Higher Performance Insights | THE SOLUTIONARY GIFT

December 29, 2025
higher performance insights

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 2026

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


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


You know exactly what happened two weeks ago: Approved holiday budget. Catered lunch. Personalized gifts. Team photos made LinkedIn. "Great culture!"


And you know exactly what's waiting in 8 days:


Your VP of Student Affairs will schedule a "quick alignment call" before bringing her residential life staffing change to cabinet. Your CFO will want to "preview budget concerns" over coffee. Your Provost will need to "discuss implications" in a one-on-one.


Then you'll spend 90 minutes in cabinet debating something that's really just one person's decision. Two weeks later, you still won't have a decision. You'll have scheduled three more meetings.


For K-12: Your curriculum director will seek pre-meetings before proposing textbook adoptions. Your cabinet will spend 3 hours debating facility use requests that should take 15 minutes.


For Higher Ed: Your deans will seek one-on-ones to "align on messaging." Your cabinet will debate technology purchases that don't require consensus while avoiding strategic decisions that do.


Here's the uncomfortable question that should define these next 8 days:

What if the gift your team actually needs isn't something you bought in December—it's clarity about who decides what starting January 5th?


What if instead of bonuses spent by February, you spent January creating explicit agreements about which decisions require consensus and which decisions just require communication?


You're calculating that 2026 could be another year of talented people wasting 18 hours monthly in consensus theater for decisions that shouldn't require consensus.


You have 8 days to decide.


(This pattern—ambiguity about decision authority creating meeting cascades—is why I created the TEAM INTELLIGENCE framework with our work across 987 leadership teams. But I'm getting ahead of myself.)


Comment "SOLUTIONARY 2026" below if you're done with pundit leadership and ready to build differently starting January 2nd.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


💡 UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH: "Your team doesn't need another catered lunch. They need to know whether they can change residential life staffing without 4 meetings, or if that requires full cabinet consensus. Appreciation that doesn't address ambiguity is just expensive guilt management."


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


Comment "GUILTY" if your team spent 2+ hours last month debating a decision that should have taken 15 minutes.


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


THE FRAMEWORK: WHY DECISION AMBIGUITY IS KILLING YOUR 2026


THE PUNDIT PATTERN: Appreciation Without Authority


Your VP of Student Affairs has a residential life staffing change. Should take 15 minutes to communicate. Instead:

→ Monday 6:30 AM: Pre-meeting with you to "get alignment" (45 minutes) → Tuesday morning: Coffee with CFO to "preview budget implications" (30 minutes) → Tuesday cabinet: 90 minutes debating something that's really her decision → Wednesday: CFO has "concerns he didn't raise in the meeting" (30 minutes) → Two weeks later: Still no decision, three more meetings scheduled


Total time wasted: 8+ hours across multiple people = 32+ person-hours

For what? A staffing change within her budget that doesn't require policy changes.


Why did this happen? Because nobody knows if this is:


  • MY DECISION (She decides, she informs the team)
  • OUR DECISION (We discuss until consensus)
  • YOUR DECISION (Someone else's authority)


In the absence of clarity, everything defaults to consensus-seeking. And consensus-seeking on operational decisions is how you waste 480 hours annually per cabinet member.


Your team felt appreciated December 20th. By January 15th, they'll wonder why they still can't make simple decisions without playing meeting roulette. By March, they're updating LinkedIn. By June, your best people are interviewing elsewhere.


They're not leaving because you didn't appreciate them. They're leaving because talented people don't want to attend 4 meetings for decisions that should take 15 minutes.


THE SOLUTIONARY SOLUTION: The Gift of Decision Rights Clarity


What it is: Explicit agreements about who has authority to make which decisions and what level of input is required.


THE THREE CATEGORIES


MY DECISION (I Own This, I Inform You)


  • I have final authority to make this call
  • I might seek your input, but I'm not required to
  • I'll communicate what I decided and why
  • You can voice concerns, but you can't block it


Example: "I'm reorganizing my direct reports = MY DECISION. I'll inform cabinet before announcing, but this is my call as CEO."


YOUR DECISION (You Own This, You Inform Me)


  • You have final authority within your domain
  • You may seek cabinet input, but you're not required to
  • You'll communicate what you decided and why
  • I can voice concerns as your supervisor, but unless it crosses policy/budget/ethics boundaries, I trust your expertise


Example: "You're choosing which CRM system Student Affairs uses = YOUR DECISION. You live with the consequences daily. You know the workflows. You pick. Just tell me what you decided."


