Higher Performance Insights | YOU TOLD YOURSELF YOU'D EXHALE IN JUNE

June 23, 2026
higher performance insights

How's That Working?


The budget cycle is done. The board presentations are behind you. The personnel decisions that kept you up in February — the ones you couldn't tell anyone about — got made. The strategic planning retreat is scheduled, the enrollment numbers are in, the year-end evaluations are filed.


And somewhere in the next two weeks, there will be a moment — maybe the last day of school, maybe a quiet Friday afternoon when the building finally empties — when you take a breath and feel something you haven’t felt in months.

The question is: what will it be?


Relief? Gratitude? The pull toward the work you actually love?


Or the quiet, unsettling realization that you don’t quite know how to stop?


I had a conversation last week with a superintendent who is moving to emeritus status next year — stepping back from the chair, staying close enough to the institution to provide sherpa support to his successor. Two decades of leadership. The kind of leader other leaders called when they didn’t know who else to call. He’d just come back from his favorite beach in Mexico. Not the usual spring break trip. An extended stay. The first one of that length he’d ever allowed himself.


I asked him how it was.


He took a breath. Then: “First week, I couldn’t shut it off. I’d be sitting there looking at the water, and I’d be running budget assumptions in my head. Thinking about the principal I’m handing off to the new guy. Replaying a board decision from three years ago like I could change it from a beach chair in Mexico. I was there and I was completely not there.”


He paused. Then:


“Second week something shifted. And that’s when it hit me — I’m about to hand this institution to someone else, and I realize I don’t actually know how to be somewhere other than inside it. I’ve been telling myself for thirty years that I’d finally exhale when things settled down. They never settled down. I just stopped noticing how much I needed them to.”


He’s not leaving the work. He’s transitioning into the role of guide — someone who carries the institution’s memory forward without carrying its daily weight. And the Mexico trip was the first moment he’d sat still long enough to feel what three decades of the Indefinite Sacrifice Contract had actually cost him.


He’s a few years out from where you are. That’s not his story. That’s a preview.


Because here’s what nearly 1000 leadership teams have shown me about the most dangerous version of burnout in leadership:

It doesn’t announce itself. It doesn’t ask for a leave of absence. It just quietly takes your best thinking, your deepest conviction, and your ability to feel the work — and runs them to zero. While you keep showing up.


And summer doesn’t fix it. It hides it.


THE DIAGNOSIS · THE FINISH LINE THAT DOESN’T EXIST


Let’s talk about this like adults who’ve survived enough June board meetings to know what the season actually costs.


Leaders in education operate under a cultural contract nobody signed explicitly. You know it by feel. It goes like this:


I will sacrifice now. I will give the institution everything. And at some future point — when enrollment stabilizes, when the board settles, when the strategic plan finally lands — I will have permission to exhale.


Summer is supposed to be that permission. And for most of the leaders reading this, it won’t be. Not really. Because the finish line isn’t a calendar date. It’s a structural myth. The institution doesn’t finish. It evolves, demands, and consumes. The strategic planning retreat fills July. The budget revision fills August. The new board member fills September. The exhale gets deferred — again — into a next year that arrives exactly as depleted as this one left.


The most honest thing I’ve heard a leader say — and I’ve heard versions of it from superintendents and presidents across 43 states:

“I never defined when the can stops getting kicked. I just kept kicking it.”

That’s not a confession of weakness. That’s a description of the Indefinite Sacrifice Contract — the trap every high-achieving educational leader is operating inside right now, in late June, at the exact moment the culture tells them they should finally be fine.


Here’s what the contract produces in practice. A superintendent running on institutional momentum instead of personal conviction doesn’t lead the room — they manage it. The questions get smaller. The proposals get safer. The cabinet reads the energy and calibrates accordingly. Nobody names it. Everyone feels it. And by September, the institution is operating at a ceiling nobody chose — one set by the depletion of the person at the top.


 (This is the specific pattern The Burnout Force campus keynote was built to name — not as a wellness program, but as a performance architecture intervention. Summer and fall booking windows are open now. More on that below.)


Here’s the data point that stops every room I’m in.


When researchers asked people near the end of their lives what they wished they’d done differently, five themes emerged. They wished they’d stayed closer to friends. Said what they actually felt. Lived on their own terms. Let themselves be happy.


And number five — even among people who genuinely loved their work — was: I wish I had worked less.


Not I wish I had worked differently. Not I wish I had found better work. Less. From people who loved what they did. That is not a data point about laziness. It is a data point about a cultural lie that most high-performing educational leaders have never once stopped to question.


