Higher Performance Insights | ONE GOOD APPLE

July 15, 2025
higher performance insights

How one leader can transform funky team dynamics (without saying a word)


Last week, I shared research about how one negative leader can destroy team performance by 30-40%. This month, a campus president I work with experienced the flip side firsthand.


During a contentious budget meeting, her executive team was fracturing. One VP was openly dismissive. Another had checked out completely. The CFO was getting defensive about every question.


Then something remarkable happened.


Her newest VP—quiet, unassuming, no formal authority over the others—leaned forward when the dismissive leader made a cutting remark. He smiled (not sarcastically), made eye contact, and said,

"That's a really important concern. Help me understand what you're seeing that we might be missing."

The room shifted. Within minutes, the defensive CFO was listening. The checked-out VP re-engaged. Even the dismissive leader found himself contributing constructively.


One person changed everything. And research shows exactly why.


The Outlier Group That Defied Everything


In Will Felps' "bad apple" experiment that I shared last week, there was one group that thrived despite having a planted saboteur trying to destroy their performance.


Nick, the saboteur, was baffled: "This group felt really different to me," he reported. "It was mostly because of one guy."


That person was Jonathan—a thin, curly-haired young man with a quiet voice and an easy smile. While Nick systematically tried to derail the group with negativity, Jonathan's team remained attentive, energetic, and produced high-quality results.


Here's what made this extraordinary: Jonathan didn't seem to be doing anything at all.


"A lot of his really simple stuff is almost invisible at first," Felps observed. When Nick would start being aggressive, Jonathan would lean forward, use open body language, laugh and smile—never in a contemptuous way, but in a way that "takes the danger out of the room."


Then came the pivot: Jonathan would ask a simple question that drew others out: "Hey, what do you think of this?" Sometimes he'd even ask Nick directly: "How would you do that?"


The result? Even Nick, almost against his will, found himself being helpful.


The Invisible Leadership That Changes Everything


MIT's Human Dynamics Lab discovered why Jonathan's approach was so powerful. Using devices called "sociometers," they tracked the micro-interactions of hundreds of teams and found something revolutionary:


You can predict team performance by focusing on how people interact, rather than what they say.


Jonathan was unconsciously mastering what researchers call "belonging cues"—micro-signals that answer the ancient questions always glowing in our brains:


  • Are we safe here?
  • What's our future with these people?
  • Are there dangers lurking?

Jonathan's belonging cues had three qualities:


  1. Energy: He invested fully in each exchange
  2. Individualization: He treated each person as unique and valued
  3. Future orientation: He signaled the relationship would continue


These cues sent one powerful message: "You are safe here."


The Neuroscience Behind the Magic


When someone receives belonging cues, a remarkable phenomenon occurs in the brain. The amygdala—our primeval danger-detection system—literally switches roles.


Instead of scanning for threats, it transforms into what NYU neuroscientist Jay Van Bavel calls "an energetic guide dog" focused on building social connections.


Brain scans reveal the moment: "The whole thing flips," Van Bavel says. "It's a big top-down change, a total reconfiguration of the entire motivational and decision-making system."


Translation for leaders: Simple safety behaviors unlock the cognitive capacity your team needs for breakthrough thinking.


When Belonging Beats Billions: The Google Story


In the early 2000s, the smartest money in Silicon Valley was betting on Overture to dominate the internet advertising market. They had the brilliant founder, the resources, and a $1 billion IPO.


Google was the underdog.


The turning point came on May 24, 2002, when Google founder Larry Page pinned a note in the company kitchen. Three words: "These ads suck."


Jeff Dean, a quiet engineer from Minnesota, saw the note while making a cappuccino. He had no reason to care—he worked in search, not advertising. However, something about the culture compelled him to dive in anyway.


What happened next was extraordinary: Dean worked through the weekend, sent a fix at 5:05 AM Monday, and single-handedly unlocked the problem that made Google's AdWords engine dominant.


The breakthrough: Dean's fix boosted accuracy by double digits. Google's profits went from $6 million to $99 million the following year. By 2014, AdWords was generating $160 million per day.


But here's the strangest part: Dean barely remembered it happening.

"It didn't feel special or different," he said. "It was normal. That kind of thing happened all the time."

Why Google Won and Overture Lost


Google didn't win because it was smarter. It won because it was safer.


While Overture was "hamstrung by infighting and bureaucracy" with "innumerable meetings and discussions," Google was what researchers call "a hothouse of belonging cues."