OUR DECISION (We Own This Together, Consensus Required)


  • This fundamentally affects multiple portfolios and cannot execute without genuine buy-in
  • We need everyone's wisdom and commitment
  • We discuss until we reach genuine agreement, not performative compliance
  • If consensus fails, I make the final call after fully considering all perspectives


Example: "Changing our 5-year strategic priorities = OUR DECISION. This shapes everyone's work, budgets, and success metrics. We need genuine consensus because we all execute together."


Key principle: OUR DECISIONS should be rare—reserved for truly cross-functional strategic matters, not operational decisions dressed up as strategic because we're conflict-averse.


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

🎓 FOR HIGHER ED: WHEN SHARED GOVERNANCE SERVES THE MISSION


I've seen shared governance models that work beautifully. They all follow this pattern:


Academic Decisions: Faculty have primary authority (curriculum, academic standards, faculty evaluation). Clear boundary. No administrative interference.


Strategic Decisions: Genuine collaboration (institutional direction, budget priorities, enrollment strategy). Both sides at the table as equals = OUR DECISION.


Operational Decisions: Administration has authority (vendor selection, administrative staffing, operational processes). Faculty informed, not consulted.


The models that fail? Unclear boundaries. Everything requires consultation. "Shared governance" becomes "shared veto power."


Rate your shared governance model honestly:


⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5-STAR: Clear boundaries respected by all parties. Faculty authority over academic matters. Administrative authority over operations. Genuine collaboration on strategy. Decisions move at market speed while honoring academic integrity.


⭐⭐⭐ 3-STAR: Boundaries exist but blur in practice. Most decisions eventually happen, but require exhausting consultation cycles. Functional but inefficient.


1-STAR: "Shared governance" means "shared paralysis." Everything requires consultation from constituencies that don't live with consequences. Competitors are outpacing you while you're in your fourth committee meeting about campus visit scheduling.


The uncomfortable truth: Shared governance started on firm principle—protecting academic freedom and faculty expertise. That principle still matters.


But when shared governance means your VP of Enrollment can't change campus visit formats without faculty senate weighing in, you've lost the plot.


The principle was never "faculty input on everything."


The principle was "faculty authority over academic matters and genuine voice in strategic direction."


The institutions that honor that principle? They move at market speed while maintaining academic integrity.


The institutions that confuse principle with process? They're trapped in 14-committee consultation cycles while competitors serve students better.


Your mission to serve students matters more than adhering to a process that's lost its way.


Map your boundaries. Honor the principle. Serve the mission. Be a Solutionary. Solve the problem.


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


THE CASE STUDY: SARAH'S 3-HOUR SESSION THAT RECLAIMED 672 HOURS


College president, 8,500 students, 7-person cabinet.


December 2024: Holiday gifts (~$1,200). Team satisfaction: High (for 48 hours). System change: Zero.


The Pattern: Her VP of Enrollment wanted to change campus visit schedule format. Operational change. Within budget. No policy changes required.


Should have taken: 1 email (5 minutes)


What happened: Pre-meeting with president (45 min) + coffee with provost (30 min) + cabinet meeting (75 min) + post-meeting with CFO (30 min) = 180+ minutes across multiple people


Sarah watched this repeat monthly. Different decision, same dysfunction. 26 hours weekly in meetings, 40% spent seeking consensus on decisions that shouldn't require it.


December 27, 2024: Sarah made a choice.


"I can spend 2025 watching my VPs waste 480 hours each seeking unnecessary consensus, or I can spend 3 hours in January mapping decision rights."


January 6, 2025: The 3-Hour Session


Sarah listed their 25 most common decision types:


  • Budget reallocation between divisions
  • Academic program changes
  • Enrollment strategy elements
  • Operational changes within divisions
  • Technology purchases
  • Staffing decisions
  • Marketing approaches
  • Policy updates


For each, they debated: MY DECISION | OUR DECISION | YOUR DECISION


The Campus Visit Decision: After 15 minutes: "Operational changes within a VP's division that stay within budget = YOUR DECISION. That VP of Enrollment decision was HER decision all along. We wasted 7 person-hours seeking consensus on something that just needed communication."


What Changed Immediately:


Week 1: VP of Student Affairs sent 1 email: "Housing policy enforcement update = MY DECISION per our framework. Implementation next week."


Week 2: CFO moved $75K between budget lines with 1 email: "Budget reallocation within my portfolio = MY DECISION."

