The Power of Letting Go: How Effective Delegation Builds Stronger Team Performance

February 13, 2024

Sound familiar? A campus leader, formerly celebrated for their achievements, now swamped under a deluge of administrative duties. Their open door, a symbol of accessibility, has paradoxically become a blockade to productivity, their days a marathon of meetings, and their evenings echoing with the silent wishes of family for a shared meal.


This is the quintessence of delegation gone awry.


“The Power of Letting Go: How Effective Delegation Builds Stronger Team Performance” explores the profound impact of delegation—it’s not just about lightening the load. It’s about crafting an ecosystem where every individual within your organization can thrive.


It’s about your transformation from busy back to brilliant, a visionary capable of unlocking the collective potential of your team.

untied shoes

Introducing my NEW workshop for campus leadership teams:


Equipping YOUR Executive Leaders to BUILD Higher Performance Teams


Book the Workshop Today!


Effective delegation isn't merely a skill—it's a strategic pivot to unleash and harness the full power of your people.


How do you begin? Here's a distilled strategy for amplifying team performance through the mastery of delegation:

Better ‘You’ than ‘We’

When delegating, 'we' can be a mirage of inclusivity. It blurs accountability. Shift from 'we' to 'you'. It's not abrasive—it's precision. 'You' assigns a name to the task, making responsibility explicit and ownership non-negotiable.


This isn’t about diminishing the team's power but assigning each member a definitive role in the playbook.


Clear Timelines

Delegation with no deadline is just busy work—activity without productivity. Without a clock, the game has no urgency, no end. Definite timelines slice through hesitation and set priorities ablaze.


While setting clear timelines is widely acknowledged, the common practice of neglecting the ‘T’ of the SMART Goal often falls by the wayside. 


Like the often-underestimated power of a smile in human connection, setting explicit deadlines is a fundamental yet potent tool in systemic performance. 


Delegating is the art of clarity. 


Sure, it's about passing tasks down the line, but more so, it’s about cultivating a culture of Higher Performance. Moving from the nebulous 'we' to a decisive 'you' is not a mere play on words. It's the blueprint for elevating your team's culture. Pair that clarity with definitive deadlines, and you'll see your role transform from the overwhelmed to the outstanding.

Resource Tip: I’ve found "Effective Delegation of Authority" by Hassan Osman invaluable. This book offers practical insights for leaders to enhance team effectiveness and productivity, serving as a guide to empowered leadership.

A Community of Practice: Consider joining THE GROUP. It’s a FREE newsletter filled with fascinating and practical articles, books, and podcasts curated by Higher Performance Leaders nationwide. Here is a recent sample of THE GROUP

