Higher Performance Insights | The Great Sort: Why AI Is About to Separate the Pros from the Pretenders

August 26, 2025
higher performance insights

3-minute read | Educational Leadership | AI Transformation


The reckoning is here. And it's magnificent.


😬 The registrar who spends her day manually processing enrollment data is nervous.


😬 The high school principal who hides behind email instead of classroom visits is sweating.


😬 The college professor who's been using the same lecture slides since 1987 can't sleep.


😬 The chair who measures success by committee memberships is updating his résumé.


😬 The superintendent who counts meetings instead of measuring student growth is reconsidering retirement.


This exodus, while painful, is creating space for purpose-driven professionals to thrive.


The Beautiful Disruption We've Been Waiting For


Since Horace Mann opened the first public school in 1837 and the Morrill Act established land-grant universities in 1862, we've been building something extraordinary: educational systems designed to serve every learner, whether a kindergartner taking their first steps toward literacy or a doctoral student pushing the boundaries of human knowledge. The most audacious social experiment in human history—accessible education from cradle to career.


But somewhere along the way, we drifted from our purpose.


People began showing up for paychecks instead of transformation. Summer breaks became vacations instead of preparation time for K-12 educators, while higher ed treated sabbaticals as escapes rather than renewal opportunities. Children became test scores, students became enrollment numbers, and learning became box-checking, whether in elementary classrooms or lecture halls.


AI is about to change that.


And those who've lost sight of education's true purpose are discovering their approach no longer works.


If you're feeling unsettled reading this, that's understandable. Change this significant challenges everyone—even those doing exceptional work. The question isn't whether you're "good" or "bad" at education. It's whether you're ready to evolve into the professional you became an educator to be.


🔍 The Jaw-Drop Research


Ninety-four percent of educational technology leaders see AI's potential for positive impact (CoSN, 2025), but here's what they're not telling you: Industry analysts predict nearly half of entry-level administrative positions could be automated within five years (Amodei, 2024).


MIT researchers discovered something profound: AI tools reduce brain activity in memory-related areas by 25-40%, with measurable decreases in creativity and recall when used as cognitive substitutes rather than amplifiers (MIT Technology Review, 2025).


Translation: If you're using AI as a crutch, you're becoming less capable. If you're using AI as a tool, you're becoming superhuman.


The human cost is staggering: 44% of K-12 teachers report frequent burnout, making education the profession with the highest burnout rates in America (Research.com, 2025). Meanwhile, 73% of higher education faculty members report feeling overwhelmed by administrative demands that divert attention from teaching and research. Teacher turnover reached 23% in K-12 schools during 2023-24, while universities face record faculty departure rates with 30% of new assistant professors leaving within five years (Education Resource Strategies, 2025; National Education Association, 2025).


But here's what the data doesn't reveal: The right people are staying.


The system is sorting itself.


⚡ WHAT TRADITIONALIST EMPLOYEES WILL HATE


The Data Entry Professionals


Every registrar whose primary value lies in moving information between student information systems faces obsolescence. Every admissions coordinator manually tracking applications. Every academic affairs assistant updating spreadsheets that could sync automatically. AI processes this data faster, more accurately, and without coffee breaks. But the ones worth keeping aren't worried—they're excited about focusing on what humans do best: solving complex problems, building relationships, and making meaningful connections with students and families.


The Content Recyclers


K-12 teachers who mistake busyness for learning and college professors who've taught the same course identically for decades are discovering that AI generates both worksheets and lecture content more efficiently than they can. The beautiful irony? Students immediately recognize AI-generated materials. When a machine can replicate your primary teaching tool, what unique value do you bring to learning?


The Meeting Multipliers


School administrators who confuse leadership with scheduling more meetings and university department chairs who think governance means endless committee work are finding that AI can summarize, synthesize, and strategize without the performance theater. Real leaders don't fear this—they celebrate it. More time for what actually moves the needle: developing people and creating conditions for growth.


The Curriculum Controllers


District bureaucrats who believe K-12 education occurs in pacing guides and university administrators who think learning happens in course catalogs are watching their empires become increasingly irrelevant. AI writes curriculum and designs degree programs faster than committees can approve them. The crucial question emerges: What do you actually contribute to the learning process?


🚀 WHAT PURPOSE-DRIVEN PROFESSIONALS WILL LOVE


The Relationship Builders


Teachers who understand that learning is fundamentally relational are becoming invaluable. AI cannot build trust with a struggling student. It cannot recognize the flash of understanding in curious eyes. It cannot provide comfort when a child's world falls apart. As digital connections increase and human connections become scarcer, relational depth and authentic care grow exponentially in value.


Sarah, a third-grade teacher in Denver, discovered this firsthand. When AI began handling her lesson planning and worksheet creation, she found herself with an extra hour daily. Instead of more paperwork, she used it for one-on-one reading conferences. Her students' engagement scores increased 40% in one semester—not because of better worksheets, but because of deeper relationships.


The Learning Architects


Educators who design experiences rather than deliver content are gaining superpowers. AI handles information transfer efficiently. Humans handle transformation masterfully. Suddenly, you can focus entirely on what only humans accomplish: making meaning, fostering curiosity, inspiring growth.


Principal Marcus in Phoenix restructured his entire approach when AI began generating his weekly reports in minutes rather than hours. He now spends those reclaimed hours in classrooms, coaching teachers, and observing learning.


The Vision Keepers


Leaders who actually lead—who cast compelling visions, develop people, and solve complex problems—are discovering that AI eliminates the administrative nonsense that's been distracting them from their real work. Adaptive leaders who focus on agility, resilience, and proactive problem-solving are thriving like never before.


