Higher Performance Insights | Mel·ior·ism: The Inelegant Word Turning Steps Into Systemic Change
January 28, 2025
The word sits there, awkward and academic: meliorism. But within its syllables lies the key to everything we're trying to build on our campuses, in our communities, in our world.
First coined by George Eliot in the late 19th century (Fleischacker, 2020) [1], meliorism represents the radical notion that we can make things better.
Not perfect.
Just better.
This philosophy finds striking resonance in contemporary data analysis. As Roser (2023) articulates: "The world is much better. The world is awful. The world can be much better."[2]
This paradox perfectly encapsulates the melioristic worldview.
Consider the evidence: Pinker (2018) demonstrates that global literacy has risen from 12% to 86% in just two centuries [3]. Yet millions still can't read.
Progress and problems, dancing together.
"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice," King (1967) reminded us [4]. But it doesn't bend itself. We bend it.
Day by day.
Choice by choice.
Action by action.
Here are three concrete examples to illustrate melioristic changes observed in the places we serve:
1. A community college writing center increased student completion rates 12% by implementing a "Quick Questions" desk - a low-barrier way for students to get 5-minute help without scheduling full consultations. Cost: $0 (existing staff rotated coverage).
2. An urban high school reduced chronic absenteeism 15% through "Breakfast & Books" - opening the library 30 minutes early with free breakfast and peer tutoring. Initial investment: $2,000 for food program startup.
3. A rural elementary school boosted parent engagement 40% by shifting parent-teacher conferences to local community centers on rotating evenings. Primary resource needed: Coordination time to secure spaces.
As Solnit (2016) eloquently puts it: "Hope is not a lottery ticket you can sit on the sofa and clutch, feeling lucky... hope is an ax you break down doors with in an emergency" (p. 4) [5].
To our campus and district leaders: This is your work. Not the grand gestures. Not the perfect solutions. But the steady, persistent push toward better.
Consider Jane Addams, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1931. Her work at Hull House demonstrated meliorism in action, proving that incremental progress could transform communities (Knight, 2022) [6].
Your campus isn't just a place of learning - it's a laboratory for meliorism. The question isn't "Can we solve everything?" The question is, "What can we make better today?"
Because better is possible. Better is practical. Better is the point.
References
Fleischacker, S. (2020). Being me being you: Adam Smith and empathy. University of Chicago Press.
King, M. L., Jr. (1967, August 16). Where do we go from here? [Speech transcript]. The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute.
Knight, L. W. (2022). Jane Addams: Spirit in action. W. W. Norton & Company.
Pinker, S. (2018). Enlightenment now: The case for reason, science, humanism, and progress. Viking.
Roser, M. (2023). Making the world a better place. Our World in Data.
Solnit, R. (2016). Hope in the dark: Untold histories, wild possibilities. Haymarket Books.
Team Discussion Question
In your department or area of responsibility, identify one "melioristic opportunity" - a specific aspect that could be improved through incremental change. What small, practical steps could you take to begin this improvement in the next 30 days? Consider both the immediate impact and potential long-term ripple effects of these changes.
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
Real HOW TO solutions from real educational leaders---and the research-backed answers that can transform how you navigate the complexities of modern leadership When 62% of senior leadership teams report significant gaps in psychological safety---the very foundation they're supposed to create for others---we have a leadership crisis hiding in plain sight. Every semester, I receive hundreds of questions from district and campus leaders through our executive coaching exchanges. These conversations occur in confidence — during leadership intensives, one-on-one coaching sessions, and late-night calls when the weight of responsibility feels overwhelming. This summer semester, I decided to pull some of the most compelling questions and share my thoughts publicly, restructuring them using the innovative "HOW TO" approach pioneered by Bradley Fuster and San Francisco Bay University . Their brilliant transformation of traditional course titles—eliminating the yawn-inducing "English 101" or "Intro to Marketing" in favor of practical "HOW TO" titles—has revolutionized how students engage with learning. We're applying that same energy to leadership challenges. These aren't hypothetical scenarios — they're real challenges from real leaders in districts and on campuses across the country. Names have been changed for confidentiality, but the struggles are authentic. If you find this format helpful, let me know. We plan to make this a special semester edition going forward. HOW TO: Maintain Psychological Safety for Your Team When You Feel Like You're Drowning Original question: "How do you maintain psychological safety for your team when you yourself feel like you're drowning? I'm supposed to be the calm, confident leader, but inside I'm struggling with imposter syndrome and the constant pressure to have all the answers." - Maria, University Vice President for Academic Affairs Maria, you've hit on the central paradox of every modern leader of people and systems: You can't give what you don't have, yet your role systematically strips away the very conditions you need to create for others. Recent research, tracking 769 K-12 staff members over four years, revealed