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 January 14, 2026
DR. JOE HILL President @HPG | Author of The TQ ADVANTAGE When Your Board Metrics Say "Winning" But Your Gut Says "Failing" I had the same conversation 23 times last year. Not in conference keynotes, where everyone performs as a "strategic leader who has it figured out." In parking lots after workshops. On follow-up calls at 7 PM. In texts that started "Can I ask you something that's been eating at me?" A superintendent, after crushing every board metric: "Joe, why do I feel like I'm failing at everything that actually matters?" A university president with the most credentialed cabinet she's ever led: "We can't make a decision without three meetings. What am I missing?" A college president at 11 PM (via text): "I spend more time managing my cabinet's dysfunction than actually leading. How did I become this person?" Here's what's frustrating: I gave terrible answers. Not because I'm incompetent—because these questions revealed problems I hadn't solved for myself. So I spent Q4 doing what I should've done in Q1: figuring out what I should have said. Turns out, the questions superintendents and presidents struggled with most in 2025 weren't about strategy, enrollment, or board politics. They were about survival while everyone watches you succeed. Here are the three questions I botched—and the answers I wish I'd had ready. QUESTION 1: "When Does Being Driven Cross Into Being Obsessive?" The Moment I Realized I Had No Answer Community college president—let's call her Rachel—after a Team Institute session: "I'm in the office 6 AM to 7 PM. Weekends. My cabinet says I'm 'inspiring.' My spouse says I'm 'unavailable.' I thought this IS leadership. But am I driven or just addicted?" I gave her the standard consultant answer about balance and boundaries. It was garbage. Because I was answering emails during our Netflix date night. I was "inspiring" my people while my wife wondered if I remembered her name. Glass houses, meet stones. What I Figured Out By December There's actual research on this—the dualistic model of passion : Harmonious Passion: Flexible and energizing Fills you up When you can't do it, you're disappointed but okay Sustainable forever Obsessive Passion: Rigid persistence even when it's destroying you When you can't do it, you feel shame When you DO do it, you STILL feel inadequate Major contributor to burnout (and divorce, and health crises your board will call "unexpected") Campus leadership selects for obsessive passion and calls it "commitment." Your board rewards it. Your community celebrates it. Until someone has a breakdown, and everyone acts shocked. The diagnostic? The Vacation Test. Can you take a full day off without checking email? If yes—when did you last actually do it? If you can't remember, you're not driven. You're hyper-optimized. And hyper-optimization always precedes system failure. Ask any Formula One team that pushed too hard without pit stops. 💡 "The same drive that got you the presidency is the exact thing that will end it—unless you build recovery infrastructure around it before crisis forces the conversation." What To Do Tuesday Morning (Not "Someday") Pick ONE recovery ritual. Just one: The Phone Kennel: Tonight, plug your phone downstairs. Don't bring it to your bedroom. (Sounds simple. Most presidents can't do it for three consecutive nights. That's diagnostic, not judgmental.) The "This Area Is Clear" Ritual: When you leave your office, say out loud: "Work time is done." Creates a psychological boundary your brain actually respects. The 3-Hour Sacred Window: Block three consecutive hours this weekend for something non-work that requires full attention. Coffee roasting. Long bike ride. Fiction reading. Playing with grandkids without your phone nearby. If you take vacations and check email daily, that's work with a view, not recovery. Your body knows the difference even if your calendar doesn't. Objection Handling: "But I LIKE working—it's my passion!" Great. Harmonious or obsessive? Can you stop without shame? That's the test. "My board expects me to be available 24/7." Your board expects you to lead for a decade, not flame out spectacularly in year three. They just haven't said it yet because you keep performing invincibility. QUESTION 2: "My Cabinet Is Brilliant Individually But Collectively Incompetent. What's Broken?" The Moment I Had No Good Answer Superintendent in Texas—let's call him Marcus (Marcus, your CFO was laughing when we reviewed your Team Intelligence results, so you know this is you): "Joe, every person on my cabinet has 15+ years of experience. Advanced degrees. Strategic thinkers. But together we can't make a simple decision without three pre-meetings and four follow-ups. What's broken?" I said something generic about communication and trust. Consultant garbage. The real answer? I hadn't figured out the math yet. What I Figured Out By December It's literally a math problem : IQ × EQ × PQ = TQ Most leadership cabinets look like this: IQ (Individual Intelligence): 9.1/10 → You only hire brilliant people EQ (Collective Emotional Intelligence): 3.8/10 → They can't disagree productively PQ (Positional Intelligence—role clarity): 2.5/10 → Nobody knows who decides what Result = TQ (Team Intelligence): 4.2/10 → Permanent impossibility despite impressive resumes That's not a communication problem. That's a multiplication problem. When any variable approaches zero, the whole equation collapses. You keep investing in the variable that's already maxed out (IQ—hiring smart people) while ignoring the two that determine whether smart people can think together under pressure (EQ and PQ). It's like installing a Ferrari engine with bicycle wheels and wondering why you're losing races to Honda Civics. The pattern I've now seen 47 times: Monday 6:30 AM: Your CFO wants to "align before Tuesday's meeting" (translation: lobby before anyone else can) Tuesday 10 AM: Cabinet meeting where everyone performs collaboration while avoiding actual disagreement Tuesday afternoon: Three separate "clarification" requests (translation: renegotiations of what seemed decided) Friday: Everyone's exhausted, nothing's actually resolved, but calendars are impressively full, so at least it LOOKS like leadership is happening That's a Team Intelligence deficit costing your district or institution roughly $1.1M annually in wasted meetings, duplicated effort, and opportunities missed while you're stuck in alignment purgatory. Meanwhile, enrollment is shifting, your best teachers are wondering if leadership will ever actually lead, and your board is asking increasingly pointed questions about execution velocity. 