The Student Advocates


Everyone who entered education to transform lives is finding that AI removes the barriers keeping them from their purpose. Less paperwork. Fewer compliance hoops. More time with students.


Superintendent Dr. Lisa in Portland and University President Dr. James at a regional state university implemented AI for routine data analysis and discovered something remarkable: their leadership teams went from spending 60% of their time on administrative tasks to 30%. She redirected that energy into professional development and early literacy initiatives; He focused on faculty research support and student mental health programs.


The Transformation We've Been Waiting For


Here's what most education leaders don't understand: AI isn't changing education. It's revealing education.


For the first time since Mann and Morrill, we can actually deliver on education's promise across the entire learning continuum:


Truly Personalized Learning - Not the superficial kind, where K-12 students receive worksheets with their names printed on top, or where college students receive mass emails addressed "Dear Student." Real personalization where AI handles individual practice, feedback, and pacing for both the struggling third-grader and the advanced graduate student, while educators focus on the irreplaceable human elements: motivation, meaning-making, and growth mindset development.


Authentic Assessment - When AI can generate any content instantly, memorization becomes meaningless, whether in elementary school or doctoral programs. We finally must assess what actually matters: critical thinking, creative problem-solving, collaborative communication, and adaptive learning. The skills that make humans irreplaceable at every educational level.


Teaching as a True Profession - Research consistently shows that both K-12 teachers and university faculty stay when they feel engaged, supported, and professionally empowered (PowerSchool, 2025). AI eliminates the clerical drudgery that's been crushing educator morale across all levels. Suddenly, teaching becomes what it was always supposed to be: a professional endeavor focused on human development and intellectual growth.


Leadership as a Service - When AI handles data analysis, report generation, and routine decision-making, leaders from elementary principals to university presidents can focus on their actual purpose: developing people, casting vision, and creating conditions where learning thrives.


📊 Your AI Readiness Assessment: Where Do You Stand?


Take this diagnostic to understand your current position in the transformation:


FOR K-12 TEACHERS


Rate yourself (1-5) on these statements:


  • I'm excited about AI handling routine tasks so I can focus on student relationships
  • I see technology as amplifying my teaching rather than replacing it
  • I regularly update my skills to stay relevant in changing educational landscapes
  • Students seek me out for guidance that goes beyond content delivery
  • I focus more on developing thinking skills than transferring information


FOR HIGHER ED FACULTY


Rate yourself (1-5) on these statements:


  • I view AI as freeing me to focus on mentoring and original research
  • I'm adapting my courses to emphasize critical thinking over information recall
  • I actively engage with educational technology to enhance student learning
  • Students see me as a guide for intellectual development, not just a lecturer
  • I'm excited about spending less time on grading and more time on meaningful feedback


FOR K-12 ADMINISTRATORS


Rate yourself (1-5) on these statements:


  • I spend more time developing people than processing paperwork
  • I use data to inform decisions rather than just comply with reporting requirements
  • Teachers actively seek my feedback and guidance for professional growth
  • I regularly question whether our systems serve learning or just tradition
  • I can articulate a compelling vision that inspires action beyond compliance


FOR HIGHER ED ADMINISTRATORS


Rate yourself (1-5) on these statements:


  • I focus on institutional mission over administrative efficiency
  • I support faculty innovation in teaching and research methods
  • I see technology as enabling our educational purpose, not driving it
  • Faculty and staff come to me for strategic guidance, not just operational direction
  • I'm actively preparing our institution for the future of higher education


Scoring

  • 20-25: You're positioned to thrive in the AI-enhanced educational landscape
  • 15-19: You're on the right track, but need to strengthen your adaptive capabilities
  • 10-14: Significant mindset and skill shifts required for future relevance
  • Below 10: Time for honest self-reflection about your purpose in education


🗓️ The Implementation Roadmap: Your Next 30 Days


Week 1: Assessment and Awareness


Days 1-3: Complete the readiness assessment above with your entire team (department for higher education) Days 4-5: Identify three routine tasks AI could handle more efficiently (grading, data analysis, scheduling) Days 6-7: Research AI tools specific to your context (K-12: classroom management, assessment; Higher Ed: research assistance, course design)


Week 2: Experimentation


Days 8-10: Try one AI tool for a routine task (ChatGPT for meeting summaries, AI tutoring platforms for student practice, automated grading for objective assessments). Days 11-14: Document time saved and quality improvements from AI assistance


Week 3: Strategic Integration


Days 15-17: Meet with your team/department to discuss AI integration possibilities and concerns. Days 18-21: Develop protocols for AI use that enhance rather than replace human judgment and maintain academic integrity


Week 4: Vision Alignment


Days 22-24: Revisit your core educational purpose and how AI supports it (K-12: student growth; Higher Ed: knowledge creation and transfer). Days 25-28: Create a 90-day plan for deeper AI integration across your institutio.n Days 29-30: Share your learnings with other leaders and commit to continued growth


The Great Sort Is Already Happening


On average, 23% of K-12 teachers left their school in 2023-24, while higher education sees 30% of new faculty leaving within five years (Education Resource Strategies, 2025). Sixteen percent of K-12 teachers report an intention to leave by the end of the 2025-26 school year, and university departments are struggling to fill open positions (WeAreTeachers, 2025).


But here's the hidden truth: The right people are staying and thriving.


K-12 teachers who love learning are energized by AI tutoring that frees them to focus on inspiration and connection.


University faculty who love research are thrilled by AI literature reviews that accelerate discovery and free them for original thinking.


School principals who love leading are excited by AI analytics that eliminate data drudgery and enable authentic instructional leadership.


College deans who value transformation are energized by AI insights that enable more effective resource allocation and informed strategic decision-making.