predictable patterns in educational psychological safety. While 51% maintained stable-high levels and 44.8% remained at stable-medium, 4.2% experienced dynamic-low psychological safety. But here's what the research doesn't capture: Leaders often exist in a separate category entirely, experiencing what I call " psychological safety deficit disorder ." The stakes become even higher when we examine senior leadership dynamics specifically. Studies of nearly 300 leaders over 2.5 years found that teams with high degrees of psychological safety reported higher levels of performance and lower levels of interpersonal conflict. For senior leadership teams, where research found members reported the greatest differences in their perceived levels of psychological safety, 62% of senior teams demonstrated significant variability. The Calibrated Vulnerability Solution Maria, here's what you need to understand: Your imposter syndrome isn't a personal failing---it's an occupational hazard. When you're constantly in "performance mode," authentic connection becomes impossible. But psychological safety isn't built through perfection; it's built through what I call "calibrated vulnerability." Start with one person — your most trusted team member — and practice transparent leadership. "I'm working through this challenge and here's my thinking..." This isn't weakness; it's modeling the very behavior you want to see in your organization. The psychological safety you create for others begins with the psychological safety you create for yourself. When you demonstrate that uncertainty is acceptable, that thinking out loud is valuable, and that perfection isn't the standard, you give your team permission to do the same. Understanding psychological safety challenges leads us naturally to the next critical area: recognizing when those challenges are pushing leaders and teams toward burnout. HOW TO: Recognize Early Warning Signs of Burnout (That 90% of Leaders Miss) in Yourself and Your Team Original question: "What early warning signs should I watch for in myself and my team to prevent burnout before it becomes a crisis? I've seen too many good people leave education because they reach their breaking point." - Robert, Superintendent of Schools Robert, you're asking the right question at exactly the right time. A comprehensive meta-analysis of 348 studies involving over 3.6 million participants found that educational leadership impact on student achievement diminished significantly during exceptional circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic---and burnout is often the culprit. The early warning signs aren't what most leaders think. It's not the obvious exhaustion or irritability. It's the subtle shifts that happen weeks before the crash: Individual Level Warning Signs: Decision fatigue masquerading as perfectionism Emotional numbing disguised as "professional boundaries" Innovation paralysis---when everything feels like a risk Team Level Warning Signs: Decreased psychological safety, which research shows is consistently associated with greater perceived supports and lower burnout Communication becoming transactional rather than relational Loss of collective problem-solving capacity System Level Warning Signs: Increased reliance on formal authority instead of influence Policy creation as a substitute for leadership presence Meeting multiplication- when committee work becomes the primary communication strategy The Sustainability Audit Framework The intervention framework I use with leaders: Implement what I call " sustainability audits " monthly. Ask your team: "What's one thing that's energizing you right now? What's one thing that's draining you?" Track patterns, not just individual responses. When you catch burnout in its early stages — before the obvious symptoms appear — you can address the root causes rather than managing crisis symptoms. Preventing burnout requires honest assessment, but it also demands the courage to have difficult conversations when performance issues arise. This brings us to one of leadership's most delicate challenges. HOW TO: Have Tough Conversations with Star Faculty Who Aren't Performing Without Losing Their Institutional Knowledge Original question: "How do you have tough conversations with long-term faculty members who aren't performing but have institutional knowledge you can't afford to lose? I feel stuck between accountability and preservation of relationships." - Jennifer, College President Jennifer, you've identified what researchers call "the competence-commitment paradox "-when emotional investment in people conflicts with organizational performance needs. Recent research on school leadership during crises has found that democratic, humanistic, and participatory leadership styles are most effective in maintaining mental health and performance; however, these approaches require skilled navigation of exactly this tension. The mistake most leaders make is treating this as an either/or choice: accountability OR relationship preservation. High-performing institutions understand it's a both/and challenge that requires what I've developed as the "fierce compassion framework" — a both/and approach that honors relationships while driving results. The Fierce Compassion Framework: Step 1 - Separate the person from the performance. Start the conversation with: "I value you and your contributions to this institution. That's exactly why we need to address this performance gap." Step 2 - Make the institutional knowledge visible. "Your understanding of our campus culture and history is invaluable. I want to find ways to leverage that while also ensuring you're set up for success in your current role." Step 3 - Create a growth pathway, not a correction plan. Research indicates that individuals respond more positively to development opportunities than to