Higher Performance Insights | FINDING BALANCE IN CHANGING TIMES

April 1, 2025
higher performance insights

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


  1. Beyond labeled programs, what structural systems ensure your campus naturally produces inclusive outcomes?
  2. How effectively are you documenting and communicating your "invisible hand" of innovation to policymakers?
  3. In what specific ways can your institution better serve emerging national priorities while maintaining core values?
  4. 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




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 July 29, 2025
Real HOW TO solutions from real educational leaders---and the research-backed answers that can transform how you navigate the complexities of modern leadership When 62% of senior leadership teams report significant gaps in psychological safety---the very foundation they're supposed to create for others---we have a leadership crisis hiding in plain sight. Every semester, I receive hundreds of questions from district and campus leaders through our executive coaching exchanges. These conversations occur in confidence — during leadership intensives, one-on-one coaching sessions, and late-night calls when the weight of responsibility feels overwhelming. This summer semester, I decided to pull some of the most compelling questions and share my thoughts publicly, restructuring them using the innovative "HOW TO" approach pioneered by Bradley Fuster and San Francisco Bay University . Their brilliant transformation of traditional course titles—eliminating the yawn-inducing "English 101" or "Intro to Marketing" in favor of practical "HOW TO" titles—has revolutionized how students engage with learning. We're applying that same energy to leadership challenges. These aren't hypothetical scenarios — they're real challenges from real leaders in districts and on campuses across the country. Names have been changed for confidentiality, but the struggles are authentic. If you find this format helpful, let me know. We plan to make this a special semester edition going forward. HOW TO: Maintain Psychological Safety for Your Team When You Feel Like You're Drowning Original question: "How do you maintain psychological safety for your team when you yourself feel like you're drowning? I'm supposed to be the calm, confident leader, but inside I'm struggling with imposter syndrome and the constant pressure to have all the answers." - Maria, University Vice President for Academic Affairs Maria, you've hit on the central paradox of every modern leader of people and systems: You can't give what you don't have, yet your role systematically strips away the very conditions you need to create for others. Recent research, tracking 769 K-12 staff members over four years, revealed predictable patterns in educational psychological safety. While 51% maintained stable-high levels and 44.8% remained at stable-medium, 4.2% experienced dynamic-low psychological safety. But here's what the research doesn't capture: Leaders often exist in a separate category entirely, experiencing what I call " psychological safety deficit disorder ." The stakes become even higher when we examine senior leadership dynamics specifically. Studies of nearly 300 leaders over 2.5 years found that teams with high degrees of psychological safety reported higher levels of performance and lower levels of interpersonal conflict. For senior leadership teams, where research found members reported the greatest differences in their perceived levels of psychological safety, 62% of senior teams demonstrated significant variability. The Calibrated Vulnerability Solution Maria, here's what you need to understand: Your imposter syndrome isn't a personal failing---it's an occupational hazard. When you're constantly in "performance mode," authentic connection becomes impossible. But psychological safety isn't built through perfection; it's built through what I call "calibrated vulnerability." Start with one person — your most trusted team member — and practice transparent leadership. "I'm working through this challenge and here's my thinking..." This isn't weakness; it's modeling the very behavior you want to see in your organization. The psychological safety you create for others begins with the psychological safety you create for yourself. When you demonstrate that uncertainty is acceptable, that thinking out loud is valuable, and that perfection isn't the standard, you give your team permission to do the same. Understanding psychological safety challenges leads us naturally to the next critical area: recognizing when those challenges are pushing leaders and teams toward burnout. HOW TO: Recognize Early Warning Signs of Burnout (That 90% of Leaders Miss) in Yourself and Your Team Original question: "What early warning signs should I watch for in myself and my team to prevent burnout before it becomes a crisis? I've seen too many good people leave education because they reach their breaking point." - Robert, Superintendent of Schools Robert, you're asking the right question at exactly the right time. A comprehensive meta-analysis of 348 studies involving over 3.6 million participants found that educational leadership impact on student achievement diminished significantly during exceptional circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic---and burnout is often the culprit. The early warning signs aren't what most leaders think. It's not the obvious exhaustion or irritability. It's the subtle shifts that happen weeks before the crash: Individual Level Warning Signs: Decision fatigue masquerading as perfectionism Emotional numbing disguised as "professional boundaries" Innovation paralysis---when everything feels like a risk Team Level Warning Signs: Decreased psychological safety, which research shows is consistently associated with greater perceived supports and lower burnout Communication becoming transactional rather than relational Loss of collective problem-solving capacity System Level Warning Signs: Increased reliance on formal authority instead of influence Policy creation as a substitute for leadership presence Meeting multiplication- when committee work becomes the primary communication strategy The Sustainability Audit Framework The intervention framework I use with leaders: Implement what I call " sustainability audits " monthly. Ask your team: "What's one thing that's energizing you right now? What's one thing that's draining you?" Track patterns, not just individual responses. When you catch burnout in its early stages — before the obvious symptoms appear — you can address the root causes rather