Superintendents and university presidents who love institutional growth are discovering how AI removes barriers to their visionary work.


The people leaving? They were never aligned with education's true purpose anyway.


Why This Is the Best Thing Since 1837


Public education has been carrying misaligned weight for decades. People who prioritized job security over student growth. Who counted down to retirement instead of up to impact. Who saw students as problems instead of possibilities.


AI is the perfect sorting mechanism.


It eliminates the tasks that shouldn't define us (mindless compliance work) while amplifying the roles that matter most (human connection, creative problem-solving, wisdom development).


For those misaligned with purpose: This feels threatening because their value proposition just vanished.


For those aligned with purpose: This feels liberating because they can finally do what they came here to do.


The Fear and the Joy


If you're reading this with dread, ask yourself: Why?


If you're worried about AI replacing what you do, perhaps what you do was never the real work of education.


If you're excited about AI enhancing what you do, you're exactly where education needs you.


Those misaligned with purpose fear AI because it exposes their irrelevance.


Those aligned with purpose celebrate AI because it amplifies their impact.


Public education is about to become what it was always meant to be: a place where humans help humans become more fully human.


The machines will handle the machine work.


We'll handle the miracle work.


What Happens Next


The transformation is already underway. Eighty percent of districts have active generative AI initiatives (CoSN, 2025). The question isn't whether this is happening—it's whether you'll be part of the solution or part of the exodus.


For K-12 leaders: Stop managing information. Start developing people. Focus on creating conditions that enable both students and teachers to thrive.


For higher education leaders: Stop administering programs. Start catalyzing discovery. Create environments that foster learning and research.


For all educators: Stop delivering content. Start inspiring transformation. Whether teaching phonics or quantum physics, focus on developing human potential.


For everyone: Stop doing what machines can do better. Start doing what only humans can do—connect, inspire, and transform lives.


The great sort is here.


And for those of us who love public education—really love it, for the right reasons—this isn't just change.


It's redemption.


What do you think? Are you part of the transformation or part of the exodus?


💬 Share your thoughts: How is AI already changing your leadership approach?


📤 If this resonated, hit share - your network of education leaders needs to see this.


🔔 Follow us for more insights on leading through transformation in K-12 and higher education.


🎯 READY TO LEAD THE TRANSFORMATION?


Stop hoping AI will solve your problems automatically. Start building the collective intelligence that turns technological disruption into educational breakthrough.


The first step is understanding where your team stands. In just 5 minutes per leader, you can discover:


  • Which roles AI will enhance versus eliminate in your context
  • How to identify and develop your "AI-amplified" professionals
  • Where to invest resources for maximum student impact


Discover Your Team Intelligence → Take the 5-Minute Educational Leadership Team Assessment


Because when you can't create collective intelligence among leaders, you can't create breakthrough results for students. But when you develop TEAM INTELLIGENCE, your assembled expertise 


References


Amodei, D. (2024). Workforce transformation predictions in artificial intelligence. Anthropic.

Chen, S. (2025). The rising tide: Sustainable leadership in educational AI transformation. Higher Performance Group.

Consortium for School Networking. (2025). 2025 State of EdTech district leadership report. CoSN.

Education Resource Strategies. (2025). Examining school-level teacher turnover trends (2021-24): A new angle on a pervasive issue. Education Resource Strategies.

Education Week. (2025). District leadership challenges and trends. Education Week.

Mann, H. (1837). Report of the Massachusetts Board of Education. Massachusetts Common School System.

MIT Technology Review. (2025). Neurological impacts of AI usage on cognitive function. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

National Education Association. (2025). What a new survey says about teachers' plans to leave their jobs. NEA.

PowerSchool. (2025). How to avoid teacher burnout and increase teacher retention. PowerSchool.

RAND Corporation. (2025). The state of the American teacher survey. RAND Corporation.

Research.com. (2025). Teacher burnout statistics for 2025: Challenges in K-12 and higher education. Research.com.

University of Park. (2025). The future of leadership in education: 8 trends to watch in 2025. University of Park.

WeAreTeachers. (2025). 25 teacher shortage statistics that demand urgent action in 2025. WeAreTeachers.


