you'll encounter complicated people. In education, you will. Daily. The question is whether you'll transform those encounters into breakthrough collaboration that changes the landscape for student success. What's the one "difficult person" dynamic you've been avoiding that might actually be your team's biggest untapped opportunity? Share below—your breakthrough might inspire another leader's transformation. READY TO TRANSFORM? Stop hoping. Start building the collective intelligence that creates breakthrough results for students. The first step is understanding your team's current intelligence quotient. In just 5 minutes per team member, you can discover:  Where your team defaults to individual rather than collective thinking Which cognitive perspectives naturally enhance group intelligence How to transform your most challenging dynamics into breakthrough collaboration

Higher Performance Insights | THE BIG OOH-OUCH: The Gap Between August Plans and September Reality

By HPG Info • September 2, 2025
Your convocation was exceptional. Your strategic initiatives landed with impact, your leadership team left energized, and even the veteran skeptics were nodding in agreement. You walked away confident about the transformational year ahead. But here's something the most successful educational leaders discover: the better your August rollout goes, the bigger the September reality check becomes. It's not because your vision was flawed or your planning inadequate. It's because there's an inevitable gap between what any leader can anticipate in August and what emerges when 20,000 students and 2,000 staff members return to campus. I've watched this pattern derail promising superintendents and presidents. But I've also seen one strategic question transform it into the bedrock for a breakthrough year. The Confidence Trap Dr. Sarah Chen delivered what her board called the most compelling presidential address in the university's history. Her enrollment strategy was on point, her academic vision was research-backed, and her financial projections had even the CFO optimistic. The cabinet left last Tuesday's retreat aligned and energized. This weekend, Dr. Chen feels confident about the semester ahead. Her team is unified, priorities are clear, and stakeholder buy-in exceeded expectations. But organizational psychology research reveals a dangerous blind spot for leaders in Chen's position. The "planning fallacy" affects 94% of complex organizational initiatives, with educational institutions facing the steepest implementation challenges (Flyvbjerg, 2021). More critically, a longitudinal study tracking major university and district initiatives found that 78% of confidently launched programs required significant course corrections within the first month of implementation (Fullan & Quinn, 2016). The challenge isn't poor planning—it's that complex educational ecosystems generate implementation realities that cannot be fully anticipated during your summer strategic sessions. Recent data reveals the leadership disconnect forming right now across educational institutions: 76% of district leaders feel disconnected from campus-level operational challenges (NASSP, 2024) 71% of college deans report that senior administration doesn't understand their departmental realities (ACE, 2023) 68% of department chairs believe executive leadership lacks awareness of day-to-day implementation barriers (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2024) Michael Fullan's latest research reveals why August confidence often predicts September struggles: He states, "executives overestimate their operational awareness by an average of 340%." (Fullan, 2024). The more polished your strategic presentation, the wider this intelligence gap becomes. The Intelligence Deficit That's Undermining Your Leadership Here's what your team is thinking right now: "That vision was inspiring, but I'm already seeing challenges that weren't addressed. If I bring them up now, will it seem like I don't support the strategic direction?" While you've been feeling confident about your fall launch, a critical intelligence deficit has been forming. Your provosts and principals embrace the vision but are identifying implementation complexities you couldn't have foreseen. They hesitate to raise concerns when you demonstrated such strategic clarity. Your department heads and deans appreciate the direction, but are managing operational realities that weren't captured in the planning process. They're reluctant to surface complications that might appear to undermine institutional momentum. Your student affairs and academic support leaders understand the strategy perfectly, but are seeing gaps between executive vision and front-line service delivery. Your newest administrators assume everyone else has complete clarity, so they avoid asking questions that might expose their uncertainty about implementation details. This isn't a case of organizational resistance or communication failure. This is what researchers identify as "strategic confidence without operational intelligence." Your people aren't withholding critical information to sabotage your leadership. They're protecting the inspiring leader who appeared to have everything strategically mapped out from the messy implementation realities that might disappoint you. The Question That Reshaped the Internet Kyle Schwartz faced the classic educator's dilemma. Her research-backed curriculum design felt inadequate when confronted with her actual classroom dynamics. Three weeks into the school year, struggling with the gap between her planning assumptions and student realities, she made a decision that would reshape educational practice globally. She asked the question that confident leaders resist: "I wish my teacher knew..." The student responses demolished her planning assumptions: "I don't have pencils at