Week 3: Provost brought general education pilot to cabinet with explicit request: "This affects multiple divisions = OUR DECISION. I need consensus." Cabinet spent 90 minutes on something that genuinely required collective wisdom.

The 2025 Results:


→ Cabinet meetings: 3.5 hours → 90 minutes → Pre-meetings dropped 58% → Decision velocity: 5 weeks → 1.5 weeks → 672 hours reclaimed annually (84 eight-hour days) → Trust scores: 3.9 → 8.1 out of 10 → Enrollment: +4.3% (peers declined 2.1%) → Zero VP turnover (lost two VPs in 2024)


Sarah: "The cool swag I gave my team in December 2024 was put in the drawer by March. But those 3 hours mapping decision rights? That's been compounding value every single week for eleven months. My VPs can actually DO their jobs now instead of seeking permission for decisions that were always theirs."


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

THE MATURITY SHIFT: FROM APPRECIATION TO AUTHORITY

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


Immature leaders give December gifts that expire by December 26th. Mature leaders give January clarity that compounds all year.


Immature leaders think: "I showed appreciation, we're good." Mature leaders think: "I gave them authority to do their jobs."

Immature leaders let talented VPs waste 480 hours annually seeking unnecessary consensus. Mature leaders spend 3 hours mapping decision rights so VPs can move at market speed.


The difference? One makes people feel valued for 48 hours. One makes people feel trusted for 365 days.


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Download the free Team Intelligence whitepaper with the complete Decision Rights Mapping protocol:

https://www.higherperformancegroup.com/team-intelligence-assessment

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


HERE'S WHAT TO DO IN THE NEXT 8 DAYS


STEP 1: THE DECISION AUDIT (30 MINUTES - TODAY)

Review last 3 months of cabinet meetings. List every significant decision.

For each one:


  • How many meetings did this require?
  • How much pre-meeting lobbying happened?
  • Could this have been someone's unilateral decision with just communication?


If you find 5 decisions that wasted 4+ hours seeking unnecessary consensus, you've identified 20+ hours you can reclaim in 2026. That's 240+ hours annually. That's 6 work weeks per person.


STEP 2: BLOCK THE TIME (5 MINUTES - TODAY)


Right now. Pull up your calendar.


Find 3 hours on January 6th or 7th.


Title: "Decision Rights Mapping: The Gift of Clarity"


Invite the entire cabinet.


Description: "We're spending 3 hours mapping which decisions require consensus (OUR) and which just require communication (MY/YOUR). This eliminates 40% of our meeting time in 2026. Come prepared to debate. This is the most valuable 3 hours we'll spend all year."


Send the invite TODAY. If you wait until January 2nd, it will never happen.

STEP 3: PREPARE YOUR DECISION TYPES (30 MINUTES - BY DEC 30TH)

List your 15-25 most common decision types. Use these categories:


  • Budget decisions
  • Program/curriculum changes
  • Staffing and hiring
  • Operational changes within divisions
  • Technology and infrastructure
  • Policy updates
  • Marketing and communications
  • Facility decisions
  • Strategic priorities


Email the list to your cabinet December 30th:


"Attached: Our most common decision types. January 6th we'll categorize each as MY/OUR/YOUR DECISION. Review beforehand. Come ready to debate. This is how we reclaim 480 hours per person in 2026."


STEP 4: THE COMMITMENT EMAIL (SEND JANUARY 2ND)


Draft now. Send January 2nd:


Subject: The Gift I Should Have Given You in December


"Team, the holiday gifts I gave you expired in 48 hours. The gift you actually needed? Clarity about who decides what.

I've watched us spend 8+ hours debating decisions that should take 15 minutes. I've watched you seek permission for decisions that were always yours. That ends January 6th.


We're spending 3 hours mapping Decision Rights. Which decisions are yours to make independently. Which require consensus. Which belong to someone else's domain.


This isn't another meeting. This is authority to actually do your jobs.


Come prepared to debate. By January 7th, you'll know exactly which decisions you can make in 15 minutes instead of 4 meetings.


That's the gift.

[Your name]"

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


💡 "The gift your team actually needs isn't appreciation that expired yesterday. It's authority to make decisions at the speed 2026 demands. That's the difference between feeling valued for 48 hours and feeling trusted for 365 days."


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


YOUR TURN


Before you close this newsletter:


  1. How many hours did your cabinet waste last month debating decisions that should have taken 15 minutes?
  2. What's ONE decision your team will face in January that could take 15 minutes (with decision rights mapped) or 8+ hours (without)?
  3. What's stopping you from blocking 3 hours on January 6th RIGHT NOW?


