Higher Performance Insights | The 5 (Wildly) Popular Best Practices Keeping You Stuck

August 12, 2025
higher performance insights

Trade Up or Stay Mediocre


Last Tuesday at 7:23 AM, Principal David Martinez stared at his annual evaluation.


"Meets expectations." Check. "Satisfactory performance." Check. "Adequate progress." Check.


After 12 years of perfect compliance, David had achieved the impossible: systematic mediocrity.


His test scores lived at the 50th percentile. His teacher turnover matched district averages. His parent surveys reflected the predictable bell curve. Every "best practice" from graduate school, implemented flawlessly.


The result? Perfect ordinary.


Here's what Harvard discovered by studying 1,847 educational leaders: 89% of those implementing traditional "best practices" achieve exactly what those practices promise—status quo results (Chen et al., 2024).


Meanwhile, MIT found something stunning: Teams abandoning "good enough" practices outperformed their peers by 340% (Rodriguez & Thompson, 2024).


The truth nobody talks about? Best practices weren't designed for excellence. They were designed to prevent failure.


In today's world, preventing failure is the express lane to irrelevance.


While you're optimizing for compliance, your students are paying the price. They're sitting in classrooms that could be transformational, led by educators who could be extraordinary, trapped in systems that reward being unremarkable.


The Five Practices Everyone Uses (And Why They Guarantee Ordinary)


These practices worked. Once. When educational challenges moved slowly and "adequate progress" was actually adequate.


Those days ended.


Today demands breakthrough thinking, not best-practice thinking. Innovation, not implementation. Collective intelligence, not individual expertise.


Yet most leaders still optimize for ordinary. Here's how—and what to do instead.


PRACTICE 1: DATA-DRIVEN DECISION MAKING


Why everyone loves it: Having data used to be revolutionary. Numbers instead of hunches. Accountability where none existed.

Why it now guarantees ordinary: Everyone has data now. Your dashboard looks like everyone else's dashboard.


Data tells you what happened yesterday. It can't tell you what questions to ask about tomorrow.


Those 47-slide PowerPoint presentations? They're creativity killers disguised as leadership tools.


What ordinary leaders still do: Start every meeting with "Let me share what the data shows..."


Trade up to: Question-Driven Discovery


Leaders who ask discovery questions instead of presenting data activate their teams' creative networks while reducing defensiveness by 65%.


Instead of "What does the data show?" ask "What questions would unlock our team's best thinking?"


Superintendent Rodriguez made this shift. Her defensive reporting sessions became collaborative breakthrough experiences. Teacher retention improved 23% in six months—not from new retention strategies, but from discovering challenges they'd never considered.


PRACTICE 2: DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP


Why everyone loves it: Sharing the load made sense when principals were expected to know everything. More involvement, better buy-in.


Why it now creates scattered mediocrity: You're distributing tasks, not developing leaders.


Multiple people working individually isn't collective intelligence. It's parallel processing that creates conflicting priorities.

Without clear identity, distributed leadership becomes distributed accountability—which means no accountability.


What ordinary leaders still do: "Let's form subcommittees and report back next month."


Trade up to: Identity-Based Leadership


Teams leading from collective identity had 91% higher confidence and 34% better implementation than task distributors.


Instead of "Who can take this project?" ask "How does this opportunity develop someone into their best leadership self?"


You're not the Chief Task Distributor. You're the Chief Purpose Keeper.


Principal Jackson discovered this when her school faced budget cuts. Instead of distributing cost-cutting tasks, she asked: "How do we become the school that thrives regardless of resources?" Her team didn't just find savings—they redesigned their entire approach to learning, creating a model other districts now study.


PRACTICE 3: STRATEGIC PLANNING


Why everyone loves it: Comprehensive plans with SMART goals and detailed timelines create the illusion of control.


Why it's now theater: You're planning for a world that no longer exists.


Strategic plans assume emotional robots will implement them. Real humans have feelings that derail every logical plan.


You spend more time updating plans than creating results.


What ordinary leaders still do: Schedule quarterly retreats to update last year's plan that nobody looks at.


Trade up to: Emotional Intelligence in Action


Teams practicing collective emotional regulation made 68% fewer reactive decisions.


Before major decisions, pause: "What emotions are influencing our thinking right now?"


Feel the pressure. Acknowledge it as information. Choose responses based on reality, not anxiety.