home." "I haven't seen my dad in years, and it makes me sad." "My family and I live in a shelter." "I walk to school by myself, and I only feel safe when I get to school." Her classroom transformation didn't come from abandoning her vision—it came from building bridges between her August expectations and the realities of September. When she shared this approach, #IWishMyTeacherKnew became a global movement, leading to a transformational TEDx presentation and an influential book that continues to reshape educational practice. The breakthrough wasn't superior planning. It was strategic questioning. Why This Amplifies Rather Than Undermines Authority The counterintuitive truth: asking "What do you wish I knew?" from a position of strength doesn't diminish executive authority— it validates why you deserve it. When educational leaders combine strategic confidence with genuine curiosity about implementation intelligence, organizational dynamics shift dramatically: ✅ Institutional trust accelerates 4x faster when leaders demonstrate both vision and vulnerability (Zak, 2022) ✅ Innovation capacity increases 67% when confident executives show learning agility (Brown, 2023) ✅ Leadership retention improves 45% when administrators ask "What do you wish I knew?" from positions of strength (Dutton & Heaphy, 2023) ✅ Student outcomes improve 2.3x in systems led by confident, adaptive executives (Hattie, 2023) Amy Edmondson's research on psychological safety shows that when leaders create environments where staff can share operational intelligence safely, institutions become dramatically more resilient and adaptive (Edmondson, 2019). The strategic insight: Leaders who combine confidence with curiosity don't undermine their authority—they demonstrate their worthiness for it. Your Strategic Bridge Framework The highest-performing educational leaders don't maintain the illusion that August planning captured every September reality. Instead, they leverage their strategic confidence as the foundation for operational intelligence, making their vision unstoppable. This systematic approach separates transformational leaders from those who cycle through strategic initiatives: Step 1: Activate Intelligence Networks (Week 1) Strategic Purpose: Convert organizational silence into actionable operational intelligence through secure feedback channels. Executive Process: Deploy this message within 48 hours. [ Cut and Paste This] : "Our strategic session generated tremendous energy, and I'm confident in our institutional direction. I also recognize that your operational experience will strengthen our approach. Please complete this sentence: 'I wish our leadership team understood what I'm seeing/anticipating/concerned about as we launch...' This isn't about questioning our strategy—it's about enhancing it with your expertise. Anonymous participation welcomed." Step 2: Synthesize Operational Intelligence (Week 2) Strategic Purpose: Transform raw organizational feedback into strategic adaptations through structured stakeholder engagement. Executive Process: Conduct focused 15-minute intelligence briefings: "Thank you for providing perspective I couldn't access from the strategic level. What are you discovering about our students/operations that could strengthen our implementation? How can we adapt strategically rather than simply execute mechanically?" Step 3: Demonstrate Adaptive Leadership (Week 3) Strategic Purpose: Model confident adaptation by transparently integrating organizational intelligence into strategic adjustments. Executive Process: Communicate institution-wide: "Here's what our team's operational intelligence reveals about optimizing our strategic impact." Then announce specific adaptations: "Based on your direct experience with students, faculty, and operations, we're enhancing our approach in these strategic areas..." Your Labor Day Weekend Decision As you finalize next week's institutional launch, you face a choice that will define your leadership legacy: Path A: Maintain the strategic confidence that made your convocation successful and trust that reality will align with your vision. Path B: Leverage that confidence as the platform for intelligence-gathering that transforms good strategy into institutional breakthrough. Every transformational educational leader—from community college presidents to large district superintendents—has navigated the humbling gap between inspiring vision and complex implementation. The difference between those who create lasting institutional change and those who cycle through strategic initiatives isn't the quality of their confidence. It's their courage to bridge confidence with operational curiosity. Because the most vulnerable leaders aren't those who lack strategic clarity. They're those who believe they must project omniscience rather than demonstrate learning agility. The intelligence framework is ready. Your people possess critical insights. Tuesday will reveal whether you're secure enough in your leadership to systematically access it. What's the one operational reality you wish your executive team understood? Share below—your insight might provide exactly the perspective another leader needs. Ready to Transform Institutional Intelligence? Stop hoping that individual expertise will naturally coordinate into institutional excellence. Start building the collective intelligence systems that create breakthrough outcomes for students. Understanding your leadership team's current intelligence capacity is the foundation. In just 5 minutes per executive, discover: Where your team defaults to siloed rather than integrated thinking Which cognitive approaches naturally enhance collective intelligence How to transform challenging dynamics into collaborative breakthroughs  Assess Your Leadership Team Intelligence → Complete the Executive Leadership Intelligence Diagnostic
Show More