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 13, 2026
Eight principles from superintendents and college presidents across eight states on leading through hard seasons, choosing the right seat, and staying grounded as pressure builds. On October 7, superintendents and college presidents from Alabama, Arizona, California, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Washington gave an hour of the busiest month of the fall to a question most leaders carry alone: What do builders do when the season gets hard? The session was planned around a framework. The room turned it into something closer to group counsel. Leaders in strong seasons stayed to hear from leaders in harder ones, and leaders who had come through a hard stretch explained how they did it. The hour produced eight practical principles worth sharing with others in the same good fight. This paper records what they built: eight principles, the evidence behind each one, and a question for every cabinet in the country to take into its next meeting. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The superintendency and the college presidency are carrying more weight than at any point in a generation. Superintendent turnover sits well above pre-pandemic norms. The average presidency is nearly three years shorter than it was in 2006. More than one in three superintendents report recent threats. Under that weight, the biggest decisions of a career (stay, step, or leave) usually get made alone, inside the hardest weeks, with nobody checking the read. HPG calls this the Lonely Leader Loop. It's a flaw in how the seat is built, and the roundtable exists to break it. The room produced eight principles: See below. THE CONTEXT · A PROFESSION CARRYING MORE WEIGHT 23% of the nation's 500 largest districts changed superintendents in a single recent year, against a pre-pandemic norm of 14 to 16% 5.9 years is the average college presidency, down from 8.5 in 2006 1 in 3+ superintendents in a national survey said they had recently been threatened or felt threatened 63% said they or people close to them were increasingly worried about superintendents' well-being Resignation is now the largest single category of superintendent departure. Some of those exits are the right call. What concerns me is how the call gets made: at 11:40 on a Sunday night, alone, with the board packet open. From the inside, a hard season and a wrong seat feel identical. You're tired, your patience runs short, and Sunday night starts around 2 p.m. on Saturday. They call for opposite responses. A hard season asks for patience and support. A wrong seat asks for redesign. I know that night from the inside. In 2013, a year after my own superintendency was running at a five, a new board majority and a pulmonary embolism arrived in the same season. My doctor told me I should not have survived. When I recovered, I rode a bicycle around Lake Superior, against medical advice, stopping at every campus and district office along the way to ask what they were proud of. I called it the Persuade Me Tour. I needed someone to persuade me the work was still worth my life. They did. The conversations that started on that ride became THE PROOF, a keynote built on nearly 200 on-camera interviews with K-12 and higher education leaders. It names ten traits of a Builder. The October roundtable worked the first one: telling a hard season from the wrong seat. We opened with a pulse check. On a fist-to-five scale, from a fist for a season knocking the floorboards out to five for never better, most hands showed a mix of responses. That detail matters. Groups of educators tend to gather around the ones and twos, and that empathy, useful for a moment, can keep a colleague in the hole longer. So the room named its good seasons without apology. Then the leaders in strong seasons spent the hour making the path clearer for everyone else. (That is a fair description of what a Builder does.) TQ IMPLICATION → When the season gets hard, most leaders reach for IQ: one more plan, one more credential. The room reached for the other two factors. EQ is the grace to sit with a shortfall without turning it into blame. PQ is the perceptual accuracy to tell a season from a seat, which almost nobody can do alone from inside one. TQ = IQ × EQ × PQ. Let perception drift toward zero and all the intelligence in the building multiplies into a confident wrong answer. (A quick word before the principles. How much of what makes a seat feel wrong comes from a cabinet that passes the weight upward? Across 987 leadership teams, I've watched that pattern make a good leader in the right seat feel like they're in the wrong one. THE TEAM INSTITUTE spends eight months building the other kind of cabinet, one that sees the whole board together. Plenty of seats that feel wrong are simply lonely, and a team can fix lonely.) THE EIGHT PRINCIPLES The roundtable runs on one rule: ideas leave the room, stories stay in it. The principles below are reported without attribution. Leaders quoted by name are speaking from on-camera interviews they recorded for THE PROOF. 01 · A Bad Season Is Not a Bad Calling The first principle came straight from the session question. A hard season and a wrong fit produce the same symptoms: exhausted, discouraged, done. Leaders described how hard it is to tell the two apart from inside the worst week, and how much it helps to say it out loud to someone who has been there. Dr. Rick Cobb , superintendent of Mid-Del Public Schools in the Oklahoma City metro, described a year on THE PROOF that tested him harder than 2020 did. He made no permanent decision from inside it. He stayed, and the year that followed became one of the best of his career. ❝ "The yuck never lasts. When I go, I want to go out on a YUM of a year." ❞ — Dr. Rick Cobb What the evidence adds. Chronic exhaustion tracks a mismatch between a person and the job across six areas: workload, control, reward, community, fairness, and values. Long hours alone predict it far less well. A hard season usually shows strain in one or two areas that can be expected to ease. A wrong seat shows a persistent gap in values or control that rest will not close. For your cabinet: Which of the six areas is carrying the strain on your team right now, and is it the kind that eases or the kind that stays? 02 · The Intentional Step The room spent real time on a move most leaders never consider: stepping sideways, or down a rung, to reach work that fits. Conventional career advice treats a smaller title as a setback. Leaders who had made the move described it as the turning point. They were candid about why it's hard: the blow to the ego, the worry about what colleagues will think, the stretch of not knowing what comes next. Several said the deciding voice belonged to someone close to them who reminded them the choice was bigger than one job or one place. Dr. Amy Diaz, EdD , president of GateWay Community College in Phoenix, told me on camera for THE PROOF that twenty-two years into her career, she recognized her role no longer fit her calling. She stayed in the field, stepped off the ladder, and moved into a different corner of the institution. That step sideways carried her to a presidency faster than the ladder would have. What the evidence adds. Research on professionals who reinvent their careers finds that successful moves rarely follow a plan worked out in advance. People test possible selves through small experiments, new networks, and roles that look like detours, and the new