Getting Your Value Proposition Right Matters More Than Getting Your Funnel Right The Problem? Your SEM and CRM Are Working Perfectly As enrollment declines accelerate and student engagement plummets, here's a hard truth: Our schools aren't failing — our values are. We're optimizing for yesterday's priorities while today's learners walk away hungry for something many are not even measuring. THE GREAT MISDIRECTION While we obsess over test scores and college readiness, Bain & Company groundbreaking research on the Elements of Value reveals why students, families, and communities are losing faith in our institutions. We're delivering functional value — but starving them of the emotional, life-changing, and social impact they desperately need. The numbers tell the story: 40% of high school students report chronic disengagement, college mental health crises have reached epidemic levels, and parents increasingly question whether education is worth the investment. Meanwhile, we continue to optimize metrics that don't measure what matters most. THE FOUR-LEVEL VALUE CRISIS Functional Level: We're Actually Decent Here - Schools save time (with organized schedules), provide information, reduce costs (compared to private tutoring), and offer a variety of courses. This is our comfort zone---and our trap. Emotional Level: We're Failing Spectacularly- When did schools stop being places that reduce anxiety and start being anxiety factories? Where's the fun, the therapeutic value, the wellness focus? Students (and staff) leave our institutions more stressed, not less. We've forgotten that learning should feel rewarding, not punishing. Life-Changing Level: We've Lost Our Way- Education should provide hope and enable self-actualization. Instead, we've created systems that crush dreams rather than cultivate them. How many students graduate feeling motivated about their future versus those who are relieved they survived? Social Impact Level: Our Biggest Miss - Schools should develop citizens who contribute to something larger than themselves. Instead, we're producing individuals who feel disconnected from their purpose and sense of community belonging. THE HIDDEN COST OF VALUE POVERTY Consider Sarah, a high school senior who recently told me: "I can pass any test you give me, but I have no idea who I am or what matters to me." Her school delivered functional value perfectly, and failed her completely. This isn't about lowering academic standards. It's about recognizing that when students feel emotionally depleted, disconnected from their purpose, and starved of a sense of belonging, even the most effective test prep becomes meaningless. Research shows that students experiencing higher-level value elements demonstrate: 67% better long-term retention 45% higher post-graduation satisfaction 78% stronger alumni engagement 52% better mental health outcomes THREE STRATEGIES TO RECLAIM VALUE Strategy 1: Design for Emotional Wellness First - Stop treating student mental health as an add-on service. Build therapeutic value into daily experiences: Start each class by connecting learning to students’ hopes and interests Create "anxiety reduction zones" where failure becomes learning fuel Design experiences that feel rewarding, not just rigorous Measure joy alongside achievement Strategy 2: Embed Life-Changing Moments - Every semester, students should experience at least three "this changes everything" moments: Connect learning to personal identity and purpose Create opportunities for genuine self-discovery Provide hope through mentorship and future visioning Enable students to see their unique potential actualized Strategy 3: Cultivate Social Impact Daily- Transform education from individual competition to collective contribution: Embed community service into academic learning Create opportunities for students to solve real community problems Build belonging through collaborative purpose Help students see their education as preparation for meaningful citizenship YOUR VALUE AUDIT CHALLENGE This Week: Survey 10 random students: "What value does school provide beyond academics?" Identify your school's emotional value gaps List three ways learning could feel more rewarding This Month: Redesign one program to include life-changing elements Create student wellness metrics that matter Pilot one community impact project per classroom This Year: Develop a comprehensive value proposition that addresses all four levels Train staff to recognize and deliver emotional and social value Measure student hope, belonging, and purpose alongside test scores POSSITIVE GOSSIP: THOSE GETTING IT RIGHT Higher Ed Spotlight: Arizona State University's "Be a Devil" Initiative - ASU transformed student experience by embedding social impact into every major. Their "solving world problems" approach delivers all four value levels simultaneously. Students report 89% satisfaction with purpose-driven learning, and employers actively recruit ASU graduates for their community-minded approach. The result? Record enrollment growth while peer institutions struggle. Learn more about ASU K-12 Spotlight: New Tech Network Schools - These project-based learning schools redesigned education around real community problems. Students at New Tech High in Napa don't just study environmental science---they solve actual water quality issues for local vineyards. The therapeutic value of meaningful work is evident in the following statistics: a 94% graduation rate, 87% college enrollment, and students who describe school as "the best part of my day." Their secret? Every project delivers hope, a sense of belonging, and self-actualization alongside