Drop answers in comments. Tag a campus leader who spent 2025 watching talented people waste time in consensus theater.

Or text your assistant NOW: "Block 3 hours January 6th. Title: Decision Rights Mapping. Invite entire cabinet. Non-negotiable."


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


🎯 VIP INVITATION: EXCLUSIVE ROUNDTABLE - MARCH 4TH, 2026

Limited to 20 Superintendents & College Presidents


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


For campus leaders who map decision rights in January and want to go deeper:

We're exploring: → How the first 60 days actually went (real stories, not polished versions) → Which decisions generated the most debate and why → How to handle when people revert to consensus-seeking → Advanced frameworks for complex decisions → Peer learning from 20 leaders who made the same choice

Details:


  • 90-Minute Intensive (10:00 AM - 11:30 AM CST)
  • Complimentary for qualified leaders
  • Prerequisite: Must complete Decision Rights Mapping in January 2026


Email info@higherperformancegroup.com by February 4th with:


  1. Name, title, institution
  2. Confirmation you completed Decision Rights Mapping
  3. One early result: "Our VP of ____ made a decision in 15 minutes that would have taken 4 meetings in 2025"


Not ready for March? Subscribe to TEAM INSIGHTS. Get your free implementation guides:


https://www.higherperformancegroup.com/blog

This week's resource: "Decision Rights Mapping Facilitation Guide" with session script, pre-populated decision types, and implementation checklists.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

YOUR MOVE


Found this valuable?


Repost: "In 2025, my team wasted [X] hours in unnecessary consensus-seeking. In 2026, we're mapping decision rights on January 6th."


Tag a campus leader who needs this before January 2nd


Comment: What's the most ridiculous amount of time your team spent seeking consensus on a decision that should have taken 15 minutes?


Follow DR. JOE HILL and Higher Performance Group

Follow Michael Mathews and Oral Roberts University


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━



P.S. - THE CHOICE EVERY SOLUTIONARY MAKES

The gap between breakthrough and breakdown in 2026 isn't talent, budget, or board support.


It's whether you spend 3 hours in January mapping decision rights—or spend 480 hours per person in 2026 seeking unnecessary consensus.


Your team is watching what you do in January, not what you said in December. They're seeing whether you're willing to give them authority to actually do their jobs.


Right now—in these 8 days—you get to choose.


Block the time. Send the email. Map the decision rights. Give the gift that actually matters.


Your 2026 breakthrough depends on what you do before January 2nd.


May you choose to become a solutionary.


May you use these days to give your team clarity, not just appreciation.


May your 2026 be the year your talented leaders finally got to do their actual jobs.


Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and may 2026 be your solutionary year.



