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 February 17, 2026
Last semester, I watched the same thing happen: The boss announced a major initiative. Everyone nodded. Three weeks later? Eight separate executions masquerading as one strategy. Your cabinet doesn't have a dysfunction problem. You have a pronoun problem—and it's costing you $400K in wasted capacity each year. Count how many times someone in your last meeting said "myself" instead of "me." Then count how many times anyone said "we." That ratio? It predicts everything about your team's performance. Here's the pattern: "The board and myself decided..." "Between the Provost and myself..." "My cabinet and myself are aligned..." Two syllables instead of one. Grammatically incorrect. Functionally revealing. We've inflated from "me" to "MYSELF"—and in that linguistic upgrade, we lost the only word that actually creates multiplication: "we." Your cabinet has a multiplication problem. Eight talented leaders who've mastered individual excellence but haven't built the collective infrastructure that turns good performance into breakthrough performance. That gap between good and great? It's about shifting from "myself" to "we." And most leaders never learn how because "myself" has been rewarded your entire career. THE DIAGNOSIS: GOOD AT ADDITION, MISSING MULTIPLICATION Let's talk about this like adults who've led talented teams that perform well but wonder "what if?" Tuesday, 9 AM cabinet meeting. Everyone's prepared. Updates are thorough. Questions are smart. The meeting runs professionally. (Everyone nods in agreement. The strategic plan gets approved. Then eight people leave the room and interpret it eight different ways. This is what we call "alignment.") But when you announce a major initiative, you can see the mental calculation behind eight sets of eyes: "How does this affect MY area? What do I need to protect? How much can I delegate vs. do myself?" Three weeks later, the initiative moves forward. Sort of. Everyone executes their part. Professionally. Competently. But it feels like eight separate projects that happen to share a name , not one integrated effort multiplying collective intelligence. Or this: Your CFO and Provost are both brilliant. They collaborate when required. They're not territorial. But they've never called each other just to think through a complex problem together. They coordinate. They don't co-create. (They schedule "sync meetings" to align before the actual meeting. Then debrief after. That's not collaboration—that's collaboration theater with intermission.) Here's Why This Keeps Happening You hired for individual excellence. You measured individual performance. You rewarded individual achievement. Then you put eight individual high-performers in a room and expected them to spontaneously operate as a multiplied "we." They can't. Because multiplication requires different infrastructure than addition. Here's what nobody admits at leadership conferences (because we're all performing competence for each other): You hired people whose entire identity is built on being individually exceptional. Then you put them in roles where their primary job is to make OTHER people successful. That's asking Olympic sprinters to suddenly care more about the relay team's time than their individual split. They'd rather protect their reputation as "the smart one" than risk looking average by actually multiplying with others. Your "good" cabinet is actively choosing addition over multiplication because multiplication requires vulnerability they've spent careers avoiding. The real problem? You've built a cabinet optimized for individual excellence in roles that require collective multiplication. The Team Intelligence Formula: TQ = IQ × EQ × PQ Notice it's multiplication, not addition. Any dimension near zero collapses everything. IQ: Individual competence. You hired for this. Your cabinet is brilliant. EQ: Common language for communication and culture. This is where "myself" performers fragment—eight people fluent in different languages trying to have strategic conversations. PQ: Understanding how each person is wired and how roles multiply. Your CFO doesn't have to lead innovation just because they're smart. When any dimension is low, multiplication collapses to addition. Your cabinet isn't broken. It's just never been built to multiply. THE FRAMEWORK: THE A/50 VS B+/3 PATTERN Your cabinet is full of A/50 performers —people who earned A grades by investing 50 hours of effort. Grinding. Perfecting. Out-working everyone. The formula that built their careers: More effort = Better results. A/50 performers struggle with collective multiplication. (And yes, they're exhausted. Which they mention. Frequently. Usually in the context of explaining why someone else's approach won't work.) They've been rewarded for individual excellence through heroic effort. They don't know how to operate in "we multiply together" mode because they're still counting contributions. "I stayed until 8pm Tuesday." "I sent three emails over the weekend." "My section is more thorough than yours." This is why your high-performer cabinet operates at 60% capacity despite 100% effort. Because A/50 performers can't multiply—they can only add and compare. B+/3 performers? They earned B+ grades with just 3 hours of effort. Not the highest grade, but remarkable efficiency. Smarter strategy beats harder grinding. Here's what they figured out: Study groups beat solo grinding (collaboration multiplies understanding) Asking the right questions beats reading everything (leverage others' knowledge) Good enough on time beats perfect too late (execution matters more than perfection) Who gets credit doesn't matter if the team wins (ego takes back seat to results) B+/3 performers default to "we" because "I alone" was never enough. They say things like: "What if we combined your approach with mine?" "Who else should be thinking about this?" "This got better because of what you added." They've developed the one skill A/50 performers never needed: multiplication instinct. (Your A/50 performers secretly think B+/3 people are lazy. Your B+/3 performers know A/50 people are inefficient. Both are right. Neither is winning.) "A/50 performers earned success by grinding harder. B+/3 performers earned it by thinking smarter. Your cabinet is full of A/50s trying to multiply. That's why good stays good instead of becoming great." If your entire cabinet is A/50, you've built a team of individual excellence that underperforms collectively. That's why multiplication feels impossible. THE 60% CAPACITY CRISIS Research shows leadership teams typically perform at 60% of their potential. If your cabinet costs $1M annually, that's $400K burning every year. Not from incompetence. From interference. High IQ leaders who lack common language (EQ) and understanding of how each person is wired (PQ). Here's the good news that changes everything: Your cabinet isn't broken. They're not resistant. They're not incompetent. They're operating on addition infrastructure while attempting multiplication work. That's a design problem, not a people problem. Design problems are solvable through architecture, not heroics. You don't need different people. You need different infrastructure. The talent is already there. The potential is already funded. You're just missing the multiplication system that turns "good" into "great." Your turn: The Multiplication Audit Think about your last three strategic initiatives. For each one: Did it fragment into eight separate executions? (+1 for each YES) Did anyone call someone ELSE just to think through a problem together? (+1 for each YES) Did results feel like stapled-together work or genuinely integrated thinking? (+1 if integrated) Score: 0-2: Addition mode. $400K+ burning annually. 3-5: Transitioning. Some multiplication happening. 6-9: You've cracked the code. You're multiplying. Drop your score below. THE APPLICATION: BUILDING MULTIPLICATION INFRASTRUCTURE STEP 1: The Pronoun Audit (15 minutes, solo) Open your last three cabinet meeting notes. Count pronouns: How many times: "I," "me," "my," "myself" How many times: "we," "us," "our" "If 'I/me/myself' outnumbers 'we/us/our' by more than 2:1, you don't have a team. You have a meeting where individuals report progress on separate projects that happen to share a budget." (If this exercise makes you defensive—"but context matters!" "But nuance!"—that's data too. Multiplication doesn't require defending yourself from your own meeting notes.) STEP 2: The Monday Morning "We" Ritual (20 minutes) Start every cabinet meeting with this question. You answer first. "What's one thing happening in your life—work or personal—that you're genuinely excited about OR struggling with? Real answer. Not your portfolio update. Something true about you as a human." Go around the room. Just listen. Don't fix. Don't problem-solve. After everyone shares: "Thank you for trusting us with that." Do this for 8 weeks. Watch your pronouns shift from "myself" to "we." STEP 3: The Multiplication Question (30 minutes in the next cabinet meeting) Put this on your agenda: "How do we shift from coordinating excellence to multiplying it?" Ask: "Was our last initiative eight excellent individual executions that got coordinated? Or one integrated effort where the whole exceeded the parts?" Then: "What would need to be true for us to multiply intelligence instead of just adding it?" Write down 3-5 agreements. This becomes your multiplication infrastructure. THE MATURITY SHIFT: FROM ADDITION TO MULTIPLICATION Immature leaders think: "My team is good enough." Mature leaders think: "Good is the enemy of great, and multiplication is how we get there." Immature leaders accept professional collaboration. Mature leaders architect collective multiplication. Immature leaders think "we" happens naturally among talented people. Mature leaders know "we" requires intentional