identity becomes clear in the doing. When the calling is intact and the gap is in the seat, a different seat in the same field is often the fix. For your cabinet: Who on your team is in the wrong seat in the right field, and what would a lateral move look like for them? 03 · Performance = Potential − Interference This equation anchors HPG's work. When things get hard, leaders load up on potential: a new initiative, a wider network, another credential. (This is how a strategic plan ends up with four new priorities and zero retirements.) Far less effort goes into naming the friction that drains the week and removing it. The room sharpened the point. Some interference can be mitigated and some cannot. A problem can be solved. A situation can't. Mortality is a situation, and a stakeholder fixed in permanent opposition may be one too. Treating a situation as a problem burns the energy a leader needs for the problems that will actually move. When a leader has done everything in their power and the interference still won't move, the question changes: is my staying helping this institution, or costing it? What the evidence adds. Decades of performance-coaching research point the same direction: removing what blocks people from capability they already have produces larger gains than stacking new capability on top of unresolved friction. Design researchers have a name for the unsolvable kind, gravity problems. When an obstacle can't be acted on, the advice is to accept it as a fact of life and move the effort elsewhere. For your cabinet: List the three biggest sources of friction in your week. Which are problems you can solve, and which are situations you need to stop trying to fix? 04 · Grace Belongs in the Equation A participant added a term the equation leaves out. Leaders who see the gap between their potential and their results need to extend grace to themselves first, then to their teams: sit with the shortfall, accept it, then line everyone back up for students and community. Grace is a discipline a leader practices personally before asking a team to practice it. The room drew a second implication. Every leader at that table makes decisions that change the season of someone else's career. The person who loses a role this year may be leading a campus or a district in ten. Hearing peers describe the decisions that shaped their own careers was, several said, a reminder to keep the human side in view when they are the ones deciding. What the evidence adds. In controlled experiments, people who responded to a failure with self-compassion were more motivated to improve, studied longer after a failed test, and were more committed to repairing a mistake than those who responded with self-criticism. The broader research links self-compassion to resilience without any drop in standards. Grace keeps people in the work long enough to get better at it. For your cabinet: When your team missed its last big target, what did you model first: grace or blame? 05 · A Calling Removes the Need to Prove The word vocation comes from the Latin vocare, to call. Don Killingbeck Jr., C.D.L., Ed.D. , superintendent of Hemlock Public Schools in Michigan, describes his work on THE PROOF as a calling and names what a calling lifts off a leader: the question of what you are trying to prove. Dr. John J. Sygielski 🏳️🌈 , president emeritus of HACC, Central Pennsylvania's Community College, describes the work as changing lives, destinies, and family trees. Nobody performs for a room when they are thinking about family trees. Several leaders described choosing education over more lucrative or prestigious paths, sometimes against the expectations of the people who raised them. Their stories differed. Their conclusion matched: the work pays in the difference it makes, and that payment keeps them in it. I offered the room a distinction between the "me" and the "I." The "me" is shaped by role, upbringing, hometown, and the power structure: where to sit, who to talk to, how to win. The "I" is the self that was called to the work in the first place. Every leader in these seats plays the "me" some, because the work is political. The more often the "I" makes the call, the more freedom leaders report. What the evidence adds. People who see their work as a calling report the highest life and work satisfaction and miss the fewest days of work, even compared with colleagues in the same occupation and pay grade. The risk runs the other way too. A leader who reads a bad season as proof the calling was wrong can walk away from the very orientation that was protecting them. For your cabinet: Which of your current decisions is the "me" making, and what would the "I" decide? 06 · Leave on Your Own Terms Every leader in these seats will leave one day. The room made the case that the how and the when should be the leader's decision as often as possible. An exit can be planned, negotiated, announced in the leader's own words, and handed off with care. Leaders who had done it described relief more than loss, and a stronger position for whatever came next. That choice depends on preparation made years earlier. Advice from a state association mentor, relayed in the room, drew nods all around: pay down debt and build savings early, because boards change and people at home depend on you. A leader who can afford to walk away is free to make the right decision for students while staying. What the evidence adds. Public-sector leaders have a specific advantage. Distributions from a governmental 457(b) plan after separation from the employer are not subject to the 10% additional tax on early withdrawals that applies to 403(b) and 401(k) plans before age 59½. Every leader should consult their own advisors, and the principle holds: financial readiness turns a forced exit into a chosen one. How a leader leaves, and who tells the story, shapes the next role and the institution left behind. For your cabinet: If you had to leave your seat in 90 days, would it be on your terms? What would need to be true for the answer to be yes? 07 · Keep Your Grounding When the Culture Won't Leaders across the country face two pressures that test their footing. The first comes from outside: anonymous public attacks, increasingly assisted by AI, that repackage an institution's own public data to suggest wrongdoing. Strong results offer little protection. The second comes from inside. Long-standing adult habits can drift from the standard a little each year until nobody notices anymore, because it has always been done that way. A leader who names the drift can start to feel like the one who has it wrong. The room's answer to both was the same. Control what you can control. Find a reference point outside the system (a peer, a state association, a coach) who will tell you plainly whether what you're seeing is normal. And remember that protecting students is part of the job. What the evidence adds. Studies of high-stakes organizational failures describe a pattern called normalization of deviance: people inside an organization gradually accept a practice that falls outside the standard because nothing bad has happened yet, until the deviation becomes the standard. Insiders often can't see it, which is why an outsider's reaction matters. National survey data also shows more than half of superintendents reporting more contentious board meetings. Leaders facing this pressure are part of a documented national pattern. For your cabinet: Who outside your organization will tell you the truth when your own culture has