performance improvement plans. Focus on building capacity, not just addressing deficits. Step 4 - Set clear timelines with support systems. "Here's what success looks like, here's how I'll support you, and here's our timeline for seeing progress." Having the conversation IS preserving the relationship, not destroying it. Avoiding it destroys both the relationship and the performance. Even when we master difficult one-on-one conversations, we still face the broader challenge of leading change across diverse groups with varying levels of experience and buy-in. HOW TO: Lead Change When Your Most Experienced Faculty Resist While Your Newer Leaders Lack Credibility Original question: "How do you lead change when your most experienced faculty resist new initiatives, but your newer department chairs lack the credibility to drive implementation? I feel caught between generational divides." - David, University Vice President for Strategic Initiatives David, you're dealing with what recent leadership research identifies as the distributed leadership challenge — how to harness collective intelligence while managing natural resistance to change. This isn't actually about generational divides; it's about recognizing expertise and changing ownership. Studies on distributed leadership show that transformative change happens when leadership becomes "a collective endeavor involving multiple stakeholders" rather than top-down mandate implementation. The key is creating what I call "expertise bridges." The Expertise Bridge Strategy: Phase 1 - Map the real expertise. Your experienced staff have implementation wisdom; your newer staff have innovation energy. Neither group has complete expertise — and that's your advantage. Phase 2 - Create mixed-expertise teams. Pair your most experienced faculty with your most innovative department leaders. Give them shared ownership of both the problem definition and solution design. Phase 3 - Use resistance as data. When experienced faculty resist, they're often identifying implementation challenges that enthusiastic newcomers miss. Reframe resistance: "What implementation challenges is this concern highlighting?" Phase 4 - Build credibility through collaboration. Let your newer department chairs gain credibility by successfully partnering with respected faculty veterans, not by challenging them. The breakthrough happens when both groups realize they need each other to succeed. Your job isn't to choose sides — it's to orchestrate that realization.
The Reason Your Star-Studded Cabinet Isn't Moving The Performance Needle Last Monday at 8:00 AM, you sat down with your dream team, boasting a combined experience of over 150 years in education. Advanced degrees from prestigious universities. Proven individual track records. By Friday, you were staring at the same reality faced three years ago: brilliant people, endless meetings, and problems that seemed to multiply faster than solutions. You probably caught yourself thinking: "If we're this smart and experienced, why does it feel like we're spinning our wheels while our system falls further behind our competition?" Here's the uncomfortable truth that research reveals: You've assembled individual experts but haven't built collective intelligence. And it's costing your students everything. THE RESEARCH MIT's Dr. Anita Woolley published groundbreaking research in Science that should revolutionize how you think about your leadership team. The shocking finding: Teams with higher collective intelligence outperform teams of individually brilliant people by 40-60%. There's little correlation between a group's collective intelligence and the IQs of its individual members. Translation for education: Your hiring strategy—recruiting the smartest individuals—might be fundamentally limiting your potential. The brutal reality: 75% of cross-functional teams are dysfunctional, not because people lack competence, but because competent individuals can't think together effectively. While you've been building cabinets of experts, breakthrough TEAMS have been developing something entirely different: the ability to think collectively. WHY INITIATIVES FAIL Recent research from the Center for Business Practices found that 60% of project failures stem from poor collective leadership—expectations that were too high, unrealistic, not managed, or poorly communicated. Sound familiar? In education, this translates to: Curriculum implementations that never reach full adoption Technology initiatives that teachers resist Strategic plans that gather dust Reform efforts that create more problems than they solve The hidden pattern: These aren't implementation problems—they're collective intelligence problems. Your team has the expertise. What they lack is the process that transforms individual brilliance into a collective breakthrough. THE FOUR DYSFUNCTIONS 1. The Isolation Analysis Trap The Problem: Each department head analyzes their piece of the system challenge separately, then tries to negotiate solutions during meetings. Why It Fails: Collective intelligence emerges from real-time collaboration, not individual analysis followed by group discussion. Example: When addressing chronic absenteeism, the student services director focuses on home visits, the curriculum director examines engagement strategies, and the transportation director reviews route efficiency—but they never collectively examine the interconnected nature of the problem. 2. The Expertise Silo Disease The Problem: You know exactly how each person will respond before they speak. Your CFO sees everything through a budget lens. Your VP of Academics defaults to instructional solutions. Why It Fails: Teams with diverse expertise only show amplification effects when they work collectively, not in isolation. Example: During budget cuts, each department advocates for its programs individually, rather than collectively redesigning how the institution delivers comprehensive, in-demand programming. 