Why Your Team May Enjoy My Rant: Leadership Development is a Waste of Time and Money

September 12, 2023

I had a very respectable campus leader (let’s call her Maria) candidly share that she was not excited about the opportunity to leave several high-priority tasks to attend an executive team kick-off retreat last month. 


“This is not about you, Joe. I’m just saying that I have never found these types of events impactful to the work. In fact, I generally believe leadership training and leadership development is a total waste of time and money.”


I raise a glass to toast Maria in this month’s post. I will put myself out there and say, I agree with you, doc!


Hear What I Am Not Saying

man bored in classroom

Seriously… Don’t bother. I am not saying LEADERSHIP is a waste of time. I am saying the development, or more specifically, the way we currently train leaders is a waste of time and money if you draw a tight circle around the return (results) on the investment.


If you prefer to avoid my rant and simply get something practical, skip to the end of this post. I list seven questions you should answer in the affirmative before doing any leadership team development. 


Otherwise, commence rant…


The past decade has been a struggle for me. I have failed to create an overwhelmingly “plug-and-play” leadership guide for all humanity to change the trajectory of campus performance.


I have developed fancy models, checklists, bold statements, processes, principles, fortune cookie sayings, and so much more over the last ten years. 


But, no… I have not created anything I believe has helped executive teams (and their teams) put more points on the board. Much of what I have taught and coached has helped deepen the Lead Measures and the reliability of Systems to put more points on the board, but my focus of this post is on leadership. 


I have taken the position that leadership is skill-based. You either have it or you don’t. If a campus leader applies a set of skills competently and consistently, they will effectively evolve into a leader worth following. 


I also hold the position that leadership is contextual. In other words, successfully navigating situations makes the leader (more confident and competent). However, please note that none of these sticks-in-the-sand have produced better leaders.


The problem is that if I want to teach people to be better leaders as a consultant, coach, and trainer, I must teach it as a linear truth with little tolerance for variation. This would be taught as a best practice or a standard, right?


But, alas, I don’t think leadership is teachable as a best practice or a standard. Leaders are born and then made by circumstances, struggles, pain, and setbacks, seasoned with a healthy dose of mentoring via genuine relationships along the way. 


Oh, and the successful ones must tip their hat to a boatload of luck (GRACE) if they are honest.


In other words, my programs don't yield what they are hyped-up to deliver — Leaders. 


Honestly, I observe my colleagues doing similar work yielding no better results. 


Leadership is kind of a skill, but mostly an art form developed over a lifetime of modeling, trial, and error, reflection, and adaptation.


As the boss, you define leadership. Your choice - the good kind or the wrong kind. Over time, this becomes your leadership culture. If you define leadership as a set of behaviors, you then teach your people the importance of those behaviors. However, just because you define leadership as a set of behaviors does not mean that applying those behaviors yields LEADERSHIP. 


You also must define leadership outcomes to follow those behaviors, and you must see that those behaviors yield those outcomes all the time to claim that they reliably give you LEADERSHIP.


Introducing my NEW workshop for campus leadership teams:


Helping YOUR High-Performing Leaders BUILD Higher-Performance Teams


Jump on the waiting list today!


According to Google, there are thousands and thousands of hits for the word leadership. I am pretty sure, without analyzing them all that there is no common application of the word, which leaves us with the problem identified above… How do you define LEADERSHIP in a helpful way to teach it uniformly and scale it consistently? 


It has been argued that many focused hours of practice can help develop one into an expert. 


This argument is missing one of the critical components of the original research. (In fact, in his book, 
Outliers, often overlooked when people reference it, Malcolm Gladwell says the same thing.) That talent must also be present, and the talented person must have a support system in place to allow them to develop their innate talent (and skill) while they practice. 


Innate talent is essential. When I teach leadership skills, it either sticks or does not stick based on the talent the leader already has. Working to apply leadership skills on a doofus will still be inadequate leadership no matter how extensive the practice, development, or weighty the experience. 


You can lead wherever you are is a paradigm held across most campuses across the country. This ideal is honorable, and I believe that all people have the ability to influence across their spheres of influence. The question is, with what potency (results-based impact)?


Campuses across the country spend millions of dollars in conferences, seminars, team trainings, and the like, to raise up leaders, but rarely, if at all, do any of these systems run a return on the investment on these interventions. 


“Working to apply leadership skills on a doofus will still be inadequate leadership no matter how extensive the practice, development, or weighty the experience.”