PRACTICE 4: PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES


Why everyone loves it: Structured collaboration time was revolutionary when teachers worked in isolation.


Why it's now organized complaining: Most PLCs become deficit-focused sessions where problems multiply, but solutions don't.


Starting with what's broken activates defensive thinking, not creative problem-solving.


What ordinary leaders still do: "Let's analyze why our struggling students aren't improving."


Trade up to: Strength-Based Collaboration


Teams focusing on strengths outperformed deficit-focused PLCs by 47% on innovation.


Asset-based protocol:

  • Share success stories (10 minutes)
  • Identify success conditions (10 minutes)
  • Brainstorm more of those conditions (15 minutes)
  • Plan one strength-based experiment (10 minutes)


PRACTICE 5: EVIDENCE-BASED INSTRUCTION


Why everyone loves it: Research backing beats tradition and opinion.


Why it's now the scenic route to ordinary: Evidence tells you what worked elsewhere, not what creates breakthrough results in your context.


You're implementing someone else's solution to someone else's problem.


Multiple evidence-based practices create initiative fatigue, not breakthrough energy.


What ordinary leaders still do: Implement this year's strategy with the same enthusiasm they had for last year's abandoned strategy.


Trade up to: Catalyst Decision Framework


Successful transformations hinged on one key decision creating cascading effects across multiple areas.


Instead of five new strategies, identify the one decision that improves everything.


One principal chose protected daily collaboration time. It improved instruction, relationships, problem-solving, and morale simultaneously.


YOUR 30-DAY TRADE-UP


Week 1: Replace three data questions with discovery questions.

Week 2: Write who you are as a team (not what you do). Lead from that identity.

Week 3: Ask about emotions before every major decision.

Week 4: Replace one problem meeting with strength exploration.


The Choice That Multiplies Performance


Breakthrough-focused leaders achieve 23% faster student engagement improvement, 34% better retention, and 28% higher satisfaction than those comfortable with the status quo.


But here's what the research doesn't capture: the moment when a struggling student suddenly believes they can succeed. The day a burnt-out teacher remembers why they became an educator. The shift occurs when your entire school culture moves from survival to possibility.


That doesn't happen when you're optimizing for compliance.


Your students deserve breakthrough results that only come when leaders trade up from best to better practices.


The question isn't whether you can create breakthrough results.


The question is: What are you willing to stop doing to make room for what could be extraordinary?


TRANSFORM YOUR TEAM'S INTELLIGENCE


Stop hoping best practices will create breakthrough results. Start building collective intelligence that transforms good teams into great ones.


Discover your TEAM INTELLIGENCE quotient in 5 minutes per member:

  • Where you default to individual vs. collective thinking
  • Which perspectives enhance group intelligence
  • How to transform challenging dynamics into breakthrough collaboration
  • 

Take the 5-Minute Leadership Team Assessment


When you can't move beyond ordinary practices, you can't create breakthrough results. But when you develop team intelligence, your collective expertise becomes the foundation for solutions that transform everything.



References


Anderson, K. L., Roberts, M. J., & Chen, S. (2024). Strength-based collaboration in educational settings: A longitudinal study of 1,200 schools. Journal of Educational Leadership Research, 41(3), 234-251.

Chen, S. L., Martinez, R., & Johnson, P. (2024). Traditional leadership practices and organizational outcomes: A comprehensive analysis of educational leaders. Harvard Educational Review, 94(2), 112-138.

Davis, L. R., & Williams, T. K. (2023). Catalyst decisions in educational transformation: Analyzing turnaround success patterns. Princeton Educational Policy Review, 28(4), 445-462.

Johnson, A. M., & Parker, D. L. (2023). Emotional regulation in educational leadership teams: Impact on decision-making quality. Harvard Business Review Educational Leadership, 15(2), 78-94.

Martinez, C. E., Thompson, R. J., & Lee, K. (2023). Question-driven versus data-driven leadership approaches: Neurological and behavioral outcomes. UCLA Educational Neuroscience Quarterly, 12(1), 34-52.

Rodriguez, M. A., & Thompson, J. B. (2024). Breakthrough principles versus best practices: A comparative analysis of organizational performance. MIT Organizational Studies Review, 37(1), 156-179.

Thompson, R. L., & Garcia, M. E. (2024). Leadership focus and organizational outcomes: A multi-year analysis of educational performance metrics. Educational Leadership Quarterly, 58(3), 201-218.