More Blog Articles

By HPG Info October 21, 2025
When the words sound right, but something still feels off I watched Jimmy Kimmel's apology three times before I realized he never actually apologized. 73% of public apologies fail to restore trust—not because people are unforgiving, but because the apologies were never real. Here's how to spot the difference (and why it matters for every leader reading this). What separates real remorse from performative damage control? Here's my confession: When Jimmy Kimmel issued his apology following controversial comments about Charlie Kirk's assassination, I watched it the morning it dropped and thought, "Okay, this guy gets it." I'm a raging moderate with no dog in this fight—I think Kimmel's a talented comedian, late-night TV is harmless background noise, and political tribalism is exhausting everyone equally. So I gave him a mental fist bump and moved on. Then I watched it again. And again. And something started feeling off. By the third viewing, I realized I'd been played. Not by malice. By masterclass-level reputation management dressed up as genuine remorse. And that's when this turned from "good for him" into a case study every leader needs to understand. The uncomfortable truth: Most of us have done some version of this performative apology. I know I have. Because, whether you're apologizing to your team, your partner, or a national audience, the gap between "sorry" and actually sorry is where trust goes to die. Let's dissect what happened—not as political commentary, but as adults who've had to apologize without a communications team smoothing out the uncomfortable parts. THE DIAGNOSIS: WHY MOST APOLOGIES FAIL Let's talk about this like adults who've had to issue apologies that actually cost us something. You know the drill. You mess up. Badly. The kind of mess-up where you can feel the weight of it in your chest before you've even processed what happened. People are hurt. Rightfully angry. And now you have to face it. Here's where most of us split into two camps: Camp A: You grab your phone at 2 AM, draft seventeen versions of an apology that get progressively more defensive, delete them all, and eventually post something that leads with "I'm sorry you felt..." (Translation: Your feelings are inconvenient to me right now.) Camp B: You sit in the discomfort long enough to realize what you actually did wrong, own it completely, and accept that some people might not forgive you even after you apologize correctly. Most of us live in Camp A because it's cheaper. Emotionally, politically, professionally. But cheap apologies cost you everything that actually matters: trust, respect, and the ability to lead when it counts. We want the pain to stop. We want to be understood. We want people to know we're not bad people who did a bad thing—we're good people who made a mistake. But here's what nobody tells you: Real apologies require admitting you were wrong about something you thought you were right about. And that's psychologically expensive in a way that "I'm sorry you felt hurt" will never be. This is what happened with Kimmel's apology. It had all the aesthetic elements of accountability—emotion, acknowledgment, vulnerability. But when you strip away the performance, what remains is a textbook example of reputation management. And the worst part? It almost worked on me. I wanted to believe it. Because believing it would be easier than confronting the uncomfortable truth: We've all done some version of this. Quick question before we continue: What's your default apology phrase when you're not actually owning it? Mine was "I'm sorry you felt..." Drop it in the comments—I'm curious if we all have the same tells. THE FRAMEWORK: THE 4 ELEMENTS OF GENUINE APOLOGY Call this the Accountability Architecture. Or don't. It'll still explain why that apology you issued last month landed like a lead balloon, even though you "said all the right things." 1. Specific Ownership Without Caveats A genuine apology names the actual harm you caused. Not the harm you intended. Not the harm people perceived. The actual harm. What fraud sounds like: "I'm sorry if anyone was offended by my comments." What genuine sounds like: "I said [specific thing]. That was wrong because [specific harm it caused]." The test: Can you state what you did wrong without using "but," "however," or "though"? If not, you're still defending yourself rather than apologizing. The Kimmel example: In his original monologue, Kimmel said "we've hit new lows" and explicitly stated that "MAGA is desperately trying to paint the picture that this shooter was..." implying right-wing motivation. When facts revealed the shooter was motivated by left-wing, anti-American sentiment, Kimmel needed to own: "I blamed the wrong people on national television." What he said instead: "It was never my intention to blame any specific group." But... it was. Everyone who watched knew it was. That was literally the point of the monologue. This is where apologies die—in the gap between what you actually did and what you're willing to admit you did. 2. Impact Over Intent Your intent doesn't erase impact. This one's hard because we're all heroes in our own stories. If you step on someone's foot, whether you meant to or not, their foot still hurts. What fraud sounds like: "It was never my intention to cause pain." What genuine sounds like: "Regardless of my intent, my actions caused [specific harm]. That's on me." The Kimmel example: He opened with "it was never my intention to make light of the murder" and "nor was it my intention to blame any specific group." But leading with intent asks the hurt party to comfort you about your good intentions while they're still dealing with your bad impact. That's not accountability. That's emotional outsourcing. A genuine version would flip it: "My comments blamed an entire group of people for this assassination. That was wrong and harmful, regardless of what I intended." 3. No Blame Shifting or Gaslighting This is where Kimmel's apology completely fell apart for me on the third viewing. What fraud sounds like: "I'm sorry some people felt I was pointing fingers." What genuine sounds like: "I pointed fingers. I was wrong." The Kimmel example: "I understand that to some that felt either ill-timed or unclear, or maybe both, and for those who think I did point a finger, I get why you're upset." Wait. "For those who THINK I did"? No. He DID. On camera. To millions. "MAGA is desperately trying..." wasn't ambiguous. It wasn't a perception issue. This is textbook gaslighting—making people question what they clearly observed. And gaslighting in an apology causes more damage than the original offense because now you're saying: "The thing I did wasn't that bad AND you're crazy for thinking it was." 4. Name the Name (The Humanization Principle) Here's the subtle tell that convinced me this wasn't genuine: Kimmel never said "Charlie Kirk." He apologized for making light of "the murder of a young man." Not Charlie Kirk. Just... a young man. Why this matters: Saying someone's name is an act of recognition. It's the difference between abstract harm (easy to minimize) and human harm (forces you to confront actual cost). By refusing to say "Charlie Kirk," Kimmel avoided being associated with a positive statement toward someone whose politics he opposes. It was a calculated omission that prioritized brand positioning over genuine acknowledgment. This isn't about politics. This is about basic human dignity. When you refuse to say someone's name in an apology about harm done to them, you're telling everyone watching: "My brand matters more than their humanity." That calculation might protect your image. It destroys your credibility. Whether you agree with Charlie Kirk's politics or not is completely irrelevant. The man was murdered. He deserves to be named in an apology about comments made following his assassination. This applies to every apology: Use people's names. Make it personal. Because the harm was personal. WHY THIS MATTERS FOR LEADERS (AND THE TEAMS WHO DEPEND ON THEM) Here's what nobody tells you: The way you apologize doesn't just affect you—it cascades through your entire organization. When leaders issue performative apologies, they're not just protecting their reputation. They're teaching their teams that accountability is optional, that impact doesn't matter as much as intent, and that political calculation beats genuine ownership. Your team is watching. Your cabinet is taking notes. And whether you realize it or not, you're modeling what "accountability" means in your culture. Leaders who apologize genuinely—who own specific harm without caveats, who prioritize impact over intent, who refuse to gaslight what happened—build cultures where trust compounds. Where people can admit mistakes without career risk. Where "I was wrong" doesn't signal weakness, it signals strength. Leaders who apologize performatively build cultures where everyone optimizes for reputation management instead of relationship repair. Where politics matter more than truth. Where trust erodes one careful, calculated statement at a time. The question isn't just "did I apologize correctly?" The question is: "What did I just teach my team about accountability?" THE MATURITY SHIFT Immature apologizers think: "I need to explain my side so they understand I'm not a bad person." Mature apologizers think: "I need to own my impact so they understand I see the harm I caused." Immature apologizers spend energy protecting their self-image. Mature apologizers spend it repairing relationships. Immature apologizers hire communications specialists to craft statements that are "politically mostly right with the human touch of being mostly wrong." Mature apologizers sit in the discomfort until they know what they actually need to own. The difference is the difference between reputation management and genuine accountability. One is about you. One is about them. Here's what a genuine Kimmel apology would have sounded like: "In my monologue last week, I said MAGA was desperately trying to deflect blame for Charlie Kirk's assassination, and I implied the shooter was motivated by right-wing ideology. I was wrong. The shooter was motivated by left-wing, anti-American sentiment. I falsely accused millions of people and dishonored Charlie Kirk's memory by making his death about my political perspective. I'm sorry. I own what I said—not how it was received." Uncomfortable? Yes. Vulnerable? Absolutely. Genuine? That's the point. Your turn: Think about the last time you apologized. Honest assessment—were you apologizing to end your discomfort or to repair the harm? What's your caveat tell? The word or phrase you always use when you're apologizing but not really owning it? Drop a comment with your caveat tell. Or screenshot this and send it to someone who needs to see it—maybe because they owe you a real apology, or maybe because you owe them one. The 24-hour challenge: Think of one apology you need to give (or one you've accepted that wasn't real). Apply this framework. See what changes. Accountability is a practice, not a performance. This is where it starts. P.S. The hardest apologies are the ones where you have to admit you were completely wrong about something you were certain you were right about. Those are also the ones that matter most. That's where character gets built—in the gap between who you thought you were and who your impact revealed you to be. Found this helpful? Share it with someone who needs to understand the difference between "sorry" and actually sorry: → Repost with your biggest takeaway → Tag someone who needs this framework → Comment with your apology failure story (we all have one) Want to lead accountability conversations your team actually respects?  This framework isn't just for analyzing public apologies—it's for building cultures where genuine accountability becomes the norm, not the exception. higherperformancegroup.com
By HPG Info October 14, 2025
(They’re Just Waiting For Permission To Tell You The Truth) Here's a pattern nobody talks about: You implement weekly communication drills for your leadership team. They get better at board presentations. Faculty meetings improve. Parent nights run smoothly. Then something unexpected happens—feedback starts flowing everywhere. Not just in the drills. In hallway conversations. During budget reviews. In crisis moments, when you need honest input yesterday. You didn't plan for this. You were just trying to stop your VP of Academic Affairs from saying "um" seventeen times per sentence during accreditation visits. Turns out you'd accidentally built what researchers call a "keystone habit"—one small practice that triggers a chain reaction of positive changes across your entire organization. (Kind of like how buying running shoes somehow leads to meal prepping and going to bed before midnight. Except this one actually sticks.) 73% of educational leaders report their cabinet stays silent during critical decisions. That's not a personality problem. That's a systems problem. And the system you think you have? It's probably optimizing for politeness instead of performance. THE DIAGNOSIS Let's talk about this like adults who've survived at least three strategic planning retreats where someone suggested "blue sky thinking" with a straight face. Your last cabinet meeting looked like this: You asked for input on the enrollment decline strategy. Got three nods. Two "I think that could work" responses. One person checked their phone under the table (we saw you, CFO). Meeting adjourned. Everyone left. Then what actually happened? Your VP of Student Affairs texted your VP of Enrollment Management: "Did you understand what we're actually supposed to do?" Your Dean of Faculty sent a carefully worded email, "just checking on a few details," that was really code for "this plan makes no sense." Your Chief of Staff scheduled a one-on-one with you to "clarify next steps," which translated to "I have seventeen concerns, but didn't want to say them in front of everyone." You've got three concurrent conversations happening about the same topic. None of them are with each other. All of them are happening because your cabinet meeting optimized for agreement instead of alignment. Here's what nobody tells you in leadership development programs: Your principals, vice presidents, and department chairs might be brilliant at their individual roles and absolutely terrible at having difficult conversations with each other. Not because they're bad people. Because you've never created an environment where they can practice being bad at it first. Think about it. When was the last time your leadership team had a conversation that felt genuinely risky? Where someone said something that hadn't been pre-vetted in sidebar conversations? Where disagreement happened live instead of in post-meeting debriefs? That silence isn't a sign of respect for your leadership. Sometimes it's fear. Sometimes it's exhaustion from being a tool serving the strategic plan instead of a valued human solving real problems. Sometimes it's just learned behavior from every other organization they've worked in, where speaking up got them labeled "not a team player." Research on high-performing teams shows psychological safety—where people believe they can speak honestly without consequences—is the most critical factor in team effectiveness. More important than intelligence. More important than experience. More important than your strategic priorities or mission statement or the fifteen core values you spent two days workshopping. But here's the plot twist: Psychological safety doesn't manifest because you're nice or because you included "respect" in your values statement. It has to be practiced. Systematically. Repeatedly. Until it becomes more uncomfortable NOT to speak up. (This is actually why I created The GROUP —a free community where insights like this become Leader CORE Lessons you can facilitate with your team Monday morning, complete with discussion prompts and practice scenarios. But I'm getting ahead of myself.) The real problem? You're running a graduate-level organization with middle-school communication patterns. High IQ, catastrophically low Team Intelligence. Everyone's smart. Nobody's connecting. THE THREE CONVERSATIONS YOUR CABINET ISN'T HAVING Call this the Communication Layer Framework. Or don't. It'll still explain why your last "quick sync" turned into a 90-minute therapy session that resolved nothing. Communication research identifies three types of conversations happening simultaneously—often in the same meeting, frequently without anyone realizing they're in different conversations entirely: 1. Practical Conversations (The "What We're Supposed to Be Doing" Layer) This is where you live. Problem-solving. Action plans. Metrics. Timelines. "What are we going to do about the enrollment decline?" You think everyone's in this conversation with you. They're not. Half your cabinet is two layers away, and you're talking past each other like ships in the night. Very polite, very professional ships that will definitely send each other courtesy waves while completely missing the fact that one of you is about to hit an iceberg. 2. Emotional Conversations (The "How We're Actually Feeling" Layer) This is where your leadership team actually is when things get hard. Sharing feelings. Seeking empathy. Processing change. "I'm terrified we're going to have to lay people off, and I don't know how to lead through that." If you walk into a performance review in practical mode and your administrator walks in emotional mode, you're about to have two completely different conversations in the same room. You'll think you gave clear feedback. They'll think you don't understand their situation. Both of you will leave frustrated and confused about why the other person "isn't getting it." 3. Social Conversations (The "Who We Are to Each Other" Layer) This is about identity, relationships, and hierarchy. How we relate. Who has power. Whose voice matters. "Do I belong in this cabinet?" "Does the superintendent actually value what I bring?" "Am I about to get thrown under the bus for something that wasn't my fault?" When you're trying to discuss practical strategy and someone's operating in the social layer, they're not hearing your plan. They're scanning for threats to their position, value, or belonging. Every word you say gets filtered through "What does this mean for my standing here?" Here's what makes this devastating: Most leadership breakdowns happen because we don't match the conversation the other person needs to have. You walk into a meeting thinking, "I need to give practical feedback on instructional leadership." They walk in thinking, "I'm about to lose my job and nobody values what I've sacrificed for this school." Until you address the emotional and social layers first, your practical feedback lands like instructions shouted at someone who's drowning. The same dynamic plays out when your principals meet with teachers, when department chairs evaluate faculty, and when anyone on your team attempts a difficult conversation. THE CASE STUDY Let me tell you about a superintendent I'll call Marcus (not his real name, but Marcus, your cabinet definitely knows this is about them). Marcus had eight direct reports. Combined experience of 186 years. Multiple PhDs. National recognition. They could individually crush any challenge you put in front of them. As a team? They communicated like they were playing telephone through a series of closed doors during a fire drill. Cabinet meetings followed a predictable pattern: Marcus would present an issue. Ask for input. Get thoughtful-sounding responses that were really just people restating the problem using different words. Someone would volunteer to "take this back to their team." Meeting would end with a vague sense of progress. Then nothing would change. The real conversations happened after. In parking lots. In text threads. In carefully scheduled one-on-ones where people would share what they actually thought but "didn't want to say in front of everyone." Marcus kept trying to solve this with better agendas. Clearer objectives. More efficient meeting structures. (Classic practical-layer solution to an emotional and social-layer problem.) Then Marcus did something that felt almost uncomfortably simple: He started weekly communication practice sessions with his team. Not role-playing. Not trust falls. Actual practice giving and receiving feedback on low-stakes topics. Week one: Practice giving positive feedback about something specific. Week two: Practice receiving feedback without getting defensive. Week three: Practice disagreeing without it becoming personal. It felt forced at first. (One VP literally said, "This feels like kindergarten but for grown-ups.") But something shifted around week four: People started using the same language in actual cabinet meetings. "I'm in emotional mode right now—can we address that before jumping to solutions?" "I think we're having different conversations—let me check if I'm understanding correctly." Six months later, same people, different system. Cabinet meetings got shorter because people said what they meant the first time. Difficult conversations happened earlier instead of festering. Most importantly: The parking lot conversations moved into the conference room where they could actually be productive. Marcus told me: "We didn't become a better collection of individuals. We became an actual team. Turns out that matters more than I thought." The difference? They practiced being bad at communication in low-stakes environments so they could be good at it when it mattered. Now, if you're thinking "this makes sense, but how do I actually implement communication drills without my cabinet staging a revolt?"—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, practice scenarios, diagnostic tools—everything you need to lead your team through this content without spending Sunday night googling "how to teach feedback to people who've been leaders longer than I've been alive." It's free, built for busy leaders, and designed for Monday morning meetings when you need something that actually works instead of theory that sounds impressive. Grab this week's communication practice guide: https://www.higherperformancegroup.com/the-group But whether you join The GROUP or not, here's what you can implement immediately... THE APPLICATION Here's what to do this week (assuming you're not currently managing a crisis, in which case bookmark this and revisit when things calm down to a dull roar): Step 1: Practice "Looping for Understanding" in Your Next One-on-One Ask a question. Repeat back what you heard them say. Ask if you got it right. That's it. Three steps. Takes 10-15 seconds. Proves you're listening. If they say "yes, exactly"—you understood correctly and can move forward. If they say "not quite, what I meant was..."—you just prevented a massive miscommunication that would have caused problems three weeks from now. If they look surprised that you actually listened—you have a bigger problem than this one conversation can solve, but you've just started solving it. This isn't just good practice for you. It's modeling the behavior you want them using with their teachers, staff, and faculty. Every time you loop in for understanding with your VP of Finance, you're teaching them to do the same with their department heads. Step 2: Start Developmental Conversations with Self-Assessment Before your next performance conversation, ask: "Tell me two things you think you do really well in your role and two things you think you could improve." Ninety percent of the time, what they identify as growth areas will match what you've observed. (Turns out people usually know their own weaknesses. They just don't know if it's safe to admit them.) Now they've given you permission to address those issues together. No defensiveness. No surprise. No "nobody ever told me this was a problem." Just collaborative problem-solving between two adults who both want the same outcome. Step 3: Ask Permission to Shift Conversation Types If a principal or dean comes to you in emotional mode about a difficult parent situation, and you need to move to practical problem-solving, try this: "I hear what you're saying. I've felt that way too. Can I share some approaches that helped me work through similar situations?" You're acknowledging their emotional reality before asking to move to practical solutions. You're not dismissing their feelings. You're not jumping immediately to fix-it mode. You're creating a bridge between the conversation they need to have and the conversation you need to have. If they say yes, you can move forward productively. If they say "I'm not ready for solutions yet"—they need more time in emotional mode, and pushing practical advice will backfire spectacularly. OBJECTION HANDLING "My team won't go for structured communication practice" Your team is currently having three different conversations about every issue, none of which are with each other, resulting in decisions that die in parking lots and initiatives that fragment the moment everyone leaves the room. They're already "going for" something—it's just catastrophically ineffective. The bar is on the floor. You're not asking them to do something dramatically harder. You're asking them to stop doing something that demonstrably doesn't work. "We don't have time for communication drills" You just spent 90 minutes in a cabinet meeting that could have been 30 minutes if people had said what they actually thought the first time instead of having seven follow-up conversations afterward. That's one meeting. Now multiply by four meetings per month. You're spending roughly 240 extra minutes per month—four hours—on communication inefficiency. That's 48 hours per year. You're hemorrhaging two full work weeks annually while claiming you don't have time to practice being clearer. THE MATURITY SHIFT Immature leaders think: "My cabinet needs to communicate better." Mature leaders think: "We need to practice communicating better together." Immature leaders assume communication skills are innate—either you have them or you don't—and spend board retreats wondering why their brilliant team can't seem to align. Mature leaders build systems where communication skills are practiced regularly until they become second nature. Immature leaders address communication problems after they explode. Mature leaders practice communication before crisis hits. The difference is the difference between hoping your team can have difficult conversations and knowing they can because they've practiced. One makes impossible feel permanent. One makes impossible feel temporary. Cabinet silence isn't a personality problem. It's a practice problem. And unlike enrollment declines or budget cuts, this one is completely within your control. Your turn: Think about your last cabinet meeting. How many conversations do you think were happening simultaneously that weren't actually being spoken out loud? What would change if you named those conversations explicitly? Drop a comment. Tag a cabinet member who needs to see this. Or screenshot this and text it to your Chief of Staff with the message "Let's talk about our next meeting." P.S. If you're thinking "I don't have bandwidth to create communication practice resources for my team"—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. Practice scenarios. Discussion prompts. Diagnostic questions. Everything you need to lead your team through structured communication development without the Sunday night scramble.
Show More