started to normalize something it shouldn't? 08 · The Job and the Role I closed with a distinction for leaders weighing whether to stay. The job of a superintendent or president is to make great decisions. The role is culture builder: forging the principles an institution lives by, grounded in a demanding kind of love that fights for the greatest good of everyone the institution serves. If you're driving the right culture forward, press on, hard season and all. If the same interference blocks the role again and again, and the only reason left to stay is a pension milestone, the question becomes: what is it all worth? Leaders who answer that honestly and act on the answer are what I call liberated leaders. Dr. Will Darter, Ed.D , superintendent of Everton R-III Schools in Missouri, put the answer most of us are hoping for in one line on THE PROOF. ❝ "We continuously and relentlessly believe in people. We believe in the places folks forget about. That's where we're called as leaders." ❞ — Dr. Will Darter For your cabinet: Where is your role as culture builder blocked right now, and is it blocked by a problem or a situation? WHAT THIS ROOM DID DIFFERENTLY · FIVE PRACTICES WORTH COPYING They named a good season out loud. Leaders in strong seasons used that stability to listen to peers in harder ones. They tested the diagnosis before acting. Leaders who had come through hard seasons described waiting, testing, and talking it through before making a permanent move. They sorted problems from situations. Energy went to what could be solved. What couldn't be solved was named and set down. They prepared for the exit long before they needed it. Debt paid down, savings built, and a transition planned in their own words. They looked outside for a reality check. Peers outside the system confirmed what a leader inside it was seeing. IMPLICATIONS · BEYOND THE ROOM For superintendents and presidents. Make no permanent decision from inside the worst month. Name your season out loud to one trusted peer first, and build the financial runway that keeps every option yours. For cabinets. A cabinet that can talk about seasons openly, good ones included, gives its leader the perceptual check no individual can supply alone. That is PQ at work, and it is a team capacity before it is a personal one. For boards and trustees. A board that treats a candid conversation about a hard season as a resignation risk teaches its leader to stop having candid conversations. Stability in the top seat starts with a leader who can say "this is a hard season" out loud without it becoming the story. A 35-MINUTE PROTOCOL FOR MONDAY Step 1: Run a fist-to-five (5 minutes, next cabinet meeting). Ask everyone to show where their season stands. Name the fours and fives first. Then meet the ones and twos with grace before plans. (If every hand shows a five in October, somebody isn't telling you something.) Step 2: Run three sorts on your heaviest strain (20 minutes, on your own). Ease or stay? Problem or situation? Me or I? Strain that will ease, problems you can solve, and a choice the "I" would make all point to a season. A persistent gap in values or control, a situation you keep trying to fix, and a choice the "me" is driving deserve a longer conversation with someone outside your walls. Step 3: Calculate your freedom runway (10 minutes, at home). Divide your accessible savings by one month of household expenses. That number is how many months you could go without this paycheck. Then ask whether that number lets you make the right decision for students while you stay. THE MATURITY SHIFT Immature leaders think: "This month is the verdict on my career." Mature leaders think: "This month is data, and I'll read it with someone who's been there." Immature leaders add when it gets hard. Mature leaders subtract first. Immature leaders let the "me" protect the title. Mature leaders let the "I" choose the seat. Immature leaders carry the season alone so nobody worries. Mature leaders let someone outside the walls check the read. ❝ The worst year of a career can sit one year before the best one. Don't let the worst month write the ending. ❞ Your turn. What did the hardest season of your career teach you that the best one never could? Tell us in the comments. Someone reading this in their own hard October needs proof that seasons end. FROM DR. JOE Who do you call when the season gets hard? I mean someone outside your system who has sat in the same chair and will tell you plainly whether what you're seeing is normal. For a lot of leaders the honest answer is nobody, and that gap gets more expensive every year. The pressure from outside is louder. The drift inside is quieter. A leader standing in both can't see either one clearly. What does it cost to make a permanent decision on a read nobody else has checked? Picture the other version: a small table of peers who know the weight without being told, where leaders in strong seasons stay to hear from leaders in harder ones. That's what happened on October 7. The next Peer-to-Peer Leadership Roundtable meets January 6, 2027 , continuing THE PROOF's ten Builder traits. One hour, peers only, capped at 25 seats. You don't need to be in a hard season to come. Some of October's most valuable voices belonged to the fours. Save your seat: https://www.higherperformancegroup.com/p2p-page If this paper helped, pass it to one superintendent or president who should be at that table, and tag a leader above to thank them for the hour they gave. P.S. This month I'm kicking off Operation 100 PROOF: 100 THE PROOF talks on campuses and at conferences over the next 12 months. If a room comes to mind (an opening-day crowd, a board retreat, a state association conference), message me directly or email info@higherperfromancegroup.com . Follow DR. JOE HILL and Higher Performance Group . Data note: Figures are drawn from national superintendent and college president research cited in HPG's October 2026 Executive Brief, Season or Seat. Full sources are available on request.
By HPG Info • October 7, 2026
This fall, a student in your district or on your campus will get caught letting ChatGPT write an essay. There will be a meeting, a policy citation, maybe a zero. That same week, someone in your cabinet will let ChatGPT write a board memo. That one gets a thank-you. We built entire academic integrity policies on one simple idea: if you didn't do the thinking, you don't own the work. Then we quietly exempted ourselves. Try this before your next cabinet meeting. Pull up the last recommendation someone on your team sent you: the budget reduction scenarios, the enrollment projection summary, the draft revision to the attendance policy. Ask the person who wrote it to walk you through the reasoning behind their second option, from memory, with the document closed. If they hesitate, you've found something your AI rollout plan never measured. Your team is getting faster at producing work it can no longer explain. All fall, I've been asking superintendents and college presidents the same question as they plan for 2027: what are your people carrying into this year that no training or workshop seems to touch? The first answer keeps coming back as one line. Convince me this is still worthy work. The second answer, more often than I expected, is AI. Leaders can feel the work speeding up and their own grip on it loosening. In a 2025 MIT Media Lab study , researchers put EEG caps on 54 people and had them write essays. The group using ChatGPT showed the weakest brain