Or, if one breaks down the skills into a set of skills or best practices, rarely do they align to a universal set of skills needed to get the work done to the next level. Rather, leadership has become just another word for launching initiatives, project management, and supervision of your division of employees. 


From what I have studied, the great leaders of history (Lincoln, Alexander, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Genghis Khan, Charlemagne, Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, et al.) never were (fill in the blank) award winners. They didn’t have certificates of completion nailed to their office walls indicating they were “in sessions” to become better leaders. 


And, if we did an analysis of all the countless participants in your system who enrolled in training programs or leadership development initiatives, how many of them have become great as a direct result of those initiatives? For those who did, would they have achieved their success regardless of the training? In many ways, I would argue a big Fat YES. 


Is this a valid argument? 


Great leaders historically did not advance their influence and impact using the methods incorporated in the training and development industry space (which is
quite lucrative). With the advent of social marketing tactics, we are being bombarded by consultants and trainers who utterly believe their training methods produce GREAT LEADERS. 


Prove it. 


Show the return, and I will eat my left sock and come to work as your senior director of sales. 


Leadership is an ability, that requires a set of circumstances, that requires luck, and that requires followers who are inspired. Analyses of historical leadership have never produced the same set of criteria between leaders. In other words, no two leaders are the same. Great books providing comparative analyses of leaders are found in plenty and rarely profess similar conclusions. 


So, it is with conceit that we believe leadership is universally teachable via a shiny product or program that can be boiled down to a simple set of standards or best practices. It is even with greater hubris that we think the same leadership ability is within all of us. In my work, I encounter loads and loads of leaders (in title) who are not LEADING (results). 


Just sayin.’


Here’s my challenge to you. The next time you are fixin’ to bring in someone to do leadership development, ask yourself the following questions. They are in no particular order.


  1. Why? What are you hoping leadership development will do for you? Really answer this question as explicitly and specifically as possible. The more specific you can be, the more likely you will identify the true training opportunity or the true organization development problem that needs solving. 

  2. Is there something, or a situation in the organization that requires transformation? In other words, is there an opportunity to totally reinvent your success system?

  3. Do you want your people to actually lead? According to James MacGregor Burns, leadership is defined as mobilizing a group of people from point A to point B. Is there a vivid Point B to move people toward?

  4. Do your people have the innate talent to become leaders? Do they have good character, chemistry, competence, and credibility? Do they have hunger, humility, and smarts?

  5. Does the organizational structure and culture allow your people to lead? Is the structure set up to allow leaders at lower levels in the organization to actually lead? If not, why bother? 

  6. Should you be developing all, or a few of them who (in turn) will lead the rest? 

  7. Do you have a framework for quality leadership? What common tools, language, and methodologies can be used to multiply these ideals across your system?


My guess is that most of the questions above may be answered with hope and a shoulder shrug. 


Good News!


The development that followed my encounter with Maria had all 5s in the following categories:


  1. The development experience treated leaders as engaged learners. 
    1, 2, 3, 4,
    5

  2. The topic focus was deep enough to provide tools to immediately impact our practice. 
    1, 2, 3, 4,
    5.

  3. Follow-up support and discussion questions were made available to reinforce the learning.
    1, 2, 3, 4,
    5.

  4. The development session allowed team time to focus the learning on a team challenge with opportunities to coach each other to problem solve.
    1, 2, 3, 4,
    5.

  5. The development session provided measures of team accountability by asking how previous session tools had been applied in common practice.
    1, 2, 3, 4,
    5.

  6. The development session was geared to equip our team with the tools, language, and methodology to advance our performance objectives as results.
    1, 2, 3, 4,
    5.


Wrap Up


Yes, many leaders may want to fist-bump Maria because they have experienced a myriad of wasted time, resources, and productivity due to poor executive PD. The good news is that there are many great examples out there where
Executive Team Coaching moved campus leaders to become system influencers who raised the standard of organizational culture, organizational clarity, and overall performance improvement. 


Let’s turn those instances (from best practice to Better Practice) into
the new status quo.


Transform Your Future | Lead With Clarity | Grow Your Performance


You aren't alone if you've struggled to find clarity in leading your team forward.


Teams function at less than 60% of their performance potential and community trust is at an all-time low. 


Simply put, leading people and systems has never been more complex.


The Lead Team Institute {LTI} will equip you to break through your growth barriers.