than managing crisis symptoms. Preventing burnout requires honest assessment, but it also demands the courage to have difficult conversations when performance issues arise. This brings us to one of leadership's most delicate challenges. HOW TO: Have Tough Conversations with Star Faculty Who Aren't Performing Without Losing Their Institutional Knowledge Original question: "How do you have tough conversations with long-term faculty members who aren't performing but have institutional knowledge you can't afford to lose? I feel stuck between accountability and preservation of relationships." - Jennifer, College President Jennifer, you've identified what researchers call "the competence-commitment paradox "-when emotional investment in people conflicts with organizational performance needs. Recent research on school leadership during crises has found that democratic, humanistic, and participatory leadership styles are most effective in maintaining mental health and performance; however, these approaches require skilled navigation of exactly this tension. The mistake most leaders make is treating this as an either/or choice: accountability OR relationship preservation. High-performing institutions understand it's a both/and challenge that requires what I've developed as the "fierce compassion framework" — a both/and approach that honors relationships while driving results. The Fierce Compassion Framework: Step 1 - Separate the person from the performance. Start the conversation with: "I value you and your contributions to this institution. That's exactly why we need to address this performance gap." Step 2 - Make the institutional knowledge visible. "Your understanding of our campus culture and history is invaluable. I want to find ways to leverage that while also ensuring you're set up for success in your current role." Step 3 - Create a growth pathway, not a correction plan. Research indicates that individuals respond more positively to development opportunities than to performance improvement plans. Focus on building capacity, not just addressing deficits. Step 4 - Set clear timelines with support systems. "Here's what success looks like, here's how I'll support you, and here's our timeline for seeing progress." Having the conversation IS preserving the relationship, not destroying it. Avoiding it destroys both the relationship and the performance. Even when we master difficult one-on-one conversations, we still face the broader challenge of leading change across diverse groups with varying levels of experience and buy-in. HOW TO: Lead Change When Your Most Experienced Faculty Resist While Your Newer Leaders Lack Credibility Original question: "How do you lead change when your most experienced faculty resist new initiatives, but your newer department chairs lack the credibility to drive implementation? I feel caught between generational divides." - David, University Vice President for Strategic Initiatives David, you're dealing with what recent leadership research identifies as the distributed leadership challenge — how to harness collective intelligence while managing natural resistance to change. This isn't actually about generational divides; it's about recognizing expertise and changing ownership. Studies on distributed leadership show that transformative change happens when leadership becomes "a collective endeavor involving multiple stakeholders" rather than top-down mandate implementation. The key is creating what I call "expertise bridges." The Expertise Bridge Strategy: Phase 1 - Map the real expertise. Your experienced staff have implementation wisdom; your newer staff have innovation energy. Neither group has complete expertise — and that's your advantage. Phase 2 - Create mixed-expertise teams. Pair your most experienced faculty with your most innovative department leaders. Give them shared ownership of both the problem definition and solution design. Phase 3 - Use resistance as data. When experienced faculty resist, they're often identifying implementation challenges that enthusiastic newcomers miss. Reframe resistance: "What implementation challenges is this concern highlighting?" Phase 4 - Build credibility through collaboration. Let your newer department chairs gain credibility by successfully partnering with respected faculty veterans, not by challenging them.  The breakthrough happens when both groups realize they need each other to succeed. Your job isn't to choose sides — it's to orchestrate that realization.
By HPG Info July 22, 2025
The Reason Your Star-Studded Cabinet Isn't Moving The Performance Needle Last Monday at 8:00 AM, you sat down with your dream team, boasting a combined experience of over 150 years in education. Advanced degrees from prestigious universities. Proven individual track records. By Friday, you were staring at the same reality faced three years ago: brilliant people, endless meetings, and problems that seemed to multiply faster than solutions. You probably caught yourself thinking: "If we're this smart and experienced, why does it feel like we're spinning our wheels while our system falls further behind our competition?" Here's the uncomfortable truth that research reveals: You've assembled individual experts but haven't built collective intelligence. And it's costing your students everything. THE RESEARCH MIT's Dr. Anita Woolley published groundbreaking research in Science that should revolutionize how you think about your leadership team. The shocking finding: Teams with higher collective intelligence outperform teams of individually brilliant people by 40-60%. There's little correlation between a group's collective intelligence and the IQs of its individual members. Translation for education: Your hiring strategy—recruiting the smartest individuals—might be fundamentally limiting your potential. The brutal reality: 75% of cross-functional teams are dysfunctional, not because people lack competence, but because competent individuals can't think together effectively. While you've been building cabinets of experts, breakthrough TEAMS have been developing something entirely different: the ability to think collectively. WHY INITIATIVES FAIL Recent research from the Center for Business Practices found that 60% of project failures stem from poor collective leadership—expectations that were too high, unrealistic, not managed, or poorly communicated. Sound familiar? In education, this translates to: Curriculum implementations that never reach full adoption Technology initiatives that teachers resist Strategic plans that gather dust Reform efforts that create more problems than they solve The hidden pattern: These aren't implementation problems—they're collective intelligence problems. Your team has the expertise. What they lack is the process that transforms individual brilliance into a collective breakthrough. THE FOUR DYSFUNCTIONS 1. The Isolation Analysis Trap The Problem: Each department head analyzes their piece of the system challenge separately, then tries to negotiate solutions during meetings. Why It Fails: Collective intelligence emerges from real-time collaboration, not individual analysis followed by group discussion. Example: When addressing chronic absenteeism, the student services director focuses on home visits, the curriculum director examines engagement strategies, and the transportation director reviews route efficiency—but they never collectively examine the interconnected nature of the problem. 