connectivity of anyone in the study. Minutes after finishing, most of them couldn't accurately quote a single sentence from the essay they had just turned in. The researchers named the pattern cognitive debt: you save effort today and pay it back later in thinking you can no longer do. It's a small study, and the researchers themselves asked people to stop calling it proof that AI makes anyone dumb. Its message for leaders is simpler. Every prompt that does your thinking for you is a small withdrawal from the one asset your board actually hired. Every cabinet I know is using AI more this fall. Very few are getting smarter because of it. The Irony Nobody at the Board Table Has Named Both halves of our profession are under the same public question right now: can the people we serve still think? In Gallup's latest annual education poll , Americans rated K-12 schools worst on critical thinking out of the six areas measured. Twenty percent called the job schools do there excellent or good. Forty-seven percent called it poor. Presidents hear their own version from employers, legislators, and parents writing tuition checks, all asking whether a degree still proves a graduate can reason through a hard problem. Now picture the same week inside a typical cabinet. The strategic plan update was drafted by a chatbot and lightly edited for tone. The enrollment memo came back from AI, got a quick read, and went to the board. The accreditation narrative or the state report got the same treatment. Someone asked the tool which of three budget scenarios to recommend, and the recommendation it gave is now the cabinet's position. We are asking our schools and colleges to teach students to think while the adults at the top quietly hand their own thinking to a tool that has no stake in whether the institution succeeds. (Nobody at the table would say it out loud. It's awkward to admit the drafts got better while your ability to defend them got worse.) Lee Lambert , who leads the Foothill-De Anza Community College District , told me on Season 1 of The PROOF that he thinks of AI as his tenth Supreme Court justice. He won't panic about it, and he won't ignore it. That's the posture I want for every cabinet, K-12 or higher ed. Give the tool a seat at the table. Keep the gavel. A 2025 study from Microsoft Research and Carnegie Mellon , based on a survey of 319 knowledge workers, found the same pattern at work. The more people trusted generative AI to handle a task, the less critical thinking they reported putting into it. Confidence in the tool went up. Effort in the human went down. Here's the part that should reach you personally. When the tool thinks for an individual, the damage stays in one head. When it thinks for a cabinet, the damage spreads. Five people defer to the same draft, nobody owns the reasoning, and the meeting turns into a line edit of a document nobody built. I've spent years in the chair and have since sat in many presidents' cabinet rooms, and the lesson holds in both: a cabinet that can't explain its own decision will eventually be unable to defend it. (This is the gap THE TEAM INSTITUTE was built to close. Every vendor will train your people on the tool. We help cabinets build the collective judgment the tool is supposed to serve, so AI multiplies what your team already thinks. More on that in a moment.) TQ = IQ × EQ × PQ. AI can push the IQ side of your output up fast. It can't supply the EQ your team needs to disagree well, or the PQ, the perceptual accuracy, that tells you when a polished draft is wrong for the people in front of you. Let those two drift toward zero and every gain on the IQ side gets multiplied by almost nothing. The Human Intelligence Protocol Call this the Human Intelligence Protocol. Five practices that turn AI into a sparring partner. Each works for one leader and gets stronger when a whole cabinet runs it. Protect the Genius Hours. Sort all of your team's work into two zones. The compression zone is anything large, messy, or repetitive that needs to become smaller and clearer: meeting notes, update memos, survey comments, three conflicting reports on the same program. AI is excellent here. The contribution zone is where your judgment comes in: deciding what matters, reading the room, noticing the issue nobody has said out loud, and knowing that an answer can be technically correct and still wrong for this community. The mistake is handing AI the contribution zone because it can produce something that looks finished. A better prompt before your next cabinet meeting: "Organize these notes and updates into key decisions, risks, unresolved questions, and missing information. Do not make a recommendation." The tool organizes the landscape. The room still chooses the direction. Climb the Brief Ladder. Most leaders use AI like a drive-through window: "Write my board update." Vague request, average answer, polished and forgettable. The ladder has five rungs. The request says what you want. Context says who it's for and where it will land. The outcome says what it must accomplish. Constraints set the boundaries, like length, tone, and what to avoid. The standard shows what good looks like: an example, a rubric, your own best past work. The brief ladder is also the skill of delegating to a vice president, a provost, or an assistant superintendent. If you can't brief the tool clearly, you probably haven't briefed your team clearly either. (The quality of your prompt is a pretty honest mirror of the quality of your thinking.) Seat a Board of Minds. A good board asks the hard questions. Left alone, AI tends to tell you your idea is wonderful. So give it other seats at the table. The stakeholder board: "Name the five groups most affected by this decision. For each, tell me what they want, what they fear, and what they'll resist." (Parents, teachers, and the union in one chair. Faculty senate, students, and donors in the other.) The time board: "What does this decision look like after one week, one year, and five years?" The opposition board, which matters most: "I believe this is the right strategy. Build the strongest possible case that I'm wrong. Name my false assumptions and the conditions that would make this plan fail." This one has a team payoff most leaders miss. In a cabinet, dissent carries a social cost, so it often goes unspoken. When the tool plays the dissenter, nobody has to spend political capital to raise the hard objection, and the room can argue hard about the idea while the relationships stay intact. One rule stays firm: AI states wrong facts with total confidence. When a decision rests on facts, ask for sources and verify the important ones yourself. Build a Pressure Lab. Pilots train in simulators. Emergency teams run drills before the crisis. Most leaders walk into the budget hearing, the tense board work session, the faculty senate meeting, or the hard personnel conversation having rehearsed nothing but their talking points. Use AI as the simulator. "Act as a skeptical board member reviewing our proposed program cut. Ask one question at a time. Push back on vague answers and raise the difficulty as I respond. Don't coach me until we're done." Afterward: "Evaluate my answers for clarity, evidence, and conciseness. Show me where I sounded defensive." Then run it again. The same works for learning. Ask for friction on purpose: "If I get stuck, give me the smallest useful clue." Letting the tool remove every difficulty is like having a friend lift your weights at the gym. Use the