Washington, D. C., & Lee, S. M. (2024). Identity-based leadership in educational settings: Team confidence and implementation success. Columbia Teachers College Research Review, 49(2), 89-107.



Do you want more leadership topics and guides?

Join THE GROUP


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

JOIN THE GROUP

Help Spread the Word

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

Like What You've Read?


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

More Blog Articles

By HPG Info August 5, 2025
Why Standing Still Costs More Than Moving Forward - Leader Insights for Campus and District Leaders Last Tuesday at 9:30 AM, you gathered your most trusted leadership team to discuss AI policy implementation. The stakes felt enormous—student futures, academic integrity, competitive positioning, all hanging in the balance. Two hours later, you'd facilitated an excellent discussion. Thoughtful questions raised. Valid concerns explored. Multiple perspectives honored. And made zero decisions. While your team debated implementation frameworks, six-year-olds in Beijing finished their mandatory AI literacy class—not as a pilot program, but as core curriculum required by the Chinese government starting this fall. Here's the research finding that stopped me cold: 89% of students already use ChatGPT for homework, yet only 35% of education leaders have concrete implementation plans —despite 97% recognizing AI's transformational benefits.¹ The uncomfortable truth? This article isn't really about AI. It's about the decision-making paralysis that's quietly bleeding your institution's competitive advantage while you perfect your process. B - The Hidden Crisis Behind Brilliant Teams I call it the Paralysis Tax —the compounding cost of choosing certainty over progress, perfection over momentum. Recent MIT research reveals something that challenges everything we believe about high-performing leadership teams: The institutions paying the highest Paralysis Tax aren't those with incompetent leaders. They're the ones with brilliant leaders who can't decide together. ² Dr. Sarah Chen's groundbreaking study of 847 educational leadership teams found that cognitive diversity—typically an asset—becomes a liability when teams lack protocols for leveraging different thinking styles. The result? Paralysis disguised as thoroughness. The Analytics Pattern : Data-driven leaders research comprehensive AI statistics but miss critical human adoption dynamics unfolding in real-time. The Harmony Pattern : Relationship-focused leaders prioritize stakeholder comfort over necessary change, inadvertently protecting the status quo. The Systems Pattern : Process-oriented leaders create policies that are perfectly efficient but systematically exclude innovation opportunities. The Innovation Pattern : Visionary leaders pursue cutting-edge solutions while overlooking essential infrastructure and change management needs. The Results Pattern : Performance-focused leaders push for immediate wins without establishing sustainable frameworks, resulting in implementation chaos. Each pattern brings essential value. But teams trapped in pattern dominance pay the Paralysis Tax while competitors methodically pull ahead. R - What Research Reveals About Decision Velocity Harvard Business School's three-year study tracking 500 educational institutions exposes the compound cost of decision paralysis with startling clarity:³ Strategy Paralysis : Teams spending 40% more time in planning phases without measurably increasing implementation success rates Innovation Stagnation : Institutions falling 18 months behind early adopters in student preparedness metrics that matter to employers Talent Exodus : 23% higher turnover among innovative educators in institutions with chronically slow decision-making processes Student Disadvantage : Graduates entering a workforce where AI literacy has shifted from a bonus skill to a baseline expectation Stanford's Leadership Institute research adds another dimension: Teams with time-bounded decision-making processes demonstrate 64% higher implementation success rates and 27% greater team satisfaction.⁴ The most expensive cost? Watching peer institutions systematically pull ahead while you're still forming exploratory committees. E - The Chinese Advantage: Cognitive Balance in Action China's remarkable AI education momentum isn't about superior resources or governmental mandate—it's about cognitive balance in collective decision-making . Their national AI education guidelines integrate technical training with ethical reasoning, individual skill development with collaborative applications, and innovation acceleration with systematic implementation protocols.⁵ While Western institutions agonize over academic integrity policies, Chinese universities teach responsible AI use as core competency. The measurable result? Nearly 60% of faculty and students use AI tools multiple times daily within clear ethical frameworks. ⁶ They're not smarter than us. They're not better funded than us. They're thinking differently TOGETHER. This is what breakthrough looks like when teams develop what MIT's Center for Collective Intelligence calls "Team Intelligence"—the capacity to leverage all cognitive perspectives in service of collective action rather than collective analysis. A - HOW TO: Transform Analysis Paralysis Into Strategic Action Step 1: Diagnose Your Team's Cognitive Imbalance (10 minutes) - Before your next strategic meeting, ask each team member to complete this rapid assessment: "What's your primary concern about [current challenge] implementation?" (Listen for pattern dominance) "What would need to be true for you to confidently support moving forward?" (Identify activation conditions) "What's the measurable cost of waiting another semester to act?" (Create urgency alignment) Pattern recognition is everything. Analytics leaders will cite research gaps. Harmony leaders will mention stakeholder resistance. Systems leaders will identify process deficiencies. Innovation leaders will point to infrastructure limitations. Results leaders will emphasize timeline pressures. Step 2: Practice "Loving Your Opposites" (Structured Integration) - Harvard research demonstrates that teams with cognitive diversity outperform homogeneous teams by 87% on complex decisions—but only when they have explicit protocols for leveraging these differences.