Google's belonging signals:


  • Larry Page's technique of igniting whole-group debates around tough problems
  • No-holds-barred hockey games where no one held back fighting founders for the puck
  • Wide-open Friday forums where anyone could challenge leadership
  • Small building with high proximity and face-to-face interaction

The pattern mirrors exactly what MIT found drives team performance:


  • Everyone talks and listens in roughly equal measure
  • High levels of eye contact and energetic gestures
  • Direct communication between all members, not just with the leader
  • Back-channel conversations and side discussions
  • Members who explore outside and bring information back

The Hidden Cost of Hoping Culture Will Fix Itself

Every day you wait for someone else to create belonging cues costs you:


  1. Faculty who disengage because they sense leadership division
  2. Students who suffer when initiatives fail due to leadership dysfunction
  3. Community trust that erodes when leadership appears fractured


The brutal reality: Just as one bad apple can destroy performance in 30 seconds, one person creating belonging cues can transform the entire dynamic just as quickly.


The question isn't whether your team needs a Jonathan. The question is: Will you become one?


From Toxic to Transformative: The Belonging Framework


The Typical Approach (Actually Destructive): Hope the negative dynamics burn themselves out


Cabinet scenario: Your resistant executive team member makes dismissive comments during strategic planning. Other leaders start disengaging. You address it privately, but the group dynamic doesn't change.


Result: Good initiatives die. High-performing leaders start looking elsewhere. Strategic momentum stalls.


The Breakthrough Approach (Game-Changing): Create belonging cues that transform resistance


Same scenario, different response: When the resistant leader makes a dismissive comment, you lean forward, make eye contact, and say, "You're raising something important—what am I not seeing here?" Then pivot to the group: "How do the rest of you see this?"


Result: Resistance becomes strategic information. The team stays engaged. Opposition transforms into collaborative problem-solving.


The Simple Signals That Change Everything


Research shows belonging cues work through tiny, consistent signals. Here are the ones that matter most:


Physical proximity and positioning:

  • Sit in circles when possible
  • Lean forward during difficult conversations
  • Make frequent eye contact


Communication patterns:

  • Keep contributions short and energetic
  • Ask questions that draw others out
  • Listen intently and respond to what you hear


Energy and attention signals:

  • Give people your full presence
  • Thank individuals by name for contributions
  • Use humor (not sarcasm) to defuse tension


The key insight: These aren't "soft skills"—they're performance drivers that literally rewire team dynamics.


Transform Any Team Dynamic Starting Today


The Belonging Cue Assessment:


Step 1: Record your next team meeting (audio only) Step 2: Count how many times you create vs. destroy belonging cues Step 3: Notice the team's energy level during each type of interaction


Three Daily Practices:

  1. Lean in when others lean back from conflict
  2. Respond to resistance with curiosity: "What am I missing here?"
  3. Create micro-connections before tackling difficult topics


The Jonathan Protocol for Your Next Team Meeting:

  • When someone becomes defensive, physically lean toward them
  • Respond with genuine curiosity instead of defensiveness
  • Pivot to include the whole group: "What do others think?"
  • Remember: Your body language and tone matter more than your words
  • Ask the resistant person directly: "How would you approach this?"


The Choice That Defines Breakthrough Leadership


You can wait for culture to improve, or you can become the person who creates it.


You can hope toxic dynamics will resolve themselves, or you can master the belonging cues that prevent them.


You can manage resistance, or you can mine the wisdom hidden inside it.


You cannot do both.


The most effective leaders I work with understand that being "the good apple" isn't about being nice—it's about being strategic. They've discovered that belonging cues aren't touchy-feely—they're the foundation of cognitive performance.


Because here's what the research proves: Belonging is not "emotional weather"—it's the foundation on which strong culture is built. And one person really can save everything.


But only if they understand that transformation happens through steady signals of safety, not grand gestures of authority.


The Hidden Factor Behind Breakthrough Teams


Here's what I've learned from studying hundreds of leadership teams: The difference between leaders who create belonging and those who spread toxicity isn't just individual awareness—it's about Team Intelligence (TQ).


When teams develop high TQ, they naturally create the belonging cues that prevent toxic dynamics and amplify positive energy. They learn to respond to resistance like Jonathan did—with curiosity that transforms opposition into contribution.


The TQ Advantage:

  • 45% faster recovery from team conflicts
  • 38% higher team member engagement and retention
  • 42% more breakthrough solutions achieved collaboratively


The breakthrough teams I work with understand that you don't need everyone to be a Jonathan. When teams develop TQ, belonging cues become their default mode of interaction.