—Joe & Michael



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 December 10, 2025
Builder Insights from December's Peer-to-Peer Roundtable 2.9 million students walked away from traditional education in the last decade. Not because they hate learning. Because they discovered something educational leaders are just now admitting to each other in private Zoom rooms. Last Wednesday, a college president stood up (metaphorically—we were on Zoom, but you could feel him standing) and said something that made every superintendent in the room physically lean forward: " We have become habituated to viewing educational leadership through filters—analogous to social media platforms where individuals present curated identities disconnected from reality. Trinity Valley was profoundly guilty of this pattern—appearing to external audiences as an institution meeting mission while internally delivering bare minimum performance."  Jason Morrison, Ed. D. , President of Trinity Valley Community College in Texas, just named the thing everyone in educational leadership feels but nobody says out loud. Welcome to the Snapchat Filter Effect. Your institution looks great in the photos. The reality? That's a different story. And here's why this matters right now, today, in December 2025: 1.7 million students lost in higher education since 2014. 1.2 million departed K-12 since 2019. Combined, that's roughly the population of New Mexico—students who didn't disappear, they just opted for educational providers who weren't performing behind a filter. The market already delivered its verdict. The only question is whether educational leaders will respond with the courage this moment demands—or keep adjusting the filter settings while enrollment evaporates. Comment "FILTER" if this describes your institution right now. (I'll go first in comments. Yes, I've been guilty of this too.)
By HPG Info December 2, 2025
When Ancient Wisdom Calls Out Your Cabinet Meeting Three thousand years ago, King Solomon looked at lazy people and said, "Go watch the ants work. Maybe you'll learn something." Harsh? Maybe. Accurate? Absolutely. But here's what Solomon didn't know—and what your leadership team desperately needs to understand: The ant's genius isn't that it works hard. It's that the colony has an operating system your brilliant cabinet doesn't. An individual ant has roughly 250,000 neurons. Your CFO has 86 billion. By any measure, your CFO is 340,000 times smarter than an ant. Yet somehow, when you put those ants into a colony, they solve complex routing problems, allocate labor dynamically, adapt to environmental changes, and make collective decisions that consistently optimize for survival. Meanwhile, your cabinet—filled with people 340,000x smarter than any ant—just spent three hours in a meeting and made zero decisions. Again. Here's the profound part nobody in leadership wants to admit: The ants' intelligence doesn't emerge because individual ants got smarter. It emerges because of how they interact. Your cabinet? You've hired smarter and smarter ants. Sent them to better development programs. Given them corner offices and impressive titles. But you've never built the colony operating system. 73% of educational leadership teams in our study have higher individual IQ than collective intelligence. You're paying for genius and getting group project energy where everyone did their part, but nobody read anyone else's sections. Solomon told sluggards to go to the ant. I'm telling brilliant-but-stuck leaders the exact same thing. Comment "COLONY" if you've spent the last year hiring smarter ants and wondering why the colony isn't building anything. THE DIAGNOSIS: WHAT THE ANT KNOWS THAT YOUR PHDs DON'T Let's talk about this like adults who've survived at least one strategic planning retreat that somehow produced a beautiful vision statement and zero change in how your team actually operates. You know this meeting. I know you know it: Your VP of Enrollment presents compelling market data about declining numbers. Solid analysis. Clear recommendations. Your Chief Academic Officer immediately pivots: "We can't just chase numbers—we need to think about mission alignment." (Translation: I'm the guardian of academic integrity, and your proposal feels transactional. Also, I went to grad school for this, not to run a business.) Your CFO is already calculating ROI and asking about costs nobody's thought about yet. (Translation: I'm the adult who understands we can't spend money we don't have. Also, I'm the only one who actually reads the audit reports.) Your VP of Student Affairs is thinking about how this affects current students and whether anyone consulted them. (Translation: While you all strategize in the abstract, I actually talk to students. You know, the humans this is supposedly about?) Four brilliant perspectives. Each one valid. Each one advocating with genuine expertise. Zero synthesis. Zero integration. Zero collective intelligence. The meeting ends with everyone agreeing to "explore this further"—professional code for "we'll have this exact conversation in three weeks, except everyone will be slightly more exhausted." What actually happened? You had four separate monologues performed simultaneously. Four individual ants wandering in circles, each following their own pheromone trail, wondering why the colony isn't building anything. The ants don't do this. They can't afford to. A colony that operates like your cabinet meeting would be extinct in a week. The Loneliness of Seeing the Whole Nest I know the loneliness of being the leader in this moment. Of feeling like you're the only one who can see the whole nest while everyone else optimizes their individual tunnel. Of wondering if you're the problem because surely—SURELY—other leadership teams have figured out how to think collectively instead of just politely taking turns thinking individually. Of going home exhausted, not from hard work but from the emotional labor of being the only person trying to synthesize perspectives that should integrate naturally if you just had the right operating system. But here's what nobody tells you at leadership conferences: You're not the problem. You're trying to solve a colony problem with an ant solution. You keep hiring smarter ants. Sending them to better development programs. But individual ants—no matter how brilliant—can't solve problems that require colony-level intelligence. Solomon wasn't telling sluggards to work harder. He was telling them to work smarter—specifically, to work like a system rather than as isolated individuals. (This is actually why I created The GROUP —a free community where insights like this become Leader CORE Lessons you can deploy Monday morning. Because translating the ant paradox into Tuesday's cabinet meeting without an implementation guide is how good insights die in conference rooms. But I'm getting ahead of myself.) When Individual Genius Meets Collective Mediocrity Let me tell you about a community college president I'll call Marcus (not his real name, but Marcus, you know exactly which budget meeting made you finally admit your Avengers had never actually assembled). Marcus had a dream team on paper. CFO with an MBA from a top program. Chief Academic Officer with a track record of innovation. VP of Student Affairs who'd turned around retention twice before. Individual excellence? Off the charts. Each ant was brilliant—340,000 times smarter than the insects Solomon was watching. Cabinet meetings? Marcus described them as "watching brilliant people talk past each other in high definition while the institution slowly loses momentum." Someone would present an idea. Three others would immediately explain why it wouldn't work from their domain perspective. Decisions got made through exhaustion, not synthesis. Implementation was inconsistent because everyone left with different interpretations. The colony wasn't building anything. The ants were just wandering in increasingly frustrated circles. Marcus tried what you've probably tried: More communication training. Better meeting structures. Expensive retreat with a consultant who taught them "active listening." He sent people to individual development programs. Each person came back smarter, more skilled, better equipped—individually. Nothing changed collectively. Because Marcus was still breeding smarter ants when he needed to build colony intelligence. He was solving an operating system problem with a personnel solution. Tag the cabinet member who came back from their last conference excited and exhausted—whose brilliant insights somehow died in your first meeting back. THE FRAMEWORK: THE ANT PARADOX EQUATION Call this the Ant Paradox. Or don't. Either way, it'll explain why your brilliant cabinet consistently operates at 60% capacity—and what actually changes the equation. P = (p - i) (TQ) Performance equals potential minus interference, X Team Intelligence. This isn't new-age fluff. This is the mathematical expression of what Solomon observed three millennia ago when he watched ants outperform humans at collective work. 1. Your Potential Is Already There (The Ants Are Already Smart Enough) Think about your cabinet. Combined decades of experience. Multiple advanced degrees. Proven track records. Individually? Everyone's operating at 7-8 out of 10. Collectively? Your team is operating at 4-5 out of 10 of actual capacity. That 40% gap? That's not a personnel problem. That's the difference between individual ants and colony intelligence. And you can't close it by hiring better ants. Solomon didn't tell sluggards to become smarter. He told them to observe how already-smart-enough ants become collectively brilliant through their operating system. Your problem isn't insufficient individual intelligence. Your problem is the absence of protocols that turn individual intelligence into collective genius. 2. The Interference Is Killing Your Colony Every time your CFO and CAO have their polite disagreement about fiscal sustainability versus academic mission—without any framework for how both can be true simultaneously—that's interference. Every time someone leaves a meeting unclear about who actually decides what, that's interference. Every time perspectives collide instead of integrate, that's interference. Interference isn't drama. It's the friction that happens when high-performing individuals lack the operating system to become a high-performing collective. The ant colony solved this with pheromone trails—simple communication protocols that turn one ant's discovery into colony-level action. When one ant finds food, it doesn't schedule a meeting to discuss optimal resource allocation. It doesn't form a committee to study implementation. It doesn't send three follow-up emails clarifying the decision-making process. It leaves a chemical trail. Other ants follow it. The colony eats. Simple protocol. Zero interference. Maximum collective intelligence. You need the human equivalent. 3. Team Intelligence Is the Operating System Here's where 99% of leadership development completely misses Solomon's point: They try to make each individual better at communication. Better at strategy. Better at whatever competency is trending. They're breeding smarter ants. But TQ isn't about making individuals better. It's about creating conditions where your team's collective intelligence exceeds the sum of its parts. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ "The ant colony has foragers, soldiers, nurses, builders—specialized roles working in concert. Your team needs the same: diverse perspectives with integration protocols." ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ The breakthrough isn't getting your CFO to become more emotionally intuitive or your Student Affairs VP to become more financially analytical. The breakthrough is creating the operating system where all perspectives integrate into decisions better than any single leader could make alone. That's what the ants have that you don't: Not smarter individuals. Smarter interaction protocols. That's what Solomon saw that you've missed: The wisdom isn't in the ant. It's in how the ants work together. Marcus Built the Colony Operating System Marcus finally understood what Solomon was saying three thousand years ago: His team didn't need to work harder. They needed to work like a colony instead of isolated individuals. His team took the Team Intelligence assessment. (Results were humbling. His CFO: "Well, this explains why I leave every meeting feeling like I'm the only one who gets it"—which, plot twist, everyone else was also thinking.) They were operating at Level 7-8 individually but Level 3 collectively. High individual IQ, catastrophically low team operating system. They had brilliant ants with no pheromone trails. Here's what changed: Communication protocols —not "let's communicate better" platitudes, but actual rhythms for how perspectives integrate before decisions get made. Simple. Clear. Executable. When presenting a recommendation, include the perspective of at least two other roles. When someone presents, the next person synthesizes before adding. When we disagree, we state what would make both perspectives true before choosing. Decision rights —so people stopped treating every decision like it needed consensus. The ant colony doesn't vote on where to build the nest. It has clear protocols for when different roles engage. They mapped their top 10 decision types. Assigned clear rights. Watched 40% of meeting time vanish because they'd stopped having colony-level conversations about ant-level decisions. Thinking out loud together —not performative agreement, but actual cognitive diversity where "this is financially impossible" and "this is pedagogically essential" became inputs into a solution neither could see alone. Six months later: Same people. Same budget constraints. Same enrollment pressures. Cabinet meetings went from three hours of polite disagreement to 90 minutes of actual decision-making. Not because they agreed more—because they'd built the operating system for integrating disagreement into better solutions. Decisions got made faster, implemented more consistently, and actually stuck. Not because individuals got smarter—because the team got smarter. Marcus got 14 hours per week back. They stopped trying to hire smarter ants. They built the colony operating system that turned brilliant individuals into collective intelligence. They finally went to the ant. Considered its ways. And became wise. Revolutionary? No. Obvious? Yes, once you see it. Common? Based on 987 leadership teams—absolutely not. Now, if you're thinking "this makes perfect sense, but how do I actually facilitate the 'build our operating system' conversation with my cabinet on Tuesday without it turning into another meeting about meetings?"—I get it. That's the gap between insight and implementation. This is what The GROUP is for. Each week, I turn the newsletter topic into a Leader CORE Lesson and Guide: facilitation notes, discussion prompts, the Team Intelligence diagnostic, team exercises for building your operating system—everything you need to lead your team through this content without spending Sunday night trying to translate ant colonies into something your CFO won't roll their eyes at. It's free (because charging you to learn how ants solved this problem 100 million years ago would be peak irony), built for busy leaders who need practical resources, not more theory, and designed for Monday morning meetings when you're already exhausted. Grab this week's Ant Paradox implementation guide: https://www.higherperformancegroup.com/the-group But whether you join The GROUP or not, here's what you can implement immediately... THE APPLICATION: BUILDING YOUR COLONY OPERATING SYSTEM (MONDAY MORNING EDITION) Here's what to do Monday morning (assuming your cabinet isn't already in crisis mode from the three decisions you didn't make last week): STEP 1: The Ant Paradox Audit (20 minutes) At your next cabinet meeting, before diving into the seventeen urgent items everyone brought, put this on the agenda: "Solomon told sluggards to go to the ant because the ant had something they didn't. I'm going to suggest we have the same problem. Let's run a diagnostic. On a scale of 1-10, rate two things: 1. How smart is each person on this team individually? 2. How smart are we as a collective when solving complex problems together?" Write down answers privately. Then go around the room. What you'll discover: If Question 1 averages 7-8 and Question 2 averages 3-4, congratulations—you've just discovered you have brilliant ants with no colony operating system. If everyone rates both questions equally high, someone's lying (probably the person who scheduled three sidebar conversations before this meeting to "align" because they don't trust the group process). If answers vary wildly, you don't have shared understanding of whether you're even trying to build colony intelligence or just managing individual ants more efficiently. The diagnostic question: "Are we breeding smarter ants, or are we building a smarter colony?" If you don't know the answer, you're doing the first thing while hoping for the second. Solomon wouldn't be impressed. STEP 2: The Pheromone Trail Mapping Exercise (25 minutes) This one's uncomfortable but worth it: "The ant colony's intelligence lives in its pheromone trails—the communication protocols that turn one ant's discovery into colony-level action. Let's map our equivalent. Think about the last major decision we made. How did information actually flow? Who talked to whom? Whose perspective never made it into the final decision?" Draw it on a whiteboard. Literally map it. You'll probably discover one of three patterns: Pattern A - The Hub and Spoke: Everyone talks to you, but not to each other. You're trying to be the central processor for the entire colony. This is why you're exhausted. The ant colony doesn't work this way because it can't scale. Pattern B - The Siloed Clusters: Your CFO and VP of Operations talk. Your CAO and Student Affairs VP talk. But the two clusters never integrate. You have two colonies pretending to be one. Pattern C - The Random Chaos: Information flows based on whoever happens to run into whom in the hallway. Your "operating system" is geographic proximity and scheduling luck. None of these creates colony intelligence. They create very busy, very frustrated individual ants who are each 340,000 times smarter