2. The Expertise Silo Disease The Problem: You know exactly how each person will respond before they speak. Your CFO sees everything through a budget lens. Your VP of Academics defaults to instructional solutions. Why It Fails: Teams with diverse expertise only show amplification effects when they work collectively, not in isolation. Example: During budget cuts, each department advocates for its programs individually, rather than collectively redesigning how the institution delivers comprehensive, in-demand programming. 3. The Meeting Theater Syndrome The Problem: You mistake presentations and reports for collective thinking. Why It Fails: Critical thinking and problem-solving emerge through real-time collaboration, not through individual preparation followed by information sharing. Example: Monthly cabinet meetings where each administrator reports on their division/site rather than collectively solving system-wide challenges. 4. The Consensus Compromise The Problem: Teams avoid productive conflict about student outcomes, instead seeking artificial harmony. Why It Fails: Breakthrough solutions require teams to have difficult conversations about what's really happening across campus metrics. Example: Avoiding tough discussions about underperforming divisions or ineffective programs because "we don't want conflict." THE BREAKTHROUGH FRAMEWORK Modern research confirms what ancient wisdom communities have long known: breakthrough understanding occurs in community, not isolation. The Truth → Experience → Action Model TRUTH: What's the real challenge our students and community are facing? EXPERIENCE: How do we encounter this challenge together as a leadership team, not through separate departmental reports? ACTION: What coordinated response emerges from our collective understanding? The Critical Difference: Research shows that teams must experience problems together in real-time rather than analyzing them separately. The Transformation That Actually Works ❌ The Typical Approach (Actually Destructive): Hope individual experts will eventually coordinate better Cabinet scenario: Your achievement gap persists despite individual departments working harder. Each team member has solutions, but they're not aligned. You schedule more meetings to "coordinate efforts." Result: Frustration increases. Solutions compete rather than complement. Problems persist despite good intentions. ✅ The Breakthrough Approach (Game-Changing): Create collective intelligence that generates solutions none of you could develop alone Same scenario, different response: You clear half a day. The entire team visits classrooms together, talks to students experiencing the achievement gap, and observes the challenge firsthand. Then you think together in real-time about what you're all seeing. Result: Breakthrough insights emerge that transform your approach to the entire challenge. Solutions integrate naturally because they're developed collectively. IMMEDIATE ACTIONS 1. Replace "Report Out" with "Think Together" No presentations about departmental updates Choose one real system challenge Think through it collectively in the room 2. Implement the "Fresh Eyes" Rotation Let your newest team member lead the discussion on your oldest problem Ask your operations director to examine curriculum challenges Rotate who brings the initial perspective to familiar issues 3. Create Real-Time Discovery Sessions Schedule quarterly sessions where you encounter problems together No pre-work. No slides. Just collective thinking. Research shows that collective intelligence emerges from shared real-time experience 4. Measure Your Team Intelligence (TQ) Track how often breakthroughs emerge from team discussions vs. individual contributions Monitor whether your team generates solutions that none of you developed alone Assessment of group performance must account for underlying collective intelligence THE CONVINCING EVIDENCE Recent studies on collective leadership in education show significant positive effects on both student achievement and faculty retention. Educational research confirms that distributed leadership—where multiple people exercise leadership collectively—creates conditions that directly impact school climate and student outcomes. As AI transforms education, developing collective intelligence becomes even more critical. These are capabilities that technology cannot replace: the ability to think together, discover together, and create breakthrough solutions through human collaboration. THE EXPERIMENT Challenge: Pick your system’s most persistent problem—the one your leadership team has "solved" multiple times but keeps returning. The Collective Intelligence Approach: Clear half a day from everyone's calendar Experience the problem together as a team —visit classrooms, talk to students, and observe the challenge firsthand No prep. No presentations. No predetermined solutions. Think together in real-time about what you're all seeing See what emerges that none of you discovered working alone Warning: This will expose the extent to which your team relies on individual expertise rather than collective intelligence. It will be uncomfortable. It's also the path to breakthrough results. THE RUMBLE Your Team Intelligence Audit Questions: When did your leadership team last generate a solution that surprised all of you? How often do breakthrough insights emerge from your meetings vs. individual work? Do your collaborative sessions produce ideas that exceed what any individual member could develop alone? Are you solving problems or just coordinating individual solutions? The brutal truth: Individual brilliance is the ceiling. Collective intelligence is the breakthrough that transforms educational outcomes. READY TO TRANSFORM? Stop hoping individual experts will eventually coordinate better. 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
Show More