academic rigor. Learn more about New Tech Network Both institutions demonstrate that when schools deliver comprehensive value, everything changes — engagement, outcomes, and community reputation. THE VALUE REVOLUTION MUST START NOW The schools thriving in 2025 aren't just academically excellent — they're emotionally nourishing, life-changing, and socially impactful. They understand that families don't choose schools solely based on test scores; instead, they choose based on the total value delivered. Your students aren't asking for less rigor — they're asking for more meaning. They don't want easier classes — they want classes that make them feel more alive, more hopeful, and more connected to something bigger than themselves. The Elements of Value framework isn't just business theory — it's a roadmap for educational transformation. When we deliver value at all four levels, we not only improve outcomes but also restore faith in education itself. Your value revolution starts with one simple question: If your students could get knowledge (and a degree) anywhere, why should they choose to learn with you? The answer isn't in your curriculum catalog — it's in how you make them feel about themselves, their future, and their place in the world. Ready to Lead This Discussion With Your Team? If you found value in this topic and would like an easy, prepared way to lead this discussion with your leadership team, we have included a leader guide in our weekly blog covering this same topic. Join our email group and receive timely topics like this with the added bonus of a downloadable team discussion guide. Go to https://www.higherperformancegroup.com/blog to sign up today! Our TQ | Team Intelligence Assessment launches this June, helping educational teams deliver comprehensive value rather than just academic content. Click on the blue button in the image below to learn more . REFERENCES Bain & Company. (2016). The Elements of Value in Consumer Markets. Harvard Business Review. (2016). The Elements of Value, September 2016. National Student Engagement Survey. (2024). Post-Secondary Student Experience Report. Gallup-Purdue Index. (2024). Life and Career Outcomes for College Graduates. Youth Truth Survey. (2024). Student Voice on School Value and Engagement.

When yesterday's violations become tomorrow's job requirements Here's what happened while you were drafting policies about AI violations: 90% of college students used ChatGPT within sixty days of its launch.¹ AI benchmark scores jumped 18.8, 48.9, and 67.3 percentage points in twelve months.² AI costs dropped 280-fold in eighteen months.³ Meanwhile, it took us twenty years to get computers into classrooms.⁴ The Uncomfortable Math Your students aren't cheating. They're practicing. Every "violation" you detect is a rehearsal for their actual careers. The collaboration you penalize? That's how every successful team operates. Are you banning AI assistance? That's how every knowledge worker will work. Are we teaching students to succeed in 1995 while they're preparing for 2030? What Are We Really Afraid Of? It's not that students are using AI to think less; they're using AI to think differently. And we don't know how to measure that kind of thinking. The Real Question The question isn't how to stop AI use. The question is: What happens to institutions that teach students to avoid the tools that will define their professional lives? Answer: They become as relevant as typing schools that banned word processors. Think Again About This When Chappaqua Central School District adopted its AI integration policy, it didn't ask "How do we prevent this?" They asked, "How do we channel this?"⁵ When UTSA created its Student AI Partner Internship, it didn't ask, "How do we control students?" They asked, "How do we learn with them?"⁶ The Answers Are Already Here Stop looking for external salvation. Your faculty experimenting with AI integration? They're generating the insights you need. Your students seamlessly blending creativity with AI assistance? They're showing you what authentic learning looks like. The classroom isn't broken, but your assumptions about modern learning might be. What Changes This Week The AI your students use today will be exponentially more powerful by homecoming, 2025. By fall of 2025, we'll have AI agents that can complete multi-step projects independently, models that seamlessly handle text, audio, video, and code simultaneously, and tools so integrated into daily workflows that using them will be as natural as using a search engine. Your policies, procedures, and professional development timelines are not designed for this. But many of your students will be. How will you keep them? Fear Is the Enemy of Leadership Here's what we know about transformative change: it requires courage, not a comfortable cadence. When institutions approach innovation defensively—building policies around what students can't do and designing systems to detect and punish—they miss the opportunity to lead. But your educators? Most of them are natural innovators. You've always adapted to serve your students better. You've navigated technology shifts before. You know how to turn challenges into learning opportunities. The difference now is simply velocity. Fear and creativity can't operate in the same space. Leadership requires curiosity, and education—real education—requires both. The learning leaders already experimenting with AI integration? They're not failing their profession—they're pioneering its future. They understand that you can't teach students to navigate an AI-powered world from a position of avoidance. The Choice You're Actually