Ready to Become the Good Apple Your Team Needs?


Stop waiting for someone else to create the culture you want. Start building the Team Intelligence that makes belonging cues your team's natural language.


The first step is understanding your team's current TQ. In just 5 minutes per team member, you can discover:

  • Where toxic dynamics are most likely to emerge
  • Which cognitive perspectives naturally create belonging cues
  • How to transform your most challenging team members into contributors


Discover Your Team Intelligence → https://www.higherperformancegroup.com/team-intelligence-assessment


Because when you can't create safety among leaders, you can't create results for students. But when you develop TQ, one person—maybe you—can truly transform everything.


Just like Jonathan. Just like Jeff Dean. Just like you can, starting today.


References

Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., & Byington, E. (2006). How, when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel: Negative group members and dysfunctional groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 175-222.

Pentland, A. (2012). The new science of building great teams. Harvard Business Review, 90(4), 60-70.

Van Bavel, J. J., Packer, D. J., & Cunningham, W. A. (2008). The neural substrates of in-group bias: A functional magnetic resonance imaging investigation. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1131-1139.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.



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 October 14, 2025
(They’re Just Waiting For Permission To Tell You The Truth) Here's a pattern nobody talks about: You implement weekly communication drills for your leadership team. They get better at board presentations. Faculty meetings improve. Parent nights run smoothly. Then something unexpected happens—feedback starts flowing everywhere. Not just in the drills. In hallway conversations. During budget reviews. In crisis moments, when you need honest input yesterday. You didn't plan for this. You were just trying to stop your VP of Academic Affairs from saying "um" seventeen times per sentence during accreditation visits. Turns out you'd accidentally built what researchers call a "keystone habit"—one small practice that triggers a chain reaction of positive changes across your entire organization. (Kind of like how buying running shoes somehow leads to meal prepping and going to bed before midnight. Except this one actually sticks.) 73% of educational leaders report their cabinet stays silent during critical decisions. That's not a personality problem. That's a systems problem. And the system you think you have? It's probably optimizing for politeness instead of performance. THE DIAGNOSIS Let's talk about this like adults who've survived at least three strategic planning retreats where someone suggested "blue sky thinking" with a straight face. Your last cabinet meeting looked like this: You asked for input on the enrollment decline strategy. Got three nods. Two "I think that could work" responses. One person checked their phone under the table (we saw you, CFO). Meeting adjourned. Everyone left. Then what actually happened? Your VP of Student Affairs texted your VP of Enrollment Management: "Did you understand what we're actually supposed to do?" Your Dean of Faculty sent a carefully worded email, "just checking on a few details," that was really code for "this plan makes no sense." Your Chief of Staff scheduled a one-on-one with you to "clarify next steps," which translated to "I have seventeen concerns, but didn't want to say them in front of everyone." You've got three concurrent conversations happening about the same topic. None of them are with each other. All of them are happening because your cabinet meeting optimized for agreement instead of alignment. Here's what nobody tells you in leadership development programs: Your principals, vice presidents, and department chairs might be brilliant at their individual roles and absolutely terrible at having difficult conversations with each other. Not because they're bad people. Because you've never created an environment where they can practice being bad at it first. Think about it. When was the last time your leadership team had a conversation that felt genuinely risky? Where someone said something that hadn't been pre-vetted in sidebar conversations? Where disagreement happened live instead of in post-meeting debriefs? That silence isn't a sign of respect for your leadership. Sometimes it's fear. Sometimes it's exhaustion from being a tool serving the strategic plan instead of a valued human solving real problems. Sometimes it's just learned behavior from every other organization they've worked in, where speaking up got them labeled "not a team player." Research on high-performing teams shows psychological safety—where people believe they can speak honestly without consequences—is the most critical factor in team effectiveness. More important than intelligence. More important than experience. More important than your strategic priorities or mission statement or the fifteen core values you spent two days workshopping. But here's the plot twist: Psychological safety doesn't manifest because you're nice or because you included "respect" in your values statement. It has to be practiced. Systematically. Repeatedly. Until it becomes more uncomfortable NOT to speak up. (This is actually why I created The GROUP —a free community where insights like this become Leader CORE Lessons you can facilitate with your team Monday morning, complete with discussion prompts and practice scenarios. But I'm getting ahead of myself.) The real problem? You're running a graduate-level organization with middle-school communication patterns. High IQ, catastrophically low Team Intelligence. Everyone's smart. Nobody's