Whether it's leading results-based teams, communicating with success, improving your engagement, increasing influence, refreshing your vision, building trusting communities, or many other challenges we face as campus leaders, you'll know exactly what steps to take to generate momentum for your community.


If you want to build an irresistible campus brand, you will want to join the waiting list to enroll in the next Lead Team Institute {LTI} Campus Cohort. 


Accelerate Your Team’s:


  • Communication
  • Connection
  • Alignment
  • Capacity
  • Execution
  • Culture


Reserve Your Spot for Fall 2023. Join the Lead Team Institute Waitlist Today!

More Blog Articles

By HPG Info August 12, 2026
Why your best TEAMS keep producing average results — and the seven-force system underneath it. There's a villain running in every cabinet meeting that never makes the agenda. It doesn't show up in the accreditation report. It doesn't show up in the strategic plan everyone signed with real applause eleven months ago. It shows up in the parking lot — the conversation two people have on the walk to their cars that never once got said in the room. Nearly a thousand leadership teams told us the same thing, almost word for word: Individually, this cabinet is exceptional. Collectively, it runs at about 60% of what it can actually do. (That's roughly the batting average of the last consultant's deck you paid for.) So here's the only question worth asking: what if the people were never the problem? That gap has a name. Seven names, actually. Once you see them, you won't sit through a cabinet meeting the same way again. This also hits differently depending on the week you're reading it. The Diagnosis Let's talk about this like adults who've sat through enough retreats to know the difference between a "sweet tote-bag vibe" and actual change. You've done the retreat. Facilitator, breakout groups, a conversation on the drive home more honest than anything said in the room. (Somewhere, the whiteboard from that retreat is still standing in a hallway, unerased, like a crime scene nobody's cleared.) You came back with a plan. Three weeks later, it's a shared-drive folder nobody opens. Your best people have gone quiet in meetings — not out of ideas, out of reasons to keep offering them. Two departments have solved the same problem twice, six months apart, neither knowing the other already did the work. None of that is a hiring problem or a motivation problem. It's what the system does. That folder nobody opens — what does it actually cost you? Not dollars. The thing that's harder to name: how many of your best people still believe change is possible here. (This is exactly what the Burnout Force Check measures — three minutes, no guessing, a clear read on which of seven forces is costing your cabinet the most. More on that shortly.) Burnout at the team level isn't seven unrelated problems. It's one system wearing seven faces. Four build on each other in a straight line. The other three are what happens once those four feel normal. Timing · The Force Behind the Forces One more interruption before the framework. Read this in August — cabinet freshly reassembled, year still shaped like a plan — and it lands as a preview. Read it in February, board meeting Thursday, budget doing whatever it’s doing this year, and it lands as a mirror. Same seven forces. Same diagnosis. Completely different weight depending on where your cabinet is standing when it lands. That's not a flaw in the framework — that's the first thing worth knowing about it. Every team carries a pain point. Not every team is standing in the moment to act on it. A cabinet three weeks into a transition has different capacity than one eighteen months into a stable run. So, plainly: if you read the seven forces below and think “yes, but not now” — that’s not the wrong answer. Timing isn’t a character flaw. But “not now” only works with a date attached. Without a date, “not now” is just Drift wearing a calendar as a disguise. Name the pain. Then name the moment. If the moment's wrong, don't force it — build the plan for when it's right. Everything below still applies. Just on your timeline, not somebody else's September. The Tuning System · Why Your Best Cabinet Sounds Off-Key Twenty years ago, I bought a piano. Baby grand, delivered to a house my family hadn't asked to move into — three kids uprooted from the only childhood they'd known, distinctly unimpressed with dad's new title. We'd already done ice cream. Then a puppy. Then this. The piano was the exclamation point on my bribery campaign. The day it arrived, that piano was about as close to perfect as an instrument gets. Every string hand-tensioned. Every hammer weighted exactly right. Seven notes to the octave, every one of them true. My kids played it, but nobody had to really even touch it to lessen the quality. The daily temperature shifts and the humidity drifts were enough — the wood and wire quietly answering back, a fraction of a millimeter at a time. Nobody ever touched a tuning peg. The room just kept pulling on it. All three of my kids grew up on that piano. The ones playing it every day were the last people on earth to hear the drift. They adjusted without ever noticing they were adjusting. It took our tuner — a woman who came once a year, someone who hadn't been living inside that slow drift — to sit down and