infrastructure. "Immature leaders accept professional collaboration. Mature leaders architect collective multiplication. The difference is the difference between a cabinet that works hard and a cabinet that works exponentially." One produces solid results through heroic individual effort. One produces breakthrough results through collective intelligence. Your cabinet is good. The question is: Are you ready to build great? Real talk: Which of your cabinet members is an A/50 performer (heroic individual effort) vs. B+/3 performer (multiplication instinct)? Don't name names publicly—but if you counted and your entire cabinet is A/50, that's not a people problem. That's a hiring-for-the-wrong-variable problem. Comment below: How many of your cabinet members have multiplication instinct vs. addition mindset? Your honest answer reveals whether you're one hire away from transformation or one system away. Tag someone on your team who defaults to "we" before "myself"—they've earned the recognition. THE TEAM INSTITUTE : FROM ADDITION TO MULTIPLICATION IN 8 MONTHS Your cabinet just diagnosed the gap between addition and multiplication. That gap? It represents every strategic initiative that fragments, every decision that requires three follow-up meetings, every brilliant idea that dies in translation. This is the pattern The Team Institute was built to eliminate. While most leadership development teaches YOU frameworks to translate back to your team (hello, translation tax), we build the multiplication infrastructure WITH your entire team—through 8 monthly sessions that develop from trust to empowerment to collaboration to breakthrough results. We don't fix people. We multiply systems. The 8-Month Architecture: Month 1: Base Camp - Understanding your Team Profile Month 2: Building Trust - The foundation of multiplication Month 3: Empowerment - "We" distribute authority Month 4: Collaboration - "We" create together Month 5: Broadening Influence - "We" lead beyond hierarchy Month 6: Managing Change - "We" transform without casualties Month 7: Managing Conflict - "We" use friction as refinement Month 8: Developing Others - "We" multiply talent What's Included: Team {BEST FIT} assessment revealing addition vs. multiplication patterns Team 360 baseline measuring current EQ and PQ Monthly expert facilitation applied to your actual challenges Between-session accountability that embeds multiplication Executive coaching for senior leaders The Results: 3x performance improvement. 29% higher engagement. 27% better organizational outcomes. Zero burnout increase. The Requirement: Full team participation. You can't build multiplication with "some of us." YOUR NEXT MOVE If you're ready to transform addition into multiplication—if you sense your good cabinet could be great—let's talk. Schedule a 30-minute consultation to explore whether THE TEAM INSTITUTE will build the multiplication infrastructure your organization requires. This isn't about selling you something. This is about whether you're ready to build multiplication. [SCHEDULE CONSULTATION ] Found this valuable? Help other leaders discover it: → Repost with your honest answer: "Does my cabinet add or multiply?" → Tag a leader building multiplication infrastructure → Comment with your Multiplication Audit score The more leaders who shift from addition to multiplication, the better education becomes. Follow DR. JOE HILL and Higher Performance Group
By HPG Info January 14, 2026
DR. JOE HILL President @HPG | Author of The TQ ADVANTAGE When Your Board Metrics Say "Winning" But Your Gut Says "Failing" I had the same conversation 23 times last year. Not in conference keynotes, where everyone performs as a "strategic leader who has it figured out." In parking lots after workshops. On follow-up calls at 7 PM. In texts that started "Can I ask you something that's been eating at me?" A superintendent, after crushing every board metric: "Joe, why do I feel like I'm failing at everything that actually matters?" A university president with the most credentialed cabinet she's ever led: "We can't make a decision without three meetings. What am I missing?" A college president at 11 PM (via text): "I spend more time managing my cabinet's dysfunction than actually leading. How did I become this person?" Here's what's frustrating: I gave terrible answers. Not because I'm incompetent—because these questions revealed problems I hadn't solved for myself. So I spent Q4 doing what I should've done in Q1: figuring out what I should have said. Turns out, the questions superintendents and presidents struggled with most in 2025 weren't about strategy, enrollment, or board politics. They were about survival while everyone watches you succeed. Here are the three questions I botched—and the answers I wish I'd had ready. QUESTION 1: "When Does Being Driven Cross Into Being Obsessive?" The Moment I Realized I Had No Answer Community college president—let's call her Rachel—after a Team Institute session: "I'm in the office 6 AM to 7 PM. Weekends. My cabinet says I'm 'inspiring.' My spouse says I'm 'unavailable.' I thought this IS leadership. But am I driven or just addicted?" I gave her the standard consultant answer about balance and boundaries. It was garbage. Because I was answering emails during our Netflix date night. I was "inspiring" my people while my wife wondered if I remembered her name. Glass houses, meet stones. What I Figured Out By December There's actual research on this—the dualistic model of passion : Harmonious Passion: Flexible and energizing Fills you up When you can't do it, you're disappointed but okay Sustainable forever Obsessive Passion: Rigid persistence even when it's destroying you When you can't do it, you feel shame When you DO do it, you STILL feel inadequate Major contributor to burnout (and divorce, and health crises your board will call "unexpected") Campus leadership selects for obsessive passion and calls it "commitment." Your board rewards it. Your community celebrates it. Until someone has a breakdown, and everyone acts shocked. The diagnostic? The Vacation Test. Can you take a full day off without checking email? If yes—when did you last actually do it? If you can't remember, you're not driven. You're hyper-optimized. And hyper-optimization always precedes system failure. Ask any Formula One team that pushed too hard without pit stops. 💡 "The same drive that got you the presidency is the exact thing that will end it—unless you build recovery infrastructure around it before crisis forces the conversation." What To Do Tuesday Morning (Not "Someday") Pick ONE recovery ritual. Just one: The Phone Kennel: Tonight, plug your phone downstairs. Don't bring it to your bedroom. (Sounds simple. Most presidents can't do it for three consecutive nights. That's diagnostic, not judgmental.) The "This Area Is Clear" Ritual: When you leave your office, say out loud: "Work time is done." Creates a psychological boundary your brain actually respects. The 3-Hour Sacred Window: Block three consecutive hours this weekend for something non-work that requires full attention. Coffee roasting. Long bike ride. Fiction reading. Playing with grandkids without your phone nearby. If you take vacations and check email daily, that's work with a view, not recovery. Your body knows the difference even if your calendar doesn't. Objection Handling: "But I LIKE working—it's my passion!" Great. Harmonious or obsessive? Can you stop without shame? That's the test. "My board expects me to be available 24/7." Your board expects you to lead for a decade, not flame out spectacularly in year three. They just haven't said it yet because you keep performing invincibility. QUESTION 2: "My Cabinet Is Brilliant Individually But Collectively Incompetent. What's Broken?" The Moment I Had No Good Answer Superintendent in Texas—let's call him Marcus (Marcus, your CFO was laughing when we reviewed your Team Intelligence results, so you know this is you): "Joe, every person on my cabinet has 15+ years of experience. Advanced degrees. Strategic thinkers. But together we can't make a simple decision without three pre-meetings and four follow-ups. What's broken?" I said something generic about communication and trust. Consultant garbage. The real answer? I hadn't figured out the math yet. What I Figured Out By December It's literally a math problem : IQ × EQ × PQ = TQ Most leadership cabinets look like this: IQ (Individual Intelligence): 9.1/10 → You only hire brilliant people EQ (Collective Emotional Intelligence): 3.8/10 → They can't disagree productively PQ (Positional Intelligence—role clarity): 2.5/10 → Nobody knows who decides what Result = TQ (Team Intelligence): 4.2/10 → Permanent impossibility despite impressive resumes That's not a communication problem. That's a multiplication problem. When any variable approaches zero, the whole equation collapses. You keep investing in the variable that's already maxed out (IQ—hiring smart people) while ignoring the two that determine whether smart people can think together under pressure (EQ and PQ). It's like installing a Ferrari engine with bicycle wheels and wondering why you're losing races to Honda Civics. The pattern I've now seen 47 times: Monday 6:30 AM: Your CFO wants to "align before Tuesday's meeting" (translation: lobby before anyone else can) Tuesday 10 AM: Cabinet meeting where everyone performs collaboration while avoiding actual disagreement Tuesday afternoon: Three separate "clarification" requests (translation: renegotiations of what seemed decided) Friday: Everyone's exhausted, nothing's actually resolved, but calendars are impressively full, so at least it LOOKS like leadership is happening That's a Team Intelligence deficit costing your district or institution roughly $1.1M annually in wasted meetings, duplicated effort, and opportunities missed while you're stuck in alignment purgatory. Meanwhile, enrollment is shifting, your best teachers are wondering if leadership will ever actually lead, and your board is asking increasingly pointed questions about execution velocity. 