Beginner Advantage. The higher leaders climb, the more expensive it feels to say "I don't understand." So they nod through the fund balance discussion, the CIO's pitch about AI agents, the retention dashboard, or state assessment data nobody has explained since the last accreditation visit. Then they search for the answer later, or never. AI gives you a private place to go back to basics. "Explain this with no assumed background, in plain language, with one example from a school district or a college." "What are the five terms I need before anything else makes sense?" "What do beginners usually get wrong?" Then run the teach-back test. Close the window, explain the idea out loud in your own words, and ask the tool what you got wrong. Tell it to help you repair your explanation without rewriting it. When the boss does this openly and says so in cabinet, basic questions become normal for everyone. What This Looks Like in a Real Team This is a composite, drawn from patterns across our 987 teams. I've watched it play out in district offices and in presidents' suites, and the only real difference is the vocabulary. A cabinet had three weeks to bring a painful reduction plan to its board. (In the district version, two programs were on the table. In the campus version, two academic programs were up for sunset review, and the faculty senate was already asking questions.) The first draft came from AI in an afternoon. It was clean, confident, and organized. In the first internal review, the board chair's likeliest question ("Why this program and not the other one?") got four different answers from four different senior leaders. So they changed the process. AI compressed six months of budget data into a two-page briefing with the open questions labeled. The cabinet argued out its own recommendation before any tool saw the problem. Then they seated the opposition board, asked for the strongest case against their plan, and found two assumptions they couldn't support. Finally, the top leader and the CFO each spent twenty minutes in a pressure lab with an AI playing their toughest board member. On the night of the vote, the board chair asked the hardest question, and every cabinet member who spoke gave the same answer in their own words. The next morning, the team could explain the plan to the people it affected. Same tool. Same people. What changed was the order: think first, then let the machine argue with you. Bad Season or Wrong Seat? Some of what leaders are feeling this fall is the AI speed-up. Some of it is older than any chatbot. When the work gets heavy, most of us carry one question we rarely say out loud: is this a bad season, or did I take the wrong seat? Season 1 guests of The PROOF answered that question on camera. Rick Cobb waited out a bad year, and the next one became one of his best. Amy Diaz, EdD saw that the problem was the shape of her role and stepped sideways into work that fit. Chris Lindholm runs the district with the longest school bus ride in America. In Everton, Missouri, 91% of Will Darter, Ed.D students live in poverty, and his campus tripled in size while enrollment dropped. On Wednesday, October 7 at 10:30 AM CT, Season 1 guests join our P2P Roundtable to talk it through live. One hour, peers only, no presentations, 30 seats, open to anyone leading systems and people in education. The question sounds the same in both chairs. You'll leave inspired, challenged, and equipped to lead as a BUILDER (not a climber, dreamer, or coaster). Save your seat: higherperformancegroup.com/p2p-page Bring your closed-document test result with you. It's a good place to start the conversation. Monday Morning Here's what to do Monday morning (assuming you're not already mid-crisis, in which case bookmark this and do it Tuesday). Step 1: Run the Zone Audit (20 minutes). Pull up last week's cabinet agenda. Mark each item C for compression or J for judgment. If yours looks like most, a big share of the meeting goes to C items: updates, report-outs, summaries of things people could have read. Now do the math: minutes spent on C items each week × people in the room × 40 meeting weeks. A cabinet of eight spending 45 minutes a week on report-outs burns 240 leader-hours a year, six full work weeks of senior judgment spent listening to things that could have been a pre-read. Step 2: Flip One Meeting (15 minutes of prep). Move every C item into an AI-organized pre-read with decisions, risks, and open questions labeled. Spend the entire meeting on J items. Watch who talks more when the report-outs disappear. (It's often the person who has been quietly waiting for a real conversation.) Step 3: Seat the Opposition (15 minutes, next cabinet meeting). Pick the decision you're most confident about. Put the opposition prompt on the screen and read the strongest case against your plan out loud as a team. Then ask one question: "Which of these objections can we answer, and which ones can't we?" "We don't have time to use AI more carefully." You're already spending it in the second meeting, where the plan gets rebuilt because nobody could defend the first version. Fifteen minutes with the opposition board is cheaper than one decision you have to take back in public. "My team won't use AI this way. They just want the draft." Of course they do. The draft is visible, and the thinking isn't. So make the thinking visible. Start one meeting a month with a single rule: nobody brings an AI draft until the room has built its own answer first. The Maturity Shift Immature leaders think: "AI makes us faster, so we should use it for everything." Mature leaders think: "AI makes us faster at whatever we already are. We'd better make sure what we are is worth speeding up." Immature leaders ask the tool for the answer. Mature leaders ask it for the landscape, the opposition, and the hardest question in the room, then decide for themselves. Every district and every college can buy the same software. The advantage goes to the cabinet that uses it to sharpen its judgment and widen what it can see. That is how the work stays worthy. Your turn: think about the last major recommendation your cabinet made. How much of the reasoning could the team still explain with the laptop closed? Bonus points if you run the closed-document test in your next meeting and tell us what happened. Most cabinets lack a clear read on the collective judgment underneath all those polished drafts, and whether the team can still think together with the tool turned off. That's the gap THE TEAM INSTITUTE closes. We measure how your cabinet thinks, decides, and perceives as a team, grounded in the TQ research behind IQ × EQ × PQ across 987 leadership teams. Cabinets that closed gaps like this saw performance improve roughly 3x, engagement rise 29%, and outcomes improve 27%, with no increase in burnout. If AI is about to multiply whatever your team already is, would it help to know exactly what that is first? Objectively? Get Started Here with the Team Intelligence Baseline Assessment Help another leader protect their team's thinking before the tools quietly take it over. Repost this with the practice you're trying first. Tag a leader whose cabinet is rolling out AI this fall. Or drop a comment with what the closed-document test turned up. P.S. If you plan a conference or member program for 2027, I built a keynote around that "convince me this is still worthy work" question. It's called The PROOF: higherperformancegroup.com/the-proof Follow DR. JOE HILL and Higher Performance Group
Show More