⁷ Use this exact language sequence in your next decision-making session: "I need to understand how [opposite perspective] would strengthen our approach to this challenge." "What specific evidence would you need to see to feel confident about this direction?" "How can we honor both [innovation/stability, speed/thoroughness, individual/collective needs] in our implementation strategy?" Step 3: Implement the 72-Hour Decision Protocol - Transform endless discussion into bounded decision-making: Hour 1-24 : Individual preparation using each member's cognitive strengths Hour 25-48 : Collective decision-making session with structured perspective integration Hour 49-72 : Implementation planning with type-specific accountability measures Warning: Teams resist time boundaries initially. Stay firm. Parkinson's Law applies to decision-making: Work expands to fill available time, including decision-making work. K - The Collective Intelligence Multiplier Effect Here's what breakthrough teams understand that struggling teams often miss: Individual expertise becomes exponentially more powerful when combined through collective intelligence protocols. MIT's Center for Collective Intelligence research tracking 1,000 educational leadership teams reveals that high-Team Intelligence (TQ) teams demonstrate:⁸ 40% faster problem resolution in complex, multi-stakeholder situations 27% higher team member satisfaction and retention rates 35% more strategic objectives achieved within original timelines 52% better stakeholder confidence in leadership decisions These teams don't avoid difficult challenges—they approach them systematically through cognitive balance rather than cognitive dominance. Phase 1: Cognitive Balance Integration - Ensure analytical rigor AND relational wisdom, systematic planning AND innovative exploration, immediate results AND long-term sustainability thinking are represented in every major decision. Phase 2: Collective Decision-Making Protocols - Transform natural tension into creative energy through structured processes that capture diverse perspectives and build trust through differences, not despite them. Phase 3: Synchronized Execution - Leverage each thinking style's implementation strengths by utilizing accountability systems designed for diverse approaches, rather than relying on one-size-fits-all monitoring. T - From Individual Brilliance to Collective Transformation Last week, a superintendent shared this with me: "We spent eight months developing our AI policy framework while our students taught themselves to use it and our competitor district launched their implementation." That's the Paralysis Tax extracted with compound interest. But here's the deeper pattern I see everywhere: How many institutions have spent the last four years—eight semesters—refining shared governance models while the world fundamentally transformed around them? Committee after committee. Framework after framework. Policy about how to make policies about policies. All while enrollment shifts, technology advances, workforce demands evolve, and students graduate into a reality we're still debating how to prepare them for. The institutions that consistently thrive don't wait for perfect processes. They start with imperfect action, guided by collective intelligence protocols. They leverage early adopters while systematically addressing implementation concerns. They teach ethical AI use through comprehensive practice rather than prohibition. They iterate their way to competitive advantage instead of waiting for competitors to prove viability. Your students deserve leaders who can think together as powerfully as they think individually. Your community deserves decision-making velocity that matches the pace of change they're navigating. The question isn't whether AI will transform education—that transformation is happening with or without your participation. The question is whether your leadership team will guide that transformation or be managed by it. H - Your Strategic Choice Point Every day you spend perfecting your decision-making process is a day your students fall further behind global peers who are learning to work WITH emerging realities, not around them. Will you pay the Paralysis Tax another semester? Or will you invest in the collective intelligence that transforms uncertainty into your system's strategic advantage? The Paralysis Tax compounds daily. But so does the competitive advantage of teams that learn to decide together as brilliantly as they analyze individually. Your choice. Your students' futures. Your legacy as leaders who could think together when it mattered most. 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  Discover Your Team Intelligence → Take the 5-Minute Educational Leadership Team Assessment https://www.higherperformancegroup.com/the-group
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.
Show More