3. The Meeting Theater Syndrome The Problem: You mistake presentations and reports for collective thinking. Why It Fails: Critical thinking and problem-solving emerge through real-time collaboration, not through individual preparation followed by information sharing. Example: Monthly cabinet meetings where each administrator reports on their division/site rather than collectively solving system-wide challenges. 4. The Consensus Compromise The Problem: Teams avoid productive conflict about student outcomes, instead seeking artificial harmony. Why It Fails: Breakthrough solutions require teams to have difficult conversations about what's really happening across campus metrics. Example: Avoiding tough discussions about underperforming divisions or ineffective programs because "we don't want conflict." THE BREAKTHROUGH FRAMEWORK Modern research confirms what ancient wisdom communities have long known: breakthrough understanding occurs in community, not isolation. The Truth → Experience → Action Model TRUTH: What's the real challenge our students and community are facing? EXPERIENCE: How do we encounter this challenge together as a leadership team, not through separate departmental reports? ACTION: What coordinated response emerges from our collective understanding? The Critical Difference: Research shows that teams must experience problems together in real-time rather than analyzing them separately. The Transformation That Actually Works ❌ The Typical Approach (Actually Destructive): Hope individual experts will eventually coordinate better Cabinet scenario: Your achievement gap persists despite individual departments working harder. Each team member has solutions, but they're not aligned. You schedule more meetings to "coordinate efforts." Result: Frustration increases. Solutions compete rather than complement. Problems persist despite good intentions. ✅ The Breakthrough Approach (Game-Changing): Create collective intelligence that generates solutions none of you could develop alone Same scenario, different response: You clear half a day. The entire team visits classrooms together, talks to students experiencing the achievement gap, and observes the challenge firsthand. Then you think together in real-time about what you're all seeing. Result: Breakthrough insights emerge that transform your approach to the entire challenge. Solutions integrate naturally because they're developed collectively. IMMEDIATE ACTIONS 1. Replace "Report Out" with "Think Together" No presentations about departmental updates Choose one real system challenge Think through it collectively in the room 2. Implement the "Fresh Eyes" Rotation Let your newest team member lead the discussion on your oldest problem Ask your operations director to examine curriculum challenges Rotate who brings the initial perspective to familiar issues 3. Create Real-Time Discovery Sessions Schedule quarterly sessions where you encounter problems together No pre-work. No slides. Just collective thinking. Research shows that collective intelligence emerges from shared real-time experience 4. Measure Your Team Intelligence (TQ) Track how often breakthroughs emerge from team discussions vs. individual contributions Monitor whether your team generates solutions that none of you developed alone Assessment of group performance must account for underlying collective intelligence THE CONVINCING EVIDENCE Recent studies on collective leadership in education show significant positive effects on both student achievement and faculty retention. Educational research confirms that distributed leadership—where multiple people exercise leadership collectively—creates conditions that directly impact school climate and student outcomes. As AI transforms education, developing collective intelligence becomes even more critical. These are capabilities that technology cannot replace: the ability to think together, discover together, and create breakthrough solutions through human collaboration. THE EXPERIMENT Challenge: Pick your system’s most persistent problem—the one your leadership team has "solved" multiple times but keeps returning. The Collective Intelligence Approach: Clear half a day from everyone's calendar Experience the problem together as a team —visit classrooms, talk to students, and observe the challenge firsthand No prep. No presentations. No predetermined solutions. Think together in real-time about what you're all seeing See what emerges that none of you discovered working alone Warning: This will expose the extent to which your team relies on individual expertise rather than collective intelligence. It will be uncomfortable. It's also the path to breakthrough results. THE RUMBLE Your Team Intelligence Audit Questions: When did your leadership team last generate a solution that surprised all of you? How often do breakthrough insights emerge from your meetings vs. individual work? Do your collaborative sessions produce ideas that exceed what any individual member could develop alone? Are you solving problems or just coordinating individual solutions? The brutal truth: Individual brilliance is the ceiling. Collective intelligence is the breakthrough that transforms educational outcomes. READY TO TRANSFORM? Stop hoping individual experts will eventually coordinate better. Start building the collective intelligence that creates breakthrough results for students. The first step is understanding your team's current intelligence quotient. In just 5 minutes per team member, you can discover: Where your team defaults to individual rather than collective thinking Which cognitive perspectives naturally enhance group intelligence How to transform your most challenging dynamics into breakthrough collaboration