💡 "Individual brilliance without Team Intelligence produces impressive LinkedIn profiles and permanent impossibility. The math doesn't care about your credentials." What To Do Tuesday Morning The Cabinet Intelligence Audit (15 minutes) At your next cabinet meeting: "Quick exercise. Everyone rate our team's ability to think together under pressure, 1-10. Write it privately first." Go around the room. Read answers aloud. If everyone says 8+: Somebody's lying (or everyone has wildly different definitions of "thinking together") If answers vary by 3+ points: You don't share reality about your own team dynamics If anyone says below 5: You've just identified why pre-meetings exist—people don't feel safe thinking out loud together Then ask the question that changes everything: "What would need to be true for everyone to feel comfortable disagreeing in THIS meeting instead of lobbying outside it?" The silence will be uncomfortable. Someone will deflect with process talk. Someone else will say "I've been thinking the same thing." That second person is your ally. Start there. Objection Handling: "We don't have time for this meta-conversation about meetings." You spent 47 hours last month in meetings ABOUT meetings. You don't have time NOT to fix this. Your problem isn't time—it's Team Intelligence producing a 47-hour Meeting Tax. "My team won't go for it—they'll think I'm criticizing them." Your team is currently "going for" a system producing permanent friction despite everyone working 60-hour weeks. They already know something's broken. You're not revealing a problem—you're naming what everyone already feels. QUESTION 3: "Why Do I Keep Neglecting What I Literally Teach Others?" The Moment I Realized I'm A Hypocrite This one's personal. I teach Team Intelligence to superintendents and presidents. Sustainable systems. Recovery architecture. "You can't pour from an empty cup." Then I worked through Thanksgiving. Answered emails Christmas morning. Ran on 5 hours of sleep and spite. The question a superintendent asked me in October haunted me all through December: "Joe, you teach this stuff. How do YOU avoid burning out?" Honest answer? I wasn't. I was just better at hiding it. What I Figured Out By December I interviewed Dr. James Hewitt , a human performance scientist who works with Formula One teams. He said something that gutted me: "I taught recovery to Fortune 500 companies while being 'always on' myself. 100+ flights a year. Missing family dinners. I genuinely believed I was the exception to the rule—until one morning in the shower, I found a lump." Cancer forced him to confront the truth: You're not superhuman. You're just a human who hasn't rested. The most dangerous leadership belief isn't "I need to work harder." It's "The rules don't apply to me." They do. Physics doesn't care about your board's expectations, your strategic plan, or how many people are counting on you. Your body will force the conversation your calendar keeps postponing. 💡 "You're not too busy to build recovery systems. You're too busy BECAUSE you haven't built recovery systems. There's a difference." What To Do Tuesday Morning Design Your Weekly Recovery Day Block ONE full day this week. Not "I'll try" or "maybe next week"—this week. Then: Morning: Something requiring full attention but not work (bike ride, elaborate coffee ritual, whatever makes you feel human) Afternoon: Something actively decreasing cognitive load (fiction, show-watching, napping—NOT business books or "personal development") Evening: Time with people who don't need you to perform leadership Critical Rules (Non-Negotiable): Phone stays in another room (not "on silent"—physically elsewhere) No "just checking email real quick" (that's work, which means you failed) If you work at all, even "just for a minute," you failed the assignment Objection Handling: "But I have too much to do." Then you've built an unsustainable system that will fail spectacularly—either next month or next year, but it WILL fail. Taking one day off either proves your cabinet can function without you (healthy) or reveals they can't (critical diagnostic you desperately need). "What about emergencies?" Define "emergency" as "can't wait 24 hours without significant harm to students, staff, or institution." Watch how shockingly few things meet that standard. Most "emergencies" are just someone else's poor planning becoming your crisis. THE MATURITY SHIFT Immature presidents think: "I just need more willpower, more passion, more drive. If I push harder, I'll break through." Mature presidents think: "I need better systems, clearer boundaries, sustainable practices that multiply capacity without multiplying hours." Immature superintendents optimize themselves to death while their cabinets watch and learn that sustainable leadership is performance art. Mature superintendents build infrastructure that multiplies cabinet capacity without heroic individual effort. The difference isn't motivation. It's systems. One makes you busy. One makes you effective. One gives you an impressive calendar screenshot. One gives you a decade. One makes you a cautionary tale. One makes you a model worth following. Your turn: Which question hit hardest? What are you specifically changing