💡 "Individual brilliance without Team Intelligence produces impressive LinkedIn profiles and permanent impossibility. The math doesn't care about your credentials." What To Do Tuesday Morning The Cabinet Intelligence Audit (15 minutes) At your next cabinet meeting: "Quick exercise. Everyone rate our team's ability to think together under pressure, 1-10. Write it privately first." Go around the room. Read answers aloud. If everyone says 8+: Somebody's lying (or everyone has wildly different definitions of "thinking together") If answers vary by 3+ points: You don't share reality about your own team dynamics If anyone says below 5: You've just identified why pre-meetings exist—people don't feel safe thinking out loud together Then ask the question that changes everything: "What would need to be true for everyone to feel comfortable disagreeing in THIS meeting instead of lobbying outside it?" The silence will be uncomfortable. Someone will deflect with process talk. Someone else will say "I've been thinking the same thing." That second person is your ally. Start there. Objection Handling: "We don't have time for this meta-conversation about meetings." You spent 47 hours last month in meetings ABOUT meetings. You don't have time NOT to fix this. Your problem isn't time—it's Team Intelligence producing a 47-hour Meeting Tax. "My team won't go for it—they'll think I'm criticizing them." Your team is currently "going for" a system producing permanent friction despite everyone working 60-hour weeks. They already know something's broken. You're not revealing a problem—you're naming what everyone already feels. QUESTION 3: "Why Do I Keep Neglecting What I Literally Teach Others?" The Moment I Realized I'm A Hypocrite This one's personal. I teach Team Intelligence to superintendents and presidents. Sustainable systems. Recovery architecture. "You can't pour from an empty cup." Then I worked through Thanksgiving. Answered emails Christmas morning. Ran on 5 hours of sleep and spite. The question a superintendent asked me in October haunted me all through December: "Joe, you teach this stuff. How do YOU avoid burning out?" Honest answer? I wasn't. I was just better at hiding it. What I Figured Out By December I interviewed Dr. James Hewitt , a human performance scientist who works with Formula One teams. He said something that gutted me: "I taught recovery to Fortune 500 companies while being 'always on' myself. 100+ flights a year. Missing family dinners. I genuinely believed I was the exception to the rule—until one morning in the shower, I found a lump." Cancer forced him to confront the truth: You're not superhuman. You're just a human who hasn't rested. The most dangerous leadership belief isn't "I need to work harder." It's "The rules don't apply to me." They do. Physics doesn't care about your board's expectations, your strategic plan, or how many people are counting on you. Your body will force the conversation your calendar keeps postponing. 💡 "You're not too busy to build recovery systems. You're too busy BECAUSE you haven't built recovery systems. There's a difference." What To Do Tuesday Morning Design Your Weekly Recovery Day Block ONE full day this week. Not "I'll try" or "maybe next week"—this week. Then: Morning: Something requiring full attention but not work (bike ride, elaborate coffee ritual, whatever makes you feel human) Afternoon: Something actively decreasing cognitive load (fiction, show-watching, napping—NOT business books or "personal development") Evening: Time with people who don't need you to perform leadership Critical Rules (Non-Negotiable): Phone stays in another room (not "on silent"—physically elsewhere) No "just checking email real quick" (that's work, which means you failed) If you work at all, even "just for a minute," you failed the assignment Objection Handling: "But I have too much to do." Then you've built an unsustainable system that will fail spectacularly—either next month or next year, but it WILL fail. Taking one day off either proves your cabinet can function without you (healthy) or reveals they can't (critical diagnostic you desperately need). "What about emergencies?" Define "emergency" as "can't wait 24 hours without significant harm to students, staff, or institution." Watch how shockingly few things meet that standard. Most "emergencies" are just someone else's poor planning becoming your crisis. THE MATURITY SHIFT Immature presidents think: "I just need more willpower, more passion, more drive. If I push harder, I'll break through." Mature presidents think: "I need better systems, clearer boundaries, sustainable practices that multiply capacity without multiplying hours." Immature superintendents optimize themselves to death while their cabinets watch and learn that sustainable leadership is performance art. Mature