THE FRAMEWORK · THREE WAYS DEPLETION DEGRADES THE LEADER


The leadership development industry operates on an assumption nobody questions: the leader is a stable input. Better tools, better strategy, better frameworks — better outputs. What the model doesn’t control for is the one variable that determines everything:


The condition of the person doing the leading.


When a leader is operating in chronic depletion — not dramatic collapse, just the slow accumulated weight of ten months of decisions, transitions skipped, rumination compounded, and recovery deferred — three specific things happen to cognitive performance that no framework can compensate for.


Save this section. It’s the diagnostic you’ll want before your first cabinet meeting in August.


Degradation 1: The Rumination Loop


You know this one. Something difficult happens — a board exchange that landed wrong, a personnel call that cost more than it should have, a conversation that replayed itself for three days. You drive home, and the incident runs on a loop.


Here is what that loop is actually doing. It is flooding your system with cortisol. It is reactivating every emotional charge from the original event — the frustration, the helplessness, the thing you wish you’d said — and amplifying it across hours. A five-minute incident becomes a three-hour cortisol event. And the cabinet meeting the next morning gets a leader carrying the full neurochemical weight of last night’s replay. Decision quality down. Room-reading down. Energy the cabinet needed — already spent.


(The question isn’t whether you ruminate. Every leader does. The question is whether your rumination is productive — organized around a specific problem that needs resolving — or cyclical — the same incident on repeat with no resolution and maximum cortisol. Most leaders, if they’re honest, know exactly which one they’re running at 11 PM in late June.)


Degradation 2: The Presence Deficit


This one doesn’t show up in a performance review. Because the outputs are still happening. The meetings occur. The reports land. The leader is, by every external measure, functioning.


But ask the cabinet. Ask the family. Ask the leader themselves in an honest moment. And they’ll describe something harder to quantify: the leader is there but not present. Physically accounted for. Emotionally inaccessible. Performing leadership without the interior fuel that makes leadership feel like anything other than endurance.

❝ The most expensive thing in your institution isn’t a budget line. It’s the cost of a leader who is physically present and genuinely absent from the work they were made to do. ❞

This is the version of burnout that’s hardest to name because it wears the costume of fine. And “fine” is the word that survives every end-of-year celebration, every summer planning retreat, and every September all-staff address — right up until it doesn’t.


Degradation 3: The Judgment Distortion


This one is the most institutionally dangerous and the least discussed.


At a certain depletion threshold, a leader loses the ability to distinguish between I don’t like this work anymore and I don’t like this work right now because I am exhausted. These are not the same diagnosis. But from inside a depleted state, they are neurologically indistinguishable.


The result: leaders make permanent decisions — about succession, tenure, strategic direction, personnel — from a cognitive baseline that chronic depletion has systematically distorted. They make permanent decisions based on a temporary state. And they call it clarity.


Late June is the highest-risk moment in the educational leadership calendar for Judgment Distortion. The year’s exhaustion peaks exactly when the summer’s big decisions get made. The planning that shapes September happens in the same window the body is finally trying to crash. And the leader who has never protected recovery doesn’t have a baseline for what clear actually feels like.


That is the Burnout Force operating at full capacity — not visible, not dramatic, just quietly distorting the lens through which the institution’s most important decisions get made.


And here is the cruelest part of Judgment Distortion: you cannot accurately diagnose a depleted state from inside it. A leader I know spent the better part of a year convinced he didn’t love the work anymore. He was planning his exit. Then he finally took a real break — not a conference, not a retreat with his laptop, a genuine disconnection — and discovered something that stopped him cold.

“I didn’t dislike the work. I just hadn’t actually rested in so long that exhaustion had become my identity. I couldn’t tell the difference between the work being wrong and me being empty.”

Recovery is not just rest. It is the only diagnostic that tells you the truth about whether you still love what you’re doing. Everything else — every evaluation, every strategic plan, every conversation with a coach or a colleague — is filtered through the lens of a depleted nervous system. You cannot see clearly from inside the exhaustion.


There is also something else the Burnout Force takes that never appears on a performance review. Call it what it is: the parts of you that have nothing to do with being the president. The version of you that exists when nobody needs anything from you as a leader. The identity that doesn’t have a cabinet seat or a board relationship or a strategic plan attached to it.


High-achieving leaders are particularly vulnerable here because the role is all-consuming by design. The institution doesn’t just take your time. Over years, it quietly absorbs the aspects of your personality that don’t get stage time during the workday — until one day you realize that the person who used to exist outside the role has been waiting, patiently and without complaint, for you to finally give them permission to show up.


That’s not a burnout symptom. That’s a life symptom. And it is fully recoverable — but only if you stop calling the sacrifice leadership.


THE APPLICATION · FOUR MOVES BEFORE AUGUST


Not in the fall. Not after the retreat. Before August. Here’s what the research says actually works — and what most leaders never do because nobody gave them the structural language to justify it.


Move 1: Name Your Finish Line This Week — or Admit You Don’t Have One (20 minutes, now)


Write this sentence and complete it honestly. On paper, not a device:


“I will have permission to fully exhale when ___________.

If what you write is a moving target — when enrollment turns, when the board settles, when the new VP is onboarded — you don’t have a finish line. You have an indefinite sentence with no parole date. The work of this week is not strategy. It’s deciding, explicitly, what enough looks like for this season. Not forever. This summer. Write the specific number, the specific date, the specific condition. Then treat it like a board commitment.


Leaders who cannot name a finish line cannot protect their own recovery. And leaders who cannot protect their own recovery are not choosing sacrifice. They are running a slow leak that will become a rupture at the least convenient institutional moment — which, in education, is always.


Move 2: Audit Your Rumination Before You Leave for Break (5 minutes tonight)


When you finish work tonight, notice what your brain does with the difficult moments from the past week. Not whether it revisits them. It will. The question is whether there’s a specific problem you’re trying to resolve — or whether you’re just running the cortisol loop.


The fix is structural, and it works: when you catch the loop, write one sentence — what is the actual problem I need to resolve here? — and one sentence about when and how you’ll address it. Your brain holds on to unresolved open files. Give it a closed one, and it releases the loop. This is not journaling. This is system maintenance.


Move 3: Build a Transition Ritual Before July 1 (15 minutes of design, compounding return)


The most underutilized performance tool available to a depleted leader costs nothing. A transition ritual — a repeatable sequence that signals to your nervous system: the work part is over, something else begins now.


What works: changing clothes the moment you’re done (clothing is deeply embodied; the brain associates the suit with the battlefield). A specific playlist. Closing a door and saying, aloud: “now the evening begins.” The ritual should involve as many senses as possible and should be repeatable enough that your brain learns to anticipate the transition. Once the sequence runs, it knows what comes next.


One of the most effective transition rituals I’ve heard from a leader is also the simplest. At the end of the workday, he calls his mom. Five minutes. She doesn’t care about the board meeting. She doesn’t need anything from him as a superintendent. She asks how the kids are. She asks if he’s taking care of himself. In five minutes, the brain has completely switched modes — not because he forced it to, but because the conversation required a version of him that has nothing to do with the role. That’s the architecture. Find your version of that call.


What doesn’t work: checking email “one more time,” carrying your open tabs into the evening, telling yourself you’ll decompress in a bit while staying tethered to every notification. The transition has to be structural. Not aspirational. Your nervous system doesn’t respond to intentions.


Move 4: Arrive at Summer Rested Enough to Actually Rest (Start Now, Not the Last Week)


Here is the thing nobody tells you about recovery, and the research is unambiguous on this: leaders who sprint to the starting line of a break and spend the first half still running the loop from the previous week get a fraction of the recovery value of leaders who began decelerating before they arrived.


Start decelerating now. Not the last Friday of the school year. Now. Fifth gear to fourth to third. Clear the evenings this week. Pack early. Leave the laptop in a bag, not on the counter. Arrive at summer rested enough to actually use it — because the leader who burns hot through June 30 and then expects the body to switch off on July 1 has never once met their own nervous system.


Two Objections, Handled:

“I don’t have time to protect recovery. The institution needs me at full capacity right now.”

You are currently operating at a fraction of full capacity because you have not protected recovery. The cabinet getting your depleted thinking is calling it leadership because they have no baseline for comparison. Unaddressed depletion compounds — it doesn’t resolve on its own. Recovery is not a reward you earn after performance. It is the upstream input performance requires. You don’t have time not to do this.

“This is just who I am. I’ve always operated this way.”

You’ve always operated this way because the culture rewarded it, and nobody named the cost. You also cannot accurately assess a depleted state from inside it. The leader who says “I’m fine” in late June after ten months of the Indefinite Sacrifice Contract is not reporting data. They’re reporting what a depleted nervous system has normalized. Name the pattern first. Then decide if it’s actually working — or if it just has a long enough track record to feel like identity.


THE MATURITY SHIFT


Immature leaders think: "I’ll rest when the work is done."


Mature leaders think: "The work is never done. Recovery is the architecture that makes the work sustainable."


Immature leaders think: "Protecting my recovery is selfish. My institution needs me."


Mature leaders think: "Depleting myself is not sacrifice. It’s a slow withdrawal from the only account my institution can draw from."


Immature leaders think: "I’ve made it this far running on empty. It must be working."


Mature leaders think: "I’ve never seen what I’d produce at full capacity. That is the only performance gap worth closing this summer."

The five wishes of the dying do not include: I wish I had given more to the institution. They include — even from people who loved their work — I wish I had worked less. That is not a data point about dedication. It is a data point about a finish line that was never defined.

Here is the uncomfortable truth that nobody puts in the superintendent search profile or the presidential job description:

The condition of the leader is the ceiling of the institution. Not the strategic plan. Not the cabinet. Not the board relationship.


The condition of the person doing the leading sets the upper limit on everything the institution is capable of producing. And right now, in late June, that ceiling is set by a year’s worth of unaddressed depletion.


Which means this summer is not a break from the work of leadership.


It is the most important leadership work of the year.


Your turn: Complete this sentence in the comments — one honest answer, no performance required:


“The last time I genuinely disconnected from work was ____________, and what I remember about it is ____________.”


That answer is your diagnostic. And if you can’t fill in the first blank, that’s the most important data point you’ve collected all year.


Save this issue before your first day back in August. The four moves above are the pre-season architecture that determines what kind of leader walks into that first cabinet meeting.


THE BURNOUT FORCE · KEYNOTE + BOOK


Summer and fall campus tour dates are booking now.


The Burnout Force keynote was not built as a wellness presentation. It was built as a performance architecture conversation — for educational leadership teams who are done treating institutional depletion with individual wellness language that evaporates the moment the retreat ends.


What makes it different from every burnout conversation your cabinet has had: it doesn’t locate the problem in your people. It locates it in three structural forces — Meaning Erosion, Agency Compression, and Isolation Normalization — that accumulate silently in high-performing systems and reduce collective capacity the way a slow leak reduces tire pressure. You can still drive. You just can’t get where you’re going at the speed the road requires.


It gives your entire cabinet a shared language for what they’ve each been experiencing separately. Because the Burnout Force is not an individual phenomenon. It requires a collective diagnosis before it yields to a collective intervention.


From 987 leadership teams across 43 states: 3× performance improvement. 29% higher engagement. 27% better organizational outcomes. Zero burnout increase. That last number is the only proof of concept that matters.


One requirement: the full cabinet in the room. A partial diagnosis is not a diagnosis.


Summer planning season is the window. Most institutions that book The Burnout Force do it in June and July for fall delivery — when the cabinet is together, the year is fresh, and the depletion that built quietly all spring finally has a name and a path.


The question is not whether the Burnout Force is operating on your cabinet right now.


The question is whether you’re going to name it before it names itself in an exit interview.


Book the keynote: higherperformancegroup.com/burnout-force

Get the book: higherperformancegroup.com/bookstore

Schedule a conversation: https://calendly.com/higherperformance/30minutecoffee


IF THIS LANDED — PASS IT FORWARD


→ Repost with your answer to this: What’s the one thing on your calendar right now that you keep telling yourself you’ll finally get to this summer — that you said the same thing about last summer? Name it. Other leaders need to know they’re not the only ones watching the finish line move.


→ Tag a superintendent or president you’ve watched carry an entire year without once saying what it cost them. They deserve to see this before July.


→ Comment with one word for how you actually feel right now, in late June, at the end of this year. Not the word you’d use in a board report. The real one.


The more educational leaders who move from Indefinite Sacrifice to intentional recovery architecture, the better the institutions they lead become — and the better the people doing the leading survive the work they were made for.



Follow DR. JOE HILL and Higher Performance Group for weekly Team Intelligence insights.


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 September 15, 2026
Not the parking-lot kind. The kind that happens in the room. I want to say something that will get me uninvited from a few conferences this year: the calmest cabinet meeting in your building this month was probably the most dishonest one. Nobody lied in that meeting. Everyone in the room agreed to something nobody actually believed, and called it professionalism. There's a scene near the start of 12 Angry Men where eleven jurors vote guilty in under two minutes. Nobody's examined the knife. Nobody's questioned the witness. They just want to make the four o'clock ballgame, and a fast unanimous vote looks exactly like agreement. Patrick Lencioni named the real version of that back in 2002, and the label still fits: artificial harmony. Your cabinet runs its own eleven-to-one vote most weeks, and it doesn't need a jury box to do it. Here's the uncomfortable part. A cabinet with zero visible conflict almost always has the same explanation: something real never got said out loud. THE DIAGNOSIS Let's talk about this like adults who've sat through a “great meeting” that solved nothing. You know the meeting where the budget gets flagged as a concern, everyone nods that they'll “look into their numbers,” and six weeks later the same number resurfaces, because nobody said out loud whose number it was to fix. You know the one where two VPs have been quietly furious with each other since March over a staffing decision, and you can feel it every week in how carefully they avoid each other, and you've decided not to name it because naming it feels like starting something. You know the one where a board member's pet initiative gets full-throated public support in the room, then gets picked apart, sentence by sentence, in the parking lot the second the meeting adjourns. That parking lot conversation is where your cabinet's real meeting is actually happening. The one with the agenda is theater. We call it Consent Theater: everyone performs alignment in the room, and almost nobody in the room actually feels it. I know the exhaustion of being the only person who can feel the thing nobody's saying. It's a specific kind of lonely: watching six capable adults nod in unison at a decision you already know three of them will quietly work around by Thursday. (This is the exact gap THE TEAM INSTITUTE was built to close: the collective architecture that makes disagreement safe enough to happen in the room, in real time, instead of surfacing later in a one-on-one, a group text, or the parking lot. Most leadership development still trains individuals to argue better. This trains the room to hold the argument without breaking. More on that in a moment.) Here's the diagnosis. This is an EQ problem, specifically the part of EQ nobody trains: the capacity to host real disagreement without the room falling apart. Most leadership development sharpens IQ. Almost none of it builds a team's tolerance for productive friction. TQ = IQ × EQ × PQ. Skip that capacity, and you're not getting a calmer team. You're multiplying by something close to zero. THE REAL-FIGHT LITMUS (Or: How to Tell a Real Fight From a Tantrum, in Under Ten Seconds) Call this the Real-Fight Litmus. Or don't — it'll still explain why your cabinet's least professional-sounding argument last year was probably its most valuable ten minutes, while last month's perfectly polite meeting produced exactly nothing. Not all workplace drama is the same. There's melodrama, and there's the real thing, and most leaders never learned to tell them apart, so they shut down both the same way. Three checks separate them. The Stakes Check. Is this about the mission, the budget, the students, the decision, or is it about who gets credit and whose feelings got bruised three weeks ago? Real conflict is anchored to something the institution actually needs solved. (IQ's job: knowing whether the fight is even worth having.) The Address Check. Is it being said to the person it's about, in the room, right now, or about that person, to someone else, later? Real conflict happens at the table. Manufactured drama happens in the parking lot, the group text, the hallway pull-aside that somehow never includes the actual person. (EQ's job: whether the team has the nerve to say it to the face instead of the back.) The Landing Check. Does it end with a decision, an owner, and a next step, or does it just end, unresolved, waiting to resurface next month wearing a different disguise? (PQ's job: reading the room accurately enough to know when the real issue has actually surfaced.) Miss any one, and per the formula, you're multiplying by something close to zero: all the emotional energy of a real fight, none of the resolution. THE CASE STUDY This is a composite, drawn from patterns across our work with 987 leadership teams , not one specific superintendent's story. Picture a seven-person cabinet known among peer districts as “the calm one.” Internally, two departments hadn't fully trusted each other in over a year, since a staffing reallocation neither side felt was handled fairly. Nobody had said that sentence out loud with both of them in the room. Instead, it surfaced everywhere else: in one-on-ones with the superintendent, in the politely cold exchanges in shared meetings, in a joint enrollment-outreach grant the two departments had quietly stopped planning together — fourteen months and counting. The turning point came in one meeting when the superintendent named it directly: “I think there's an unresolved staffing decision between these two departments, and I'd rather we have that conversation here, today, than everywhere else.” Twenty-five uncomfortable minutes followed, then something the cabinet hadn't had in over a year: a resolution, with an owner and a next step, that both departments could name identically when asked separately. The grant application was back on both departments' calendars within three weeks. Six months later, joint planning had gone from an occasional truce to a standing agenda item. Same seven people. One real fight, finally allowed to land where it belonged. THE APPLICATION Here's what to do Monday morning (assuming you're not already mid-crisis, in which case, do this Tuesday): Step 1: Run the Litmus on Your Last Meeting (15 minutes). Pull last week's cabinet agenda. For each item that generated any friction at all, ask the three checks: was it about the mission, or about ego? Was it said in the room, or about someone elsewhere? Did it land on a decision, or did it just stop? If most items pass all three, you have real conflict already, and you're ahead of most cabinets. If most items fail the Address Check, you have a parking-lot cabinet, and the real meeting is happening somewhere you're not. Step 2: Name One Unresolved Thing, Out Loud, In the Room (20 minutes at your next meeting). Pick the one disagreement everyone already knows about but nobody has said directly to the people involved. Say it plainly, the way the superintendent did above: name what you've noticed, and invite the actual conversation, in the room, this week, not “offline.” This will feel like the least professional five minutes you've had in months. It's also the most useful. Step 3: Build a Team Norm for the Address Check (ongoing). Agree, as a cabinet, on one rule: disagreements about a colleague's decision get raised to that colleague, not about them. Practicing this once doesn't undo a year of parking-lot conversations. Practicing it every week, for a few months, does. “We don't have time for this.” You're already spending it. The latest workplace research puts the average manager at over four hours a week managing workplace conflict — more than 230 hours a year. That number doesn't change based on whether you have the real fight or not. It just changes whether that time produces an actual decision, or more meetings about the meeting. “This will make our meetings feel less professional.” Maybe for the first few. But Google's own multi-year Project Aristotle study found one trait separated its highest-performing teams from the rest: psychological safety, the freedom to disagree openly without fear of looking bad in the room. Politeness never made the list. You've been chasing the wrong variable. THE MATURITY SHIFT Immature leaders think: “A good meeting is one where nobody gets upset.” Mature leaders think: “A good meeting is one where the real thing finally got said.” Immature leaders protect the room from conflict, and call it culture. Mature leaders protect the room's capacity to have the conflict, and call it trust. The gap runs deeper than temperament. Somewhere along the way, we convinced an entire generation of leaders that a quiet room is a healthy room. Lencioni named the pattern in 2002. Twenty-four years and a mountain of team-performance research later, most cabinets still run on the original assumption: calm equals healthy. Every eleven-to-one vote your cabinet takes without a single dissenting question is a choice, made weekly, about whether the real disagreement happens in the room or goes and finds somewhere else to live. Your turn: think of the disagreement your cabinet is currently avoiding in the name of staying “professional.” Where is it actually living right now? A one-on-one? A group text? Somebody's resignation letter draft? Name it in the comments. I'll wait. If artificial harmony has been running your cabinet's meetings, and after this issue you don't believe “calm” and “healthy” are the same thing anymore, then what's missing is architecture: the collective skill of hosting real disagreement without the room, or the relationships in it, falling apart. This is what THE TEAM INSTITUTE builds. It's an eight-month program for full leadership cabinets — superintendents and university presidents and the people who sit across the table from them — built around exactly this kind of collective muscle: knowing which fights are real, having them where they belong, and landing them on an actual decision. Across 987 leadership teams, cabinets that did this work saw performance improve roughly 3x and engagement rise 29%, without an increase in burnout, which is usually the quiet cost of every other leadership initiative that just asks people to try harder. Start with the Team Intelligence Assessment. It'll tell you, plainly, whether your cabinet's calm is real or borrowed: https://www.higherperformancegroup.com/tq-assessment Whether or not this is the season for that step, here's a smaller one that costs nothing: repost this with the disagreement your cabinet has been calling “fine” for longer than it should have, tag the colleague who already knows exactly which one you mean, or drop your own version in the comments. Somebody else's cabinet needs to hear that they're not the only one avoiding the same conversation. Follow DR. JOE HILL and Higher Performance Group | THE TEAM INSTITUTE
By HPG Info September 7, 2026
Fluent. Confident. Wrong. In that order. Every cabinet meeting I've sat in since the second week of June has opened with some version of the same sentence: "The board wants to know our AI plan." Nobody's arguing AI matters. That fight's over. What almost nobody's asking is the question underneath it: the one that actually decides whether this fall helps your cabinet or quietly wrecks it. Before you put a machine on the payroll as your cabinet's newest ghostwriter, have you checked what it already believes about you? Here's what nobody tells a team of senior leaders walking into its first AI rollout: the tool doesn't create your team's judgment. It ghostwrites it, fluently, into every board memo and parent email and strategic plan you hand it, sounding exactly as confident in the ones that are wrong as the ones that are right. Two stories explain what's actually at stake this fall. One's old. One's brand new. Together, they're the whole problem. THE SENTENCE In third grade, a teacher tried to stop a boy from getting bullied. He'd been held back in reading, had migraines nobody diagnosed, and needed things repeated more than his classmates did. So she stepped in, pointed at him in front of the whole room, and said the thing she thought would protect him: "Leave that kid alone. That's the boy with the broken brain." She meant it kindly. He heard two words. Broken brain became the sentence he ran, silently, for the next decade: every time he wasn't picked for a team, every time he failed a test, every time he took the back-row seat hoping nobody would call on him. That kid grew up to be Jim Kwik, now one of the most recognized names in learning and memory training on the planet, the guy Fortune 500 companies and elite athletes call when they need to think faster under pressure. He told the story in a conversation earlier this year, and the line that stopped me wasn't the injury. It was what he said actually held him back: "Under stress, we don't rise to the level of our aspirations. We fall to the level of our stories, our systems, and our self-image." Not his intelligence. Not his skill. His self-image, inherited from a five-second sentence somebody else said, replaying under pressure for ten straight years. Now sit with the version your own cabinet is running. Maybe it's a board comment from three budget cycles ago that nobody's repeated out loud since, but everybody still quietly believes. Maybe it's a single paragraph an accreditation team wrote four years back that's still deciding what your provost thinks she's allowed to propose. Maybe it's simpler: a founding leader who once told this team they weren't ready for something, and nobody has tested whether that's still true. Here's the part that should actually worry you. Kwik didn't get better at learning by treating the injury. He got better by finding, and rewriting, the sentence. Your cabinet's talent isn't the variable in question here. It rarely is. The sentence running underneath the talent is. THE TURN Here's why this matters more this fall than any fall before it. For every year of your career until now, your cabinet's inherited sentence stayed mostly contained. It shaped a meeting here, a hesitation there, a proposal that quietly never got made. Slow damage, spread out over years. That containment is gone. Kwik, talking about the exact tools your board is asking about, put it plainly: "AI can scale and amplify. But it can only scale and amplify what a human brings to it." Feed it a clear, tested, collectively-owned judgment, and it multiplies your best thinking across every email, every plan, every decision your cabinet touches. Feed it an untested inherited sentence, and it does the exact same thing to that. (This is the exact gap THE TEAM INSTITUTE was built to close this fall: surfacing what the room already believes before the tool starts repeating it back at scale, which is different work than training your cabinet on the tool itself. Every vendor already offers that part. More on that in a moment.) TQ = IQ × EQ × PQ still holds. What's new is the multiplier. A cabinet with strong IQ and an untested self-image used to produce one flawed decision at a time. The same cabinet, with AI in the loop, can now produce that flawed decision a hundred different ways before lunch: in a strategic plan draft, a parent email, a board memo, and every version will read as confident, because the tool can't tell the difference between confidence and an old wound. THE OLD PLAYBOOK If you want proof this isn't just a Higher Performance Group observation, change management researchers are already redrawing the map. Kotter's 8-Step Change Model has run more transformations than any framework in modern management: create urgency, build a coalition, communicate the vision, empower people to act, anchor the gains. It's built for change that holds still long enough to sequence. A comparative model published this year in the Journal of AI, Robotics & Workplace Automation puts Kotter's eight steps next to a proposed AI Adoption Change Model, and the contrast is the whole argument in one picture. Source: Journal of AI, Robotics & Workplace Automation, Vol. 5 (2026), Henry Stewart Publications. Look at where each model starts. Kotter opens with urgency and a coalition, top-down, already decided. The AI model opens with exploring potential and discovering champions, bottom-up, still being tested. Kotter ends with anchoring the change in culture. The AI model ends with "cultivate AI-driven culture" and loops straight back into exploring again, because the tool never stops shipping new capability long enough for anything to get anchored. That's the structural version of what Kwik is describing at the individual level. AI adoption isn't a project you finish. It's a loop you run, and every pass through that loop amplifies whatever judgment your cabinet brought to it, tested or not. Which is exactly why the next five steps matter more than the eight above them. BUILD BEFORE YOU BORROW Kwik teaches a five-step discipline for exactly this problem, built for one person working with AI. It translates almost perfectly to a cabinet. You just have to run it as a room, not as one person with a laptop. Brainstorm first. Before anyone opens a tool, the cabinet talks through the problem out loud, together, with nothing feeding them an answer. This has nothing to do with whether the tool can be trusted. A room that's never practiced thinking together won't notice when the tool starts thinking for it instead. Understand the real problem. Most cabinets solve the presenting problem (enrollment's soft, a program's underperforming) instead of the one underneath it. Kwik's rule: spend the bulk of your time understanding what's actually broken before anyone reaches for a fix. AI is exceptionally good at answering the wrong question with total confidence. Imagine your own solution before you borrow one. Draft the cabinet's own answer first, even a rough one, before any tool sees the problem. This is the step almost every cabinet skips under deadline pressure, and it's the one that actually builds Team Intelligence. Skip it enough times, and the room stops being able to do it at all. Leverage the tool to stress-test, not to think for you. This is the one step where you deliberately fire the ghostwriter. Kwik's own practice: ask AI to argue against what the room already believes, to name the room's blind spots, to poke holes. Not "write our plan." "Tell us what's wrong with our plan." Different question, completely different outcome, and the only one of the five steps where you want the tool talking back instead of taking dictation. Decide, because the tool never has to live with it. AI has no stake in your decision. It doesn't sit in the parent meeting when the plan fails, or defend the budget line to the board. That accountability doesn't transfer, no matter how good the draft looks. Somebody in the room still has to own it. Five steps. None require new software. All five require your leaders to still be doing the thinking it's currently outsourcing, to the tool, or, just as often, to whichever one of you has quietly become the only person who does the real thinking before anyone else weighs in. (Kwik teaches this in far more depth than one newsletter can hold: his book Limitless and his Kwik Brain podcast go deep on the underlying discipline. No affiliation here, just work worth pointing you to.) THE CASE STUDY This is a composite, drawn from patterns across our work with 987 leadership teams , not one specific president's story. A university cabinet spent the spring drafting its first AI use policy the way most do: one dean built a draft using a chatbot over a weekend, and the cabinet spent forty minutes debating word choices in a document none of them had actually thought through together. The policy read confidently. Nobody in the room could say, if asked directly, what problem it was actually solving. Before the fall rollout, the cabinet ran Build Before You Borrow on that same policy, live, in one meeting. Brainstormed first, out loud, no laptops. Named the real problem: not "we need an AI policy" but "we don't yet agree on what we're willing to let a machine say on our behalf." Drafted their own answer as a room, in plain language, before any tool touched it. Only then brought a draft to AI, and only to argue against it. The resulting policy was four sentences shorter than the first one and, according to the cabinet, the first draft everyone in the room could actually explain from memory without looking at it. Same five people. One real conversation, finally had before the tool had it for them. THE FIRST MEETING You don't need a retreat for this. You need one meeting, early in the semester, run differently than the ones you've been running. Name the sentence (20 minutes). Ask your cabinet directly: what's something this institution believes about itself that nobody's tested in years? Write every answer down without editing them. You're not solving anything yet. You're finding out what you've all been quietly agreeing not to say. Run one live decision through Build Before You Borrow, out loud, before anyone opens a laptop (30 minutes). Pick a real one: the fall enrollment message, the AI policy itself, whatever's actually on this week's agenda. Brainstorm together first. Name the real problem. Draft your own answer as a room. Only then bring in a tool, and only to argue against what you just built. Agree, as a cabinet, on one rule for how AI gets used this year (10 minutes). Not a policy document. One sentence everyone says out loud and means: something like "nothing this tool wrote goes out first without a human draft underneath it." Whatever you land on, make it specific enough that you'd notice the day you broke it. If your first objection is that you don't have sixty extra minutes this month, you're already spending more than that reworking decisions that got made too fast, by whoever talked first in the room. This isn't additional time. It's the same time, spent before the mistake instead of after it. If your second objection is that your team will treat this as one more initiative, they're already operating under an initiative. It's just an unspoken one, and it's been running since before you took the job. THE MATURITY SHIFT Immature leaders think: "We need to move fast before we fall behind on AI." Mature leaders think: "We need to know what we actually believe before we teach a machine to say it for us." Immature leaders let the tool draft first and edit for tone. Mature leaders draft the room's own answer first and let the tool argue with it. Kwik calls the difference between these two postures victim mindset and heroic mindset: whether you let your hardest chapter keep narrating you, or you use it as fuel. It's a private decision about your own institution's story, one nobody else can make for you, and this fall, a machine is about to say that decision out loud, on schedule, to everyone. YOUR TURN Your cabinet is about to find out, in public, at scale, which story it's been running. No scandal required. A machine is about to say it back to everyone, fluently, on schedule, forever. Name it. What's the sentence your cabinet has been running that nobody's tested? Where did it come from, and is it even still true? You don't have to post the answer. But if you're willing to, I'd genuinely like to know what you find. If you already suspect which sentence it is, and you're wondering whether it's about to get amplified before you've even chosen a vendor: that's precisely what the TEAM INTELLIGENCE Assessment is built to surface. Fifteen minutes, no pitch, just a clear read on what your cabinet is actually working with before you put a machine in the room as your ghostwriter. higherperformancegroup.com/team-intelligence-assessment Across the 987 leadership teams we've studied, the cabinets that did this work before scaling anything (a new initiative, a new tool, a new plan) outperformed the ones that scaled first and diagnosed later, by a wide enough margin that "later" stopped being a viable strategy. The point is simple: make sure what gets sped up is actually worth repeating. If this is useful for someone else's first fall cabinet meeting, send it their way before their board asks the same question yours did. Tell them which sentence you found. Somebody in your network is about to let a machine ghostwrite a story they've never actually tested, and this might be the newsletter that stops them in time. Follow DR. JOE HILL and Higher Performance Group . — Dr. Joe Hill, Higher Performance Group | THE TEAM INSTITUTE
Show More