connecting. THE THREE CONVERSATIONS YOUR CABINET ISN'T HAVING Call this the Communication Layer Framework. Or don't. It'll still explain why your last "quick sync" turned into a 90-minute therapy session that resolved nothing. Communication research identifies three types of conversations happening simultaneously—often in the same meeting, frequently without anyone realizing they're in different conversations entirely: 1. Practical Conversations (The "What We're Supposed to Be Doing" Layer) This is where you live. Problem-solving. Action plans. Metrics. Timelines. "What are we going to do about the enrollment decline?" You think everyone's in this conversation with you. They're not. Half your cabinet is two layers away, and you're talking past each other like ships in the night. Very polite, very professional ships that will definitely send each other courtesy waves while completely missing the fact that one of you is about to hit an iceberg. 2. Emotional Conversations (The "How We're Actually Feeling" Layer) This is where your leadership team actually is when things get hard. Sharing feelings. Seeking empathy. Processing change. "I'm terrified we're going to have to lay people off, and I don't know how to lead through that." If you walk into a performance review in practical mode and your administrator walks in emotional mode, you're about to have two completely different conversations in the same room. You'll think you gave clear feedback. They'll think you don't understand their situation. Both of you will leave frustrated and confused about why the other person "isn't getting it." 3. Social Conversations (The "Who We Are to Each Other" Layer) This is about identity, relationships, and hierarchy. How we relate. Who has power. Whose voice matters. "Do I belong in this cabinet?" "Does the superintendent actually value what I bring?" "Am I about to get thrown under the bus for something that wasn't my fault?" When you're trying to discuss practical strategy and someone's operating in the social layer, they're not hearing your plan. They're scanning for threats to their position, value, or belonging. Every word you say gets filtered through "What does this mean for my standing here?" Here's what makes this devastating: Most leadership breakdowns happen because we don't match the conversation the other person needs to have. You walk into a meeting thinking, "I need to give practical feedback on instructional leadership." They walk in thinking, "I'm about to lose my job and nobody values what I've sacrificed for this school." Until you address the emotional and social layers first, your practical feedback lands like instructions shouted at someone who's drowning. The same dynamic plays out when your principals meet with teachers, when department chairs evaluate faculty, and when anyone on your team attempts a difficult conversation. THE CASE STUDY Let me tell you about a superintendent I'll call Marcus (not his real name, but Marcus, your cabinet definitely knows this is about them). Marcus had eight direct reports. Combined experience of 186 years. Multiple PhDs. National recognition. They could individually crush any challenge you put in front of them. As a team? They communicated like they were playing telephone through a series of closed doors during a fire drill. Cabinet meetings followed a predictable pattern: Marcus would present an issue. Ask for input. Get thoughtful-sounding responses that were really just people restating the problem using different words. Someone would volunteer to "take this back to their team." Meeting would end with a vague sense of progress. Then nothing would change. The real conversations happened after. In parking lots. In text threads. In carefully scheduled one-on-ones where people would share what they actually thought but "didn't want to say in front of everyone." Marcus kept trying to solve this with better agendas. Clearer objectives. More efficient meeting structures. (Classic practical-layer solution to an emotional and social-layer problem.) Then Marcus did something that felt almost uncomfortably simple: He started weekly communication practice sessions with his team. Not role-playing. Not trust falls. Actual practice giving and receiving feedback on low-stakes topics. Week one: Practice giving positive feedback about something specific. Week two: Practice receiving feedback without getting defensive. Week three: Practice disagreeing without it becoming personal. It felt forced at first. (One VP literally said, "This feels like kindergarten but for grown-ups.") But something shifted around week four: People started using the same language in actual cabinet meetings. "I'm in emotional mode right now—can we address that before jumping to solutions?" "I think we're having different conversations—let me check if I'm understanding correctly." Six months later, same people, different system. Cabinet meetings got shorter because people said what they meant the first time. Difficult conversations happened earlier instead of festering. Most importantly: The parking lot conversations moved into the conference room where they could actually be productive. Marcus told me: "We didn't become a better collection of individuals. We became an actual team. Turns out that matters more than I thought." The difference? They practiced being bad at communication in low-stakes environments so they could be good at it when it mattered. Now, if you're thinking "this makes sense, but how do I actually implement communication drills without my cabinet staging a revolt?"