superintendents build infrastructure that multiplies cabinet capacity without heroic individual effort. The difference isn't motivation. It's systems. One makes you busy. One makes you effective. One gives you an impressive calendar screenshot. One gives you a decade. One makes you a cautionary tale. One makes you a model worth following. Your turn: Which question hit hardest? What are you specifically changing Tuesday morning? Not "I need better balance"—that's consultant-speak performance art. Be specific: "I'm blocking Sunday completely. Phone stays downstairs." "I'm running the Cabinet Intelligence Audit this week." "I'm designing my first full recovery day for Saturday." Drop a comment. Tag another superintendent or president who's crushing metrics while quietly drowning. Repost with your one specific action. Because insight without implementation is just expensive entertainment that changes nothing. STOP LEAVING PERFORMANCE ON THE TABLE Here's what I've learned after working with 987 leadership teams: Your team isn't broken. Your team model is. You've invested millions in hiring brilliant individuals. But individual brilliance without Team Intelligence produces impressive resumes and permanent friction. The superintendents and presidents who've cracked this code aren't working harder. They're working human—with recovery systems, Team Intelligence architecture, and the courage to admit that sustainable leadership requires more than inspiration and long hours. If your talented team is performing at 60% capacity despite everyone's best efforts , the problem isn't motivation or competence. It's multiplication : IQ × EQ × PQ = TQ And when any variable approaches zero, your entire equation collapses—no matter how impressive your board reports look. The TQ Keynote: Transform Your Team From Friction to Acceleration This isn't another motivational talk about working together better. This is the math, the research, and the practical protocols that help leadership teams move from 60% to 90%+ capacity—not by working harder, but by thinking together. What You'll Discover: The TQ equation that reveals exactly where your team is stuck (and why traditional development hasn't fixed it) Five cognitive "BEST FIT" types every high-performing team needs (and which ones you're missing) Practical protocols for transforming cabinet friction into execution acceleration How to navigate complexity 40% faster than average teams (verified across 1,000+ leadership teams) Live team mapping exercises using actual TQ types from your cabinet This keynote is grounded in: Analysis of nearly 1,000 leadership teams across K-12 and higher education Research-backed insights showing 2:1 performance advantage for high-TQ teams A practical framework that creates measurable results within 90 days, not "someday" Duration: 2 hours Format: On-site with your full leadership team Investment: Book a conversation to discuss Why This Is Different 94% of executives believe collaboration is critical. Only 8% see results from traditional team development programs. TQ bridges that gap—because it treats team development as a math problem with a systems solution , not a motivation problem with an inspiration band-aid. Teams working with HPG consistently move from 60% to 90%+ capacity. We protect that standard by choosing partners carefully. If your team is talented but stuck, if you're crushing board metrics while quietly drowning, if you've tried everything except addressing the actual multiplication problem—let's talk. Book a TQ Keynote Conversation →Your community deserves leaders who multiply each other's strengths instead of working around each other's weaknesses. Your talented individuals can become an unstoppable team. But not with the same model that got you here. Book Your TQ Keynote Today! - https://www.higherperformancegroup.com/team-intelligence-keynote P.S. Stop Performing Sustainability. Start Practicing It. The questions I couldn't answer in 2025 revealed my own gaps—in recovery systems, in Team Intelligence, in sustainable leadership architecture. The answers I found by December might close yours— if you actually implement them instead of just nodding along. Your cabinet is watching how you lead yourself. Your family is waiting for the version of you that comes home fully present. Your future self is begging you to build better systems before crisis forces the conversation.  Whether you book the keynote or not: Stop leaving 40% of your team's capacity on the table while everyone works 60-hour weeks. The math is solvable. The systems are buildable. The question is whether you'll address it Tuesday or wait until Friday's crisis forces your hand. Next Issue: "Your Cabinet Doesn't Need Another Retreat—They Need Recovery Architecture" How one superintendent cut meetings 61% and increased results 3x. Not by working harder. By working human. Follow DR. JOE HILL and Higher Performance Group for insights that close the knowing-doing gap.
Show More