Making You can spend this summer figuring out how to detect AI use, or you can spend it figuring out how to direct AI use. Your people won't have the capacity to do both. One of these approaches prepares students for the world they'll actually live in. The Bottom Line This isn't about technology disrupting education; this is about education catching up to how learning actually works. The most effective learning has always been collaborative, iterative, and application-focused. The most valuable skills have always been judgment, creativity, and synthesis. AI didn't change what good education looks like; AI just made it impossible to pretend that information hoarding was ever good education. Your students are already living in the future. Your job isn't to slow them down; your job is to help them navigate that future more thoughtfully. The question isn't whether you'll adapt but whether you'll lead the adaptation. What are you going to tell your students in September? More importantly—what are you going to learn from them? YOUR TURN Leadership Team Discussion Question: If we discovered that our current policies were accidentally training students to avoid the primary tools they'll use in their careers, how quickly would we change those policies? Now: What's different about AI? The follow-up: What would we need to see, hear, or experience this summer to feel confident leading with curiosity instead of caution when classes begin? References:  New York Magazine, "ChatGPT in Schools: Here's Where It's Banned—and How It Could Potentially Help Students," based on January 2023 survey data Stanford AI Index 2025: AI benchmark performance on MMMU, GPQA, and SWE-bench between 2023-2024 Stanford AI Index 2025: Cost reduction for GPT-3.5 equivalent model performance, November 2022 to October 2024 Purdue University College of Education: Technology adoption timeline showing 97% of classrooms had computers with internet access by 2009, up from 25% with computers in 1986 Chappaqua Central School District Policy 5110 on Generative Artificial Intelligence Integration, adopted August 29, 2024 UTSA Today: "New UTSA internship empowers students to lead in AI innovation," April 28, 2025

A roomful of decorated leaders doesn't automatically create genius-level teamwork. 🎓 Congratulations to the Class of 2025! 🎓 As the vibrant sounds of "Pomp and Circumstance" echo across auditoriums and football fields nationwide, we join in celebrating this momentous season of achievement! This May and June, an estimated 4 million college graduates and nearly 3.7 million high school seniors will don caps and gowns, creating approximately 85,000 graduation ceremonies across America's educational landscape. Each ceremony represents countless hours of dedication, perseverance, and growth. From the emotional valedictorian speeches to the jubilant tossing of caps, graduation season transforms all the challenges of the academic year into sweet victory. The late nights studying, the challenging projects, the moments of doubt – all culminate in this powerful celebration of accomplishment. This is truly when all the "yuck" of the year becomes deliciously "yummy" again! HOW HEALTHY IS YOUR CREW? Now is the perfect time to assess your leadership team. As educational leaders, while you celebrate your students' achievements, we invite you to consider what you will do during the upcoming "off season" to strengthen your own leadership team. Summer provides the ideal opportunity to step back and assess the critical dimensions that drive exceptional team performance: Team communication patterns Interpersonal connection quality Strategic alignment Individual and collective capacity Execution excellence THE COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE GAP Recent research reveals a critical finding: most educational leadership teams operate at only 60% of their potential capacity. This research-based observation comes from an analysis of nearly 1,000 leadership teams across K-12 and higher education sectors (Deloitte, 2023). In today's volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) educational landscape, this performance gap has measurable consequences: Student Achievement Impact : Research shows that inconsistent academic programming directly correlates with widening achievement gaps Talent Retention Challenges : Data indicates psychological safety deficiencies accelerate faculty and administrator turnover Resource Utilization Inefficiencies : Studies document significant financial waste through duplicated efforts and reactive management Innovation Stagnation : Evidence demonstrates that risk-averse cultures emerge in teams lacking collaborative intelligence The real problem? Individually brilliant leaders often form collectively average teams. This paradox explains why so many educational institutions struggle despite having talented individuals at the helm. IT'S NOT ABOUT ANOTHER LEADER DEVELOPMENT THING For decades, leadership development has relied on psychological assessments to enhance self-awareness. A review of meta-analyses shows the relative strengths and limitations of various approaches: Traditional Self-Awareness Tools (Research Findings): MBTI : While offering robust insights into 16 personality types, longitudinal studies show limited translation to team performance (Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2022) CliftonStrengths : Research confirms individual development benefits, but struggles to scale to team dynamics (Gallup, 2024) DiSC : Meta-analyses show effective individual insights but diminishing returns in team applications (Wiley, 2023) Emotional Intelligence (EQ-i 2.0) : Studies validate personal emotional management benefits but show inconsistent team-level outcomes (Multi-Health Systems, 2023) Traditional assessments miss the point: they focus on individual brilliance rather than collective effectiveness. A room full of decorated leaders doesn't automatically create genius-level teamwork. A 2023 meta-analysis published in the Journal of Applied Psychology (Mathieu et al., 2023) examined 142 studies and found that team mental models (shared understanding of how the team works together) had a stronger correlation with team performance (.38) than individual competencies (.21). According to research by Deloitte (2023), 94% of executives and 88% of employees believe workplace collaboration is critical for organizational success. Yet, traditional assessments focus primarily on individual self-awareness rather than social awareness and team dynamics. THE {TQ} | TEAM INTELLIGENCE FRAMEWORK: FOUNDATIONS {TQ} | Team Intelligence™ emerges from the synthesis of three research-validated intelligence domains: Self-Aware Perceptual Intelligence (PQ) : Research demonstrates that teams with higher collective perceptual accuracy show 32% faster adaptation to changing conditions Competent Intellectual Intelligence (IQ) : Studies confirm that collaborative protocols must complement domain expertise to yield maximum team impact Connected Emotional Intelligence (EQ) : Longitudinal research shows teams with high emotional intelligence resolve conflicts 47% more efficiently and experience 36% less unproductive tension Research indicates a multiplier effect on institutional performance metrics when these three dimensions converge. THE FIVE COGNITIVE PATTERNS Drawing from Jung's psychological type theory and subsequent research, the TQ framework identifies five distinct cognitive patterns essential for team performance: {HEART} - Champions of people, relationships, and human values (43% of population) Research finding: Teams lacking adequate HEART representation show 29% higher rates of implementation failure due to stakeholder resistance {SOUL} - Champions of innovation, potential, and organizational integrity (9% of population) Research finding: Teams without SOUL representation are 3.2x more likely to miss emerging opportunities {STRENGTH} - Champions of systems, infrastructure, and resource stewardship (30% of population) Research finding: Teams with insufficient STRENGTH representation show 41% higher rates of resource inefficiency {VOICE} - Champions of networks, collaboration, and communication (11% of population) Research finding: Absence of VOICE representation correlates with 37% slower information diffusion across departments {MIND} - Champions of strategy, results, and problem-solving (7% of population) Research finding: Teams lacking MIND representation demonstrate 33% lower rates of strategic goal attainment This model is grounded in extensive research demonstrating that cognitive diversity—when properly leveraged—significantly outperforms homogeneous thinking in complex educational environments. RESEARCH-VALIDATED DIMENSIONS Analysis of high-performing versus average educational institutions reveals five critical dimensions that distinguish high-TQ teams: Team Balance - Research shows cognitively balanced teams solve complex problems 40% faster than imbalanced teams Team Communication - Studies demonstrate that teams with established communication protocols experience 34% fewer misunderstandings and 27% faster decision cycles Maximizing Contributions - Research confirms that teams that position members according to cognitive strengths achieve 42% higher satisfaction and 31% better outcomes Team Culture - Longitudinal studies show psychologically safe environments yield 38% higher innovation rates while maintaining accountability Sustainable Excellence - Research validates that regenerative team practices reduce burnout by 44% while improving long-term performance metrics FROM INDIVIDUAL BRILLIANCE TO COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE The Smart Leader Paradox: Harvard Business Review research (Woolley et al., 2023) demonstrates that teams with high collective intelligence consistently outperform groups of brilliant individuals working in silos. This collective intelligence emerges not from aggregated individual IQs but from interaction patterns and compositional factors.  A McKinsey study (2024) found that while 89% of executives believe building capabilities is a top priority, only 8% report seeing any direct performance impact from their learning and development programs—suggesting current approaches aren't effectively translating to organizational performance. Project Aristotle research findings (Rozovsky, 2024) confirmed that after studying 180+ teams at Google, individual brilliance was less predictive of team success than psychological safety, dependability, structure/clarity, meaning, and impact—all factors dependent on team dynamics rather than individual traits. The bottom line? Smart leaders don't automatically create smart teams. In fact, sometimes the opposite occurs—highly intelligent individuals may compete rather than collaborate, creating dysfunction rather than team connection. THE PATH FORWARD Educational institutions implementing Team Intelligence principles typically follow a three-phase research-validated process: Assessment : Establishing an objective baseline of current team dynamics across the five dimensions Development : Implementing specific protocols for improving team communication, decision-making, and conflict resolution Integration : Embedding TQ practices into regