Higher Performance Insights | YOUR CABINET HAS HOPE DEPENDENCY

November 11, 2025
higher performance insights

(And You're the Dealer They Keep Calling)


Do this math: 6 times per week × 47 weeks × 15 min × $125/hr = $17,625 annually being "the optimistic one."


That's a slightly used 2023 Honda Civic you're burning while calling it leadership.


73% of leaders in our 987-team study are the only "hopeful one" on their team. You're not helping them. You're creating dependency.


Here's the pattern nobody's naming: Every time you loan your hope, you confirm they don't have their own. Every time you're "the optimistic one," you teach them optimism isn't their job. Every time you solve their hopelessness problem, you rob them of the exact agency that builds real hope.


That question you love asking—"Who on my team needs to borrow my hope?"—isn't supportive leadership. It's enabling learned helplessness with inspirational language.


And while you're performing hope for your cabinet, your board is wondering why decisions take forever, your teachers/faculty are experiencing inconsistent leadership, and you're Googling "leadership burnout symptoms" at 11 PM on a Tuesday.


Your turn: Count this week. How many times were you "the hopeful one"?


Drop the number in the comments—I'm curious.


THE DIAGNOSIS: Why Smart Leaders Build Dependent Teams


Let's talk about this like adults who've survived multiple enrollment crises and at least one strategic planning retreat that somehow cost $40K and produced a vision statement that could apply to literally any organization with a mission.


Here's what your last two weeks actually looked like:


Monday, 9:00 AM: Cabinet Meeting


Your VP of Enrollment presents fall numbers. They're... not great.


(In K-12, substitute "your Director of Student Services presents discipline data." In higher ed, it's enrollment. The pattern's the same—someone brings math that hurts.)


The room catalogs obstacles:


  • Demographics working against us
  • Competition has better facilities
  • Budget constraints everywhere
  • That new program bleeding money
  • Board asking uncomfortable questions
  • Someone mentions "headwinds" because apparently we're all sailing ships now


Energy drops like your retention rate during that semester we don't discuss.


And you—because this is leadership, right?—step in.


"Here's what I'm seeing as possible..."


You reframe. You remind them of the community college that turned around enrollment with adult learners. You point to opportunities buried in the obstacles. You tell that story about the institution that was struggling five years ago and is now thriving.


You provide the hope injection.


The room shifts. People nod. Someone says, "Good perspective." Meeting ends on an upward trajectory.


You feel like you just performed emotional CPR.


They feel slightly less defeated.


Nobody notices you're the only one who performed life-saving measures.


Tuesday's Meeting: Different Topic, Identical Dynamic


Budget discussion. Your CFO presents constraints. Your deans/principals express concern. The conversation spirals toward "what we can't do."


You redirect: "Let me share what I'm thinking about differently..."


They listen. They nod. They leave feeling better.


And you leave feeling like you just ran an emotional marathon while everyone else walked.


By Thursday


You're in three different "quick conversations":


  • Your CFO in the parking lot: "Can you help me reframe this for the board?"
  • Your Provost via Slack: "I need your perspective on something"
  • Your Dean in your doorway: "Just need 5 minutes" (takes 23)


Translation: They need to borrow your optimism because they've temporarily run out of their own.


You provide it. Because that's leadership. Right?


Wrong.


It feels like supportive leadership. It's actually enabling learned helplessness with inspirational language.


Quick check: How many times THIS WEEK have you been the emotional CPR for your cabinet?


And while you're performing hope for your cabinet, your teachers/faculty are wondering why leadership can't seem to make decisions, your board is asking why implementation is slow, and you're Googling "leadership burnout symptoms" at 11 PM on a Tuesday.


I know the loneliness of being the only person who sees the possibility of feeling like you're carrying the emotional infrastructure of an entire institution.


Would your team collapse into nihilism if you took a vacation?


You're not crazy. Your team isn't incompetent.


You've just accidentally created a system where hope has a monopoly holder, and the monopoly holder is exhausted.


Comment "THURSDAY" if this was literally your week.


(Bonus points if you can calculate how many times you were "the optimistic one" since Monday.)


HERE'S WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING


Your team has high individual competence but catastrophically low collective agency.


They're brilliant people who've never learned to generate their own hope under pressure. So they compensate with dependency.

 

On you.


It's not malicious. It's mathematical.


When you own Goals, Pathways, AND Agency for your team, you're not multiplying their capacity. You're multiplying by zero while working really, really hard.


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


💡 "Hope isn't something people borrow. It's something teams build. Every time you loan yours out, you prevent them from constructing their own."


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


(This is actually why I created The GROUP—a free community where insights like this become Leader CORE Lessons you can deploy Monday morning. We teach your team to build hope infrastructure, not rent yours. But I'm getting ahead of myself.)


Here's the uncomfortable truth: You accepted the assignment of being "the hopeful one." And every time you perform that role, you confirm the role distribution.


Your team isn't failing to generate hope. They're successfully outsourcing it to you.


And you—because you care about them, because you want to support them, because this is what you thought leadership looked like—keep accepting the outsourcing contract.


THE FRAMEWORK: Stop Being the Hope Source. Start Building Hope Infrastructure.


Call this the Agency Architecture Framework. Or don't. It'll still explain why your last "inspirational message" changed nothing about your team's actual capacity.


THE RESEARCH EVERYONE MISUNDERSTOOD


Psychologist C.R. Snyder spent decades studying hope. He identified three components:


  1. Goals - Clear objectives
  2. Pathways - Routes to achieve goals
  3. Agency - Belief in our capacity to act


Here's the part that matters: Agency is "our belief in our own capacity to act."


Read that again.


Our own capacity.

Not borrowed capacity. Not your capacity that they rent for 90 minutes. Their own.


Every time you loan your hope, you confirm they don't have their own.


Every time you're "the optimistic one," you reinforce that optimism isn't their job.


Every time you solve their hopelessness problem, you rob them of the exact agency that builds real hope.


Data from 987 leadership teams confirms: Teams with one "hope source" report 40% lower collective efficacy than teams with distributed agency.


When only you own Goals, Pathways, and Agency, you're not multiplying team capacity. You're multiplying by zero while working really, really hard.


Comment "BORROWED" if you've ever asked, "Who on my team needs to borrow my hope right now?" Let's see how many of us have been accidentally enabling dependency.


THE THREE SHIFTS: Stop Being the Dealer They Keep Calling

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


🎯 SHIFT 1: GOALS Stop Deciding For Them. Start Deciding With Them.


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


What you're doing now:


You set goals. Cast vision. Define success. Your cabinet nods, agrees, maybe even feels inspired momentarily. Then returns to their divisions and operates according to entirely different goals because they never actually owned yours.


What happens:


In K-12: You announce district priorities. Principals nod. Teachers experience three different interpretations of the same priority because it never belonged to anyone except you.


In higher ed: You define institutional objectives. Deans agree. Faculty wonder why priorities keep changing because the goals were never co-created, just announced.


What to do instead:


"Before I share what I'm thinking, what does success look like from your seat? What would make next year feel like progress for Student Affairs? For Academic Affairs? For Finance?"


Then facilitate the messy work of finding the intersection between eight different definitions of success.


⚠️ The Uncomfortable Truth: This is slower than just deciding. It also produces goals your team will actually pursue when you're not in the room. Choose wisely.


The difference between clarity provided and clarity created is the difference between compliance and ownership. One requires you to constantly reinforce. One sustains itself.


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


🛤️ SHIFT 2: PATHWAYS Stop Bringing Back Conference Insights. Start Building Collective Capacity.


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


What you're doing now:


You went to the conference. Learned the framework. Came back energized. Built the implementation plan. Ready to deploy.


Two months later, you're experiencing "implementation friction"—consultant-speak for "nobody's actually doing this and everyone's pretending they don't notice."


Why? Because you brought back your pathway, not theirs.


What happens:


You keep wondering why your brilliant strategy isn't being executed. They keep wondering why you don't understand their reality. Everyone's frustrated. Nothing changes.


What to do instead:


"We agree we need to improve retention. Before we pick a strategy, let's identify: What's actually in our control? What resources do we have? What's worked before? Then let's build options together."

You're not withholding your expertise. You're teaching them to build pathways instead of walk yours.


⚠️ The Uncomfortable Truth: This feels inefficient at first. But it's the difference between leading a team that executes your plans (requires your constant presence) and leading a team that generates plans (functions when you're on vacation).


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


💪 SHIFT 3: AGENCY (The Big One) Stop Loaning Belief. Start Building Their Capacity to Generate It.


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


This is where the Hope Tax lives.


What you're doing now:


Cabinet discussion surfaces challenges. You reframe anxiety into optimism. They feel better. You feel exhausted. Nothing changes about their actual capacity to see possibility independently.


Next meeting: Same pattern. They bring problems. You bring hope. They express doubt. You provide belief.


You've accidentally trained them that hope is your job, not theirs.


What happens:


Your calendar fills with "quick conversations" where people need hope injections. You become the emotional infrastructure of your organization. They become dependent on you for basic optimism. Everyone calls this "supportive leadership" while you quietly burn out.


What to do instead:


"I notice we're cataloging obstacles. That's important—we need to see reality clearly. And I also notice nobody's named what's possible yet. Before I jump in, who wants to try? What's one pathway that could actually work?"


Awkward silence? Probably. Will last approximately 47 seconds (yes, I've timed this across hundreds of leadership teams).


Will someone eventually speak? Yes.


Will it be messier than when you do it? Yes.


Will it be theirs? Yes.


And is that the entire point? Also yes.


⚠️ The Uncomfortable Truth: The silence is diagnostic. If nobody can articulate possibility without you, you've created dependency, not capability. And dependency—no matter how inspirational it looks—is the opposite of leadership development.


Honest question: What would happen if you stayed silent for 47 seconds? Would your team collapse or discover they don't need you to think for them?


THE CASE STUDY: When Alicia Stopped Being the Hope Dealer


Let me tell you about a president I'll call Alicia (Alicia, you absolutely know this is you, and your former CFO is probably reading this right now and texting you).


Alicia led a regional comprehensive university. 12,000 students. Declining enrollment. Aging facilities. Board asking increasingly uncomfortable questions about "institutional viability" (academic-speak for "are we going to survive this?").


Her cabinet: Eight people with an average of 19 years in higher education each. Combined credentials that could staff a small academic conference. Combined ability to see possibility without Sarah? Roughly equivalent to their combined ability to agree on where to order lunch (which is to say: zero).


Every cabinet meeting followed the same script:


  • Someone surfaces enrollment/budget/operational challenge
  • Team catalogs obstacles with the thoroughness of people who've definitely done this before
  • Energy drops
  • Alicia reframes, provides hope injection, tells inspiring story
  • Meeting ends on upward trajectory
  • Nothing actually changes about the team's capacity


Alicia was even featured in a Chronicle article about "leading with optimism during challenging times."


Privately? Alicia was exhausted. And confused.


Because her team was brilliant individually but seemingly incapable of seeing possibility collectively. And she couldn't figure out why eight smart people couldn't generate optimism without her.


Before you read what Alicia did—predict: What's YOUR Hope Tax number? Comment your guess.


Then Alicia did something uncomfortable.


At her next cabinet meeting, when the Provost started cataloging enrollment challenges (demographics, competition, the existential crisis of regional comprehensives, probably something about "headwinds"), Alicia did something she'd never done:


She stayed quiet.


The silence was excruciating. Her CFO later told her it felt like 10 minutes.


Alicia timed it. 47 seconds.


Finally, her VP of Student Affairs said: "Okay, what if we looked at this differently? Declining traditional enrollment is actually forcing us to finally fix our adult learner infrastructure. We've been talking about that for six years but never had the pressure to actually do it. Maybe this crisis is the forcing function we needed."


Alicia told me later, "I almost interrupted him three times. I had to physically put my hands under my thighs to stop myself from jumping in. It was the hardest 47 seconds of my presidency. And the most important."


The conversation that followed wasn't as polished as when Alicia facilitated. Messier. Less linear. More awkward pauses.


But it was theirs.


Alicia did this systematically over six months:


  • Stopped immediately reframing every challenge
  • Started asking "Who else sees a pathway forward here?"
  • Practiced counting to 10 before providing hope
  • Named the pattern: "I think I've trained us that my job is to see possibility and your job is to see obstacles"


Her team stopped borrowing her hope and started building their own.


Cabinet meetings stopped being "Alicia inspires everyone for 90 minutes" and started being "eight people solve problems together."


The transformation wasn't dramatic. It was incremental. And it was permanent.


The numbers:


  • Hope Tax: $28,000/year → $4,200/year (85% reduction)
  • "Quick conversations" needing Sarah's optimism: 18/week → 3/week
  • Cabinet decisions made WITHOUT Sarah facilitating: 2/year → 12/year
  • Alicia's Sunday night work sessions: 4 hours → 45 minutes


Same budget. Same enrollment challenges. Same board pressure.


Different hope infrastructure.


Within six months:


  • Cabinet meetings were 35% shorter
  • Implementation increased 60%
  • Alicia's workload decreased significantly
  • Team made a major strategic pivot unanimously—without Alicia facilitating


The strategic plan didn't change. The hope infrastructure underneath it changed.


Turns out, that's what actually matters.


Now, if you're thinking "this framework makes sense, but how do I actually facilitate the awkward 47-second silence without it turning into a staring contest or accidentally making my VP cry?"—I get it. That's the gap between insight and implementation.


This is what The GROUP is for.


Each week, I turn the newsletter topic into a Leader CORE Lesson and Guide:


  • Facilitation scripts for navigating the silence when you stop being the hope source
  • Discussion protocols that build agency without feeling like therapy
  • Team exercises that develop hope infrastructure, not hope dependency
  • The actual language to use when someone says "but isn't hope your job as leader?"
  • Diagnostic tools to assess where your team is on the agency spectrum


It's free (because charging you to solve a problem called the Hope Tax would be peak irony), built for busy leaders who need practical resources—not more theory—and designed for Monday morning meetings when you're already exhausted from last week's hope performance.


Grab this week's Hope Infrastructure guide: https://www.higherperformancegroup.com/the-group

But whether you join The GROUP or not, here's what you can implement immediately...


THE APPLICATION: What to Do Monday Morning


(Assuming you survived last week's hope marathon and aren't currently hiding in your car eating lunch alone to avoid more "quick conversations" where someone needs you to help them "see this differently")


STEP 1: THE HOPE MONOPOLY AUDIT (15 minutes)


In your next cabinet meeting, when someone surfaces a challenge, don't immediately reframe it.


Count to 10. Out loud in your head. Feel the discomfort of the silence.


Then ask: "Before I share what I'm thinking, who else sees a pathway forward here?"


Watch what happens:


  • If nobody speaks, you've just discovered you have a hope monopoly
  • If someone speaks but then looks at you for validation, they're still borrowing agency
  • If someone speaks and others build on it without checking with you, congratulations—you have distributed agency somewhere


The silence is diagnostic data. Don't fill it. Let your team experience the gap between their current dependence and their potential capacity.


If this feels cruel, remember: You're not withholding help. You're creating space for them to discover they don't need to borrow what they can build.


(Objection handling: "But what if nobody speaks and the meeting just dies?" Then you've diagnosed a more serious problem than you thought. And you still can't fix it by continuing to be the hope dealer. The silence itself is the intervention.)


STEP 2: CALCULATE YOUR ACTUAL HOPE TAX (10 minutes)


Track this for one week. Every time you play "the optimistic one," make a tally mark.


Count honestly:


  • Cabinet meetings where you reframe challenges
  • One-on-ones where you "help them see differently"
  • Emails where you provide encouraging perspective
  • Hallway conversations where someone needs hope injection


Then do the math:


[Number of instances] × 15 minutes each × $125/hour × 47 weeks = Your Annual Hope Tax


For the president who hit 23 instances in five days? That's $32,662.50 annually.


That's not a rounding error. That's a full-time staff position you're filling with your emotional labor while wondering why you don't have time for strategic thinking.


Write the number down. Show it to someone. Maybe your spouse, who's been asking why you're exhausted on weekends.

Your Hope Tax isn't a leadership development expense. It's a leadership design flaw that's been costing you actual money and time you'll never get back.


STEP 3: THE AGENCY REDISTRIBUTION CONVERSATION (20 minutes at next cabinet meeting)


This is the uncomfortable one. This is where you name the pattern that everyone's been experiencing but nobody's been saying.

Add this to your next cabinet agenda: "Team development conversation: Hope infrastructure"

Then say this (or your version of this):


"I've noticed a pattern in our meetings, and I want to name it and see if you're noticing it too."

I think I've accidentally trained us that my job is to see possibility and your job is to see obstacles. That wasn't intentional, but I think it's happening. And I think it's making us less effective as a team.


Not because you can't see possibility—you absolutely can. But because I keep doing it for you before you have to. So you've stopped practicing that muscle.


What if we practiced seeing possibility together? What would that look like?"


Pause. Let that land. Count to 10 again.


Then:


"I'm not going to stop being optimistic. But I am going to stop being the only person who's optimistic. Starting today."

Uncomfortable? Extremely.


Necessary? Absolutely.


Will someone say "but isn't providing vision and hope literally your job as leader?" Probably your CFO.


Your response:


"My job is to build a team that can lead even when I'm not in the room. Right now, I'm accidentally preventing that by providing something you need to learn to generate yourselves."

This won't feel natural. It will feel like you're withholding something they need.


You're not. You're teaching them to build what you've been loaning.


There's a difference.


⚡ Pause here. Comment "47 SECONDS" if you're willing to try the awkward silence experiment at your next meeting. I want to see how many leaders are brave enough to stop talking.


OBJECTION HANDLING


"But we don't have time for this philosophical conversation about hope. We have actual crises."


You're currently spending 15+ hours per month being the hope dealer. That's 180 hours per year. That's 4.5 weeks of full-time work.


You don't have time NOT to fix this.


Also, this isn't philosophical. This is operational. Your team can't function independently because you've accidentally made yourself indispensable for basic optimism. That's not crisis management. That's crisis creation with inspirational language.


"What if I stop providing hope and they just spiral into negativity?"

Then you've discovered the actual state of your team's agency, and you can finally address the real problem instead of decorating around it with motivational speeches.


But here's what actually happens: When you stop filling every silence with optimism, someone else will. Maybe not immediately. Maybe not eloquently. But they will.


Because people don't lack the capacity for hope. They lack practice generating it when someone else has been doing it for them.


"This feels like I'm abandoning my team when they need me most."

You're not abandoning them. You're graduating them from dependence to capability.


There's a difference between supporting people and becoming their emotional life support system. One builds strength. One creates atrophy.


And right now, your team's hope muscles have atrophied because you keep doing the emotional heavy lifting while they watch.


THE MATURITY SHIFT: From Hope Performance to Hope Infrastructure


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

IMMATURE LEADERS ASK: "Who needs to borrow my hope?"


MATURE LEADERS ASK: "How do I build a team that generates its own?"


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Immature leaders model optimism, yet wonder why their team remains pessimistic.


Mature leaders build systems where agency is distributed and wonder why they didn't do this five years ago.


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Immature leaders measure their effectiveness by how inspired people feel after meetings.


Mature leaders measure effectiveness by how independently their team solves problems when they're not in the room.


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Immature leaders treat "being the hopeful one" as a leadership strength.


Mature leaders recognize it as a team development failure masquerading as inspirational leadership.


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


Immature leaders = Indispensable + Exhausted Mature leaders = Team Capable + Vacation Restful


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


💡 "The Hope Tax isn't an operational expense you have to accept. It's a leadership design flaw you can fix."


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

The difference is the difference between performing hope and building the infrastructure that makes hope renewable.


One makes you indispensable and exhausted.


One makes your team capable and your vacation actually restful.


And unlike your actual budget constraints, your enrollment challenges, and the existential questions your board keeps asking—this one is 100% in your control.


YOUR TURN


Count this week. How many times were you "the optimistic one"?


Calculate your Hope Tax: [instances per week] × 15 minutes × $125/hour × 47 weeks = ?


Drop your Hope Tax calculation in the comments.


(Bonus points if it's so high it makes you reconsider every leadership podcast you've ever loved. Double bonus if you can calculate what you could have bought with that money—spoiler: it's probably a Honda Civic.)


What would it look like to stop loaning hope and start building the infrastructure for your team to generate their own?

Tag the cabinet member who borrows your hope most frequently. (Do it cowardly—don't explain what you're actually tagging them for.)


P.S. IF YOU'RE THINKING "I DON'T HAVE TIME TO TURN THIS INTO A MONDAY MORNING TEAM CONVERSATION"


I already did it for you.


The GROUP is a free community where every newsletter becomes a ready-to-deploy Leader CORE Lesson and Guide:

  • Facilitation scripts for navigating the 47-second silence without panicking
  • Discussion protocols that build agency without feeling like group therapy
  • Team exercises that develop hope infrastructure systematically
  • The actual language to use when your CFO says, "Isn't hope literally your job?"
  • Diagnostic tools to assess where your team is on the agency spectrum
  • Recovery protocols for when you accidentally slip back into hope-dealer mode


Join The GROUP here (it's free): https://www.higherperformancegroup.com/the-group


Plus you get access to hundreds of campus leaders who are also trying to stop being the lone source of institutional optimism. The implementation guides save you hours. The peer conversations? Those might save you from becoming that leader who's inspirational on LinkedIn and exhausted in real life.


HELP OTHER LEADERS DISCOVER THIS


If this resonated (or made you uncomfortable, which is basically the same thing):


→ Repost this with your Hope Tax calculation and biggest takeaway


→ Tag a leader who's definitely paying the Hope Tax right now (you know exactly who they are—the one who's always "the optimistic one" and always exhausted)


→ Comment with your experience—Have you noticed this pattern? What's it costing you? Your story helps others feel less alone


The more leaders who shift from providing hope to building hope infrastructure, the better our educational systems become. And the fewer leaders burn out trying to be the emotional architecture of their entire organization.


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


NEXT ISSUE: "Your Cabinet Has Commitment Issues (And Your Strategic Plan Is the Emotional Affair)"


Why your team enthusiastically agrees to priorities in September and acts like amnesia victims by October. We'll explore the 15-minute exercise that reveals whether you have genuine ownership or performative compliance—plus the uncomfortable reason strategic plans built through consensus create exactly zero commitment.



Spoiler: Your team isn't failing to follow through. They're successfully executing a plan they never actually owned. And you're about to discover you've been confusing agreement with commitment for your entire leadership career.


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

Higher Performance Insights | DISRUPTING THE PIPELINE

By HPG Info • December 10, 2025
Builder Insights from December's Peer-to-Peer Roundtable 2.9 million students walked away from traditional education in the last decade. Not because they hate learning. Because they discovered something educational leaders are just now admitting to each other in private Zoom rooms. Last Wednesday, a college president stood up (metaphorically—we were on Zoom, but you could feel him standing) and said something that made every superintendent in the room physically lean forward: " We have become habituated to viewing educational leadership through filters—analogous to social media platforms where individuals present curated identities disconnected from reality. Trinity Valley was profoundly guilty of this pattern—appearing to external audiences as an institution meeting mission while internally delivering bare minimum performance."  Jason Morrison, Ed. D. , President of Trinity Valley Community College in Texas, just named the thing everyone in educational leadership feels but nobody says out loud. Welcome to the Snapchat Filter Effect. Your institution looks great in the photos. The reality? That's a different story. And here's why this matters right now, today, in December 2025: 1.7 million students lost in higher education since 2014. 1.2 million departed K-12 since 2019. Combined, that's roughly the population of New Mexico—students who didn't disappear, they just opted for educational providers who weren't performing behind a filter. The market already delivered its verdict. The only question is whether educational leaders will respond with the courage this moment demands—or keep adjusting the filter settings while enrollment evaporates. Comment "FILTER" if this describes your institution right now. (I'll go first in comments. Yes, I've been guilty of this too.)

Higher Performance Insights | GO TO THE ANT, YOU S-WORD?

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