—I get it. That's the gap between insight and implementation. This is what The GROUP is for. Each week, I turn the newsletter topic into a Leader CORE Lesson and Guide: facilitation notes, discussion prompts, practice scenarios, diagnostic tools—everything you need to lead your team through this content without spending Sunday night googling "how to teach feedback to people who've been leaders longer than I've been alive." It's free, built for busy leaders, and designed for Monday morning meetings when you need something that actually works instead of theory that sounds impressive. Grab this week's communication practice guide: https://www.higherperformancegroup.com/the-group But whether you join The GROUP or not, here's what you can implement immediately... THE APPLICATION Here's what to do this week (assuming you're not currently managing a crisis, in which case bookmark this and revisit when things calm down to a dull roar): Step 1: Practice "Looping for Understanding" in Your Next One-on-One Ask a question. Repeat back what you heard them say. Ask if you got it right. That's it. Three steps. Takes 10-15 seconds. Proves you're listening. If they say "yes, exactly"—you understood correctly and can move forward. If they say "not quite, what I meant was..."—you just prevented a massive miscommunication that would have caused problems three weeks from now. If they look surprised that you actually listened—you have a bigger problem than this one conversation can solve, but you've just started solving it. This isn't just good practice for you. It's modeling the behavior you want them using with their teachers, staff, and faculty. Every time you loop in for understanding with your VP of Finance, you're teaching them to do the same with their department heads. Step 2: Start Developmental Conversations with Self-Assessment Before your next performance conversation, ask: "Tell me two things you think you do really well in your role and two things you think you could improve." Ninety percent of the time, what they identify as growth areas will match what you've observed. (Turns out people usually know their own weaknesses. They just don't know if it's safe to admit them.) Now they've given you permission to address those issues together. No defensiveness. No surprise. No "nobody ever told me this was a problem." Just collaborative problem-solving between two adults who both want the same outcome. Step 3: Ask Permission to Shift Conversation Types If a principal or dean comes to you in emotional mode about a difficult parent situation, and you need to move to practical problem-solving, try this: "I hear what you're saying. I've felt that way too. Can I share some approaches that helped me work through similar situations?" You're acknowledging their emotional reality before asking to move to practical solutions. You're not dismissing their feelings. You're not jumping immediately to fix-it mode. You're creating a bridge between the conversation they need to have and the conversation you need to have. If they say yes, you can move forward productively. If they say "I'm not ready for solutions yet"—they need more time in emotional mode, and pushing practical advice will backfire spectacularly. OBJECTION HANDLING "My team won't go for structured communication practice" Your team is currently having three different conversations about every issue, none of which are with each other, resulting in decisions that die in parking lots and initiatives that fragment the moment everyone leaves the room. They're already "going for" something—it's just catastrophically ineffective. The bar is on the floor. You're not asking them to do something dramatically harder. You're asking them to stop doing something that demonstrably doesn't work. "We don't have time for communication drills" You just spent 90 minutes in a cabinet meeting that could have been 30 minutes if people had said what they actually thought the first time instead of having seven follow-up conversations afterward. That's one meeting. Now multiply by four meetings per month. You're spending roughly 240 extra minutes per month—four hours—on communication inefficiency. That's 48 hours per year. You're hemorrhaging two full work weeks annually while claiming you don't have time to practice being clearer. THE MATURITY SHIFT Immature leaders think: "My cabinet needs to communicate better." Mature leaders think: "We need to practice communicating better together." Immature leaders assume communication skills are innate—either you have them or you don't—and spend board retreats wondering why their brilliant team can't seem to align. Mature leaders build systems where communication skills are practiced regularly until they become second nature. Immature leaders address communication problems after they explode. Mature leaders practice communication before crisis hits. The difference is the difference between hoping your team can have difficult conversations and knowing they can because they've practiced. One makes impossible feel permanent. One makes impossible feel temporary. Cabinet silence isn't a personality problem. It's a practice problem. And unlike enrollment declines or budget cuts, this one is completely within your control. Your turn: Think about your last cabinet meeting. How many conversations do you think were happening simultaneously that weren't actually being spoken out loud? What would change if you named those conversations explicitly? Drop a comment. Tag a cabinet member who needs to see this. Or screenshot this and text it to your Chief of Staff with the message "Let's talk about our next meeting." P.S. If you're thinking "I don't have bandwidth to create communication practice resources for my team"—I already did it for you.  The GROUP is a free community where every newsletter becomes a ready-to-deploy Leader CORE Lesson and Guide. Practice scenarios. Discussion prompts. Diagnostic questions. Everything you need to lead your team through structured communication development without the Sunday night scramble.
By HPG Info October 8, 2025
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."
Show More