wince at the first chord. Your Team: Nobody lowered their bar. Nobody had to. Seven forces pull on your leadership team constantly. Four build the whole engine, one causing the next: FRAGMENTATION — The Silo Tax. MIT's Human Dynamics Lab found fragmented teams burn up to 60% of their energy on coordination drag alone. (Your cabinet isn't lazy. It's just really, really good at scheduling meetings about the meeting.) EXHAUSTION — The Parking Brake. When coordination breaks, someone absorbs the gap. Not a personality trait. A structural bill, and it always comes due inside somebody's calendar. ISOLATION — The Solo Sport. Exhausted people stop reaching — not because they've stopped caring, because vulnerability became a cost the system taught them they can't afford. SCARCITY — The Empty Table. Isolated people compete for a recognition supply the system made feel finite. Not a mindset problem. An accurate read of a rationed room. COMPARISON, NOISE, and DRIFT are what a culture does once those four feel normal — peaking, respectively, during budget season, right before a board vote, and in year three or four of a tenure, not at the crisis but in the calm after it. Call her Daniela — a college provost with a team that, on paper, should've been unstoppable. Eight people, decades of combined experience, individually excellent by every metric that shows up on a résumé. Their meetings ran long, produced consensus, changed almost nothing. Her VP of Student Success had started emailing ideas instead of raising them in the room — safer, she said, than watching them get nodded at and forgotten. Here's the part that matters for timing: Daniela ran the Burnout Check in February — mid-year, mid-fatigue, three weeks after a board member asked a hard question about retention nobody answered well. Not because February is special. Because that's when her cabinet was finally ready. She ran the Launch Check on the next initiative — three questions, out loud, before anything left the room: What problem are we actually solving? Who else needs to know this exists? What breaks if we don't coordinate here? Not a retreat. A five-minute habit, applied every time. Eight months later — back at the start of a new academic year — her cabinet wasn't just aligned, it was audible. Her VP started raising ideas in the room again, because the room had finally started keeping them. The Application · What To Run, Whenever "Now" Actually Is Here's what to run at your next meeting — not a retreat, not a new initiative. Three moves, one gut-check on timing first. Move 0 — Locate yourselves. (5 min) Where's your cabinet actually standing? New year? Mid-year plateau? Weeks from a board vote? Mid-transition? Say it out loud. The forces don't change. Your capacity to act on them right now does. Move 1 — Run the Launch Check. (10 min, next agenda item) What problem are we actually solving? Who else needs to know this exists? What breaks if we don't coordinate here? (Can't answer the third one? You just found your fragmentation. Congratulations — you're now self-aware, which is more than most teams manage before they don't.) Move 2 — Audit the brake. (15 min, this week) Ask everyone to name one task this week that exists only because something upstream is broken. Pick one. Abandon it, publicly. Move 3 — Name what counts. (Every meeting) Before you close, name one contribution from the last week — specifically. Not “great job.” More like: “That question you asked Tuesday saved us from a decision we’d have regretted.” Two objections, handled straight: “We don’t have time for this.” How many hours did your cabinet spend last week on work that only exists because something upstream never got fixed? Teams we've studied average 40% of a week there. What's forty percent of your week actually worth? “The timing’s genuinely bad.” Then don’t run all three this week. Run Move 0. Name the moment, out loud, and put a real date on the calendar for the rest. A named delay is a plan. An unnamed one is Drift. The Maturity Shift Immature cabinets think: “We need better communicators.” Mature cabinets think: “We need a coordination system nobody has to remember to use.” Immature cabinets think: “Wrong time — skip it.” Mature cabinets think: “Wrong time — name the date.” Immature cabinets treat the retreat as the fix. Mature cabinets treat it as the invitation — and the Monday after, whatever month it falls in, as the actual work. (Immature cabinets also still have that whiteboard in the hallway. Someone should really erase that.) Uncomfortable math: the average leadership team we've studied runs at 60% of its own potential — not because the people are average, but because seven forces are quietly pulling on an instrument nobody's been asked to keep tuned. One word. Which force is eating your cabinet right now? One more, honestly: is now the moment you act, or the moment you name when you will? Go Tune Your Own Cabinet — On Your Own Timeline Most cabinets never get past naming the problem. They diagnose it beautifully at a retreat, then go back Monday to the same untuned instrument. One more question, honest answer this time: if this stays exactly this shape for the next two years, what does that cost? Not the institution's numbers. You. The part of you that took this seat to build something, not just keep it running. What would it mean to know — not guess, know — which of these