than actual ants but producing worse collective results. Now ask: "What would our pheromone trails need to look like for information from one perspective to actually inform action across the whole team?" Don't solve it yet. Just name what's missing. That gap between your current communication pattern and actual colony intelligence? That's your TQ deficit. That's what Solomon saw three thousand years ago that you're just now discovering. OBJECTION HANDLING "But we don't have time to think about ant colonies when we have actual crises to manage." You have crises BECAUSE you don't have colony intelligence. You're managing the same problems repeatedly because you've never built the operating system that would solve them collectively. Also, you just spent three hours in a cabinet meeting that produced zero decisions. You have 14 hours per week trapped in meeting cycles that don't work. You don't have time NOT to build this. The ants figured this out while also building nests, farming food, and defending against predators. You can figure it out while managing enrollment and budgets. Solomon didn't tell busy people to go to the ant. He told sluggards—people who were working but getting nowhere. That's the diagnostic: Are you working, or are you building? THE MATURITY SHIFT ❌ Immature leaders think: "I need to hire smarter people." ✅ Mature leaders think: "I need to build the operating system that makes my smart people collectively brilliant." ❌ Immature leaders optimize individual ants. They send people to development programs, hire consultants for better communication, add more expertise to the table, and wonder why team performance stays flat. ✅ Mature leaders build colony intelligence. They create interaction protocols, communication rhythms, and decision-making frameworks that turn brilliant individuals into collective genius. ❌ Immature leaders believe: "If everyone just did their part better, we'd get better results." ✅ Mature leaders know: "If we built better integration protocols, doing our parts would produce exponential results." The sluggard works hard but gets nowhere. The wise person goes to the ant, considers its ways, and builds differently. The difference is the difference between breeding smarter ants and building a smarter colony. One keeps you busy managing individual performance. One makes impossible inevitable because you've unlocked the collective intelligence that was always there—you just never built the operating system to access it. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ "You have smarter ants than the ants do. You just don't have their colony operating system. And until you build it, you'll keep hiring smarter individuals while getting the same mediocre collective results." ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ The ant paradox isn't a cute nature metaphor. It's a brutal diagnosis of why your brilliant cabinet consistently underperforms its potential. Solomon saw it three thousand years ago. The ants figured it out 100 million years ago. You're still trying to solve it with better meeting agendas and individual development programs. That's not a personnel problem. It's an operating system problem. And unlike your budget constraints or enrollment challenges, this one is 100% within your control to fix. YOUR TURN: THE QUESTION SOLOMON ASKED THREE THOUSAND YEARS AGO Think about your last major decision as a cabinet. Honest assessment—did you synthesize multiple perspectives into something better than any single view? Or did you average perspectives into a compromise that satisfied no one? Did you work like a colony? Or like individual ants wandering in circles while calling it collaboration? Drop a comment with your cabinet's Ant Paradox score: Rate individual intelligence 1-10, then collective intelligence 1-10. Post both numbers. Let's see how many brilliant leadership teams are operating at ant-level collective intelligence. Tag the cabinet member who you think sees this pattern too. Or screenshot the ant paradox section and text it to your CFO with the message "We need to talk about Tuesday's meeting." P.S. IF YOU'RE THINKING "I DON'T HAVE TIME TO TURN THIS INTO A TEAM MEETING RESOURCE" I already did it for you. The GROUP is a free community where every newsletter becomes a ready-to-deploy Leader CORE Lesson and Guide. Facilitation notes. Discussion prompts. Team exercises. The Team Intelligence diagnostic that shows your team exactly where their operating system breaks down. JOIN THE GROUP: https://www.higherperformancegroup.com/the-group Think of it as the meal kit version of team development. I prep the ingredients and recipe. You just facilitate. Your team gets fed. Everybody wins. Plus, you get access to hundreds of campus leaders who are also trying to eliminate their performance gaps and understand why their last cabinet meeting went sideways. The implementation guides save you hours. The peer conversations? Those might save your sanity. FOUND THIS VALUABLE? The LinkedIn algorithm won't show this to your network unless YOU share it: → Repost with YOUR Ant Paradox score (individual IQ vs. collective IQ—be honest) → Tag 3 cabinet members trapped in the meeting cycle → Comment: "COLONY" if you're ready to build the operating system Tag DR. JOE HILL and Higher Performance Group in your repost. (LinkedIn's algorithm prioritizes posts that generate tags and reposts in first 2 hours. Help other leaders discover this.) The more leaders who shift from individual heroics to team intelligence, the better our educational systems become. Follow DR. JOE HILL and Higher Performance Group for weekly Team Intelligence insights. NEXT ISSUE: "Your Cabinet Is The Avengers (If Nobody Watched Each Other's Movies)"  We'll explore why your all-star leadership team operates like superheroes who've never fought together—each one brilliant in isolation, each one solving problems with their signature move, but with zero coordination when the real battle starts. Spoiler: You're not having a talent problem. You're having an integration problem, and no amount of individual superpowers fixes a team that's never learned to assemble.
Show More