Tuesday morning? Not "I need better balance"—that's consultant-speak performance art. Be specific: "I'm blocking Sunday completely. Phone stays downstairs." "I'm running the Cabinet Intelligence Audit this week." "I'm designing my first full recovery day for Saturday." Drop a comment. Tag another superintendent or president who's crushing metrics while quietly drowning. Repost with your one specific action. Because insight without implementation is just expensive entertainment that changes nothing. STOP LEAVING PERFORMANCE ON THE TABLE Here's what I've learned after working with 987 leadership teams: Your team isn't broken. Your team model is. You've invested millions in hiring brilliant individuals. But individual brilliance without Team Intelligence produces impressive resumes and permanent friction. The superintendents and presidents who've cracked this code aren't working harder. They're working human—with recovery systems, Team Intelligence architecture, and the courage to admit that sustainable leadership requires more than inspiration and long hours. If your talented team is performing at 60% capacity despite everyone's best efforts , the problem isn't motivation or competence. It's multiplication : IQ × EQ × PQ = TQ And when any variable approaches zero, your entire equation collapses—no matter how impressive your board reports look. The TQ Keynote: Transform Your Team From Friction to Acceleration This isn't another motivational talk about working together better. This is the math, the research, and the practical protocols that help leadership teams move from 60% to 90%+ capacity—not by working harder, but by thinking together. What You'll Discover: The TQ equation that reveals exactly where your team is stuck (and why traditional development hasn't fixed it) Five cognitive "BEST FIT" types every high-performing team needs (and which ones you're missing) Practical protocols for transforming cabinet friction into execution acceleration How to navigate complexity 40% faster than average teams (verified across 1,000+ leadership teams) Live team mapping exercises using actual TQ types from your cabinet This keynote is grounded in: Analysis of nearly 1,000 leadership teams across K-12 and higher education Research-backed insights showing 2:1 performance advantage for high-TQ teams A practical framework that creates measurable results within 90 days, not "someday" Duration: 2 hours Format: On-site with your full leadership team Investment: Book a conversation to discuss Why This Is Different 94% of executives believe collaboration is critical. Only 8% see results from traditional team development programs. TQ bridges that gap—because it treats team development as a math problem with a systems solution , not a motivation problem with an inspiration band-aid. Teams working with HPG consistently move from 60% to 90%+ capacity. We protect that standard by choosing partners carefully. If your team is talented but stuck, if you're crushing board metrics while quietly drowning, if you've tried everything except addressing the actual multiplication problem—let's talk. Book a TQ Keynote Conversation →Your community deserves leaders who multiply each other's strengths instead of working around each other's weaknesses. Your talented individuals can become an unstoppable team. But not with the same model that got you here. Book Your TQ Keynote Today! - https://www.higherperformancegroup.com/team-intelligence-keynote P.S. Stop Performing Sustainability. Start Practicing It. The questions I couldn't answer in 2025 revealed my own gaps—in recovery systems, in Team Intelligence, in sustainable leadership architecture. The answers I found by December might close yours— if you actually implement them instead of just nodding along. Your cabinet is watching how you lead yourself. Your family is waiting for the version of you that comes home fully present. Your future self is begging you to build better systems before crisis forces the conversation.  Whether you book the keynote or not: Stop leaving 40% of your team's capacity on the table while everyone works 60-hour weeks. The math is solvable. The systems are buildable. The question is whether you'll address it Tuesday or wait until Friday's crisis forces your hand. Next Issue: "Your Cabinet Doesn't Need Another Retreat—They Need Recovery Architecture" How one superintendent cut meetings 61% and increased results 3x. Not by working harder. By working human. Follow DR. JOE HILL and Higher Performance Group for insights that close the knowing-doing gap.
By HPG Info January 8, 2026
What Your Team Actually Needs From You This Winter Break DR. JOE HILL - Founder@ Higher Performance Group Michael Mathews VP for Innovation and Technology Oral Roberts University December 27, 2025 When The Best Gift Isn't Wrapped—It's Who You're Becoming in 202 6 ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ Do this calculation: Your holiday appreciation budget ÷ days until it's forgotten = the cost per day of feeling valued. For most campus leaders, that's roughly $1,000 ÷ 2 days = $500 per day of "thanks." Here's the uncomfortable truth: By January 5th, those gifts are forgotten. By January 15th, your team is wondering why 2026 feels exactly like 2025. By March, your best people are updating LinkedIn profiles. Not because you didn't appreciate them in December. Because appreciation without capability is actually insulting to talented people who know they could accomplish more if you'd just fix the systems. 73% of campus leaders report their teams feel appreciated, but only 31% feel equipped to do their best work. That 42-point gap? That's where your 2026 success or struggle will be determined. You have 8 days to decide: Spend 2026 managing adequacy (pundit leader) or building significance (solutionary leader). After January 2nd, the decision is made. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ THE PATTERN THAT WILL DEFINE YOUR 2026
Show More