seven forces is costing your cabinet the most, and whether right now is the moment to act on it? The Burnout Force Check takes about three minutes and shows you exactly where your cabinet sits across all seven forces — same research behind this framework, built to tell you the diagnosis and the timing: https://burnoutforce.higherperformancegroup.com/ That baby grand is still standing in my living room. My kids are grown now — gone, building their own lives, with their own drift to manage. My grandkids are the ones on the bench these days. Same instrument. Same seven strings. I didn't understand it twenty years ago, but I never bought that piano for me. I bought it for whoever showed up next. That's the whole case for the Burnout Force Keynote , honestly. Every leader eventually leaves the seat. The only question is whether the next person inherits a system that's still drifting, or a signal that holds without you in the room: https://www.higherperformancegroup.com/burnout-force Across 987 leadership teams in 43 states, the cabinets that ran this framework saw real, measurable movement on all seven forces — because the system finally got named, tuned, and named again at the right moment. The diagnosis doesn't change with the season. Your capacity to act on it does. What's the first force worth naming out loud in your next meeting? Found Something in This? Message us. We read every one. info@higherperformancegroup.com Follow DR. JOE HILL and Higher Performance Group | THE BURNOUT FORCE
By HPG Info August 3, 2026
K-12 or higher ed — same grave, same fight, and where we actually stand on it. Every August, someone in a lanyard stands in front of a room full of exhausted adults — a superintendent at convocation, a provost at the fall address — and says some version of “this is the year everything changes.” Everyone claps. Nobody believes it. By October, both rooms are right back where they started, for the exact same structural reason, just wearing different institutional colors. You know the K-12 version of the grave: the PD-day initiative that had its own hashtag in August and hasn't been mentioned since the first snow day. You know the higher-ed version: the strategic plan the board approved 7-0, the one nobody on the provost's council could name a completed goal from by homecoming. Same grave. Different landscaping. Here's what should actually keep you pacing in your office more than enrollment or the sub shortage. Gallup's 2023 workforce data puts global disengagement at 62% . MIT's Human Dynamics Lab found fragmented teams burn up to 60% of their energy on coordination — meetings about meetings, not the work. Harvard economist Sendhil Mullainathan's research on scarcity found that operating under constant shortage costs the brain the functional equivalent of 13 IQ points . Thirteen. That's the gap between your sharpest VP and someone who forgot the agenda. One more, because it should make you genuinely angry: training-transfer research going back three decades puts the share of professional learning that ever makes it into practice at under 10% . Every PD day. Every retreat. Every conference you sent three people to in July. You're not underfunding development. You're funding an extremely expensive form of forgetting. None of this is a motivation problem. Your people aren't lazy or allergic to change. They're operating inside a system quietly taxing them on seven fronts before they've poured their first cup of coffee in the building. And if it doesn't get named this year, it isn't just this year that pays for it. It's whoever inherits your seat. It's the kid in the back row, the freshman three weeks into a dorm, the faculty member who stopped raising a hand two years ago and nobody noticed. The cost has names. So here's where we stand, plainly, because none of this works if you don't know it. WE ARE FOR HEALTHY TEAMS AND HIGHLY RELIABLE SYSTEMS. That's the HPG brand, in five words. WE ARE AGAINST THE SYSTEMS THAT ACCELERATE BURNOUT — the ones that train your best people to mistake exhaustion for commitment, reward the loudest voice over the best idea, and quietly bill the people who care most for continuing to care. Not the board. Not the budget. THE SYSTEM itself. We didn't build this to run another workshop. We built it to fight for both ends of that equation — the leader carrying it, and the kid, the freshman, the faculty member on the other side who never got a vote in how well the system was built. Pick a side. We already have. Here's what FOR actually looks like, not hypothetically — we've watched it happen close to a thousand times. The Tuesday cabinet meeting ends on time. The VP who started emailing ideas instead of saying them out loud starts saying them out loud again. The plan from August is still alive in October — audible, not filed. That's not a culture initiative. That's a highly reliable system, doing what it's supposed to do. It starts with knowing, precisely, which of seven forces is your leak. Not guessing. Not a hallway read. Next week, you find out which one is yours. I'm opening The Burnout Force Check — three minutes, seven forces, your own honest number. It isn't live yet. It opens next week, right here.  Message me personally, and I'll make sure you're first through the door — doesn't matter which lanyard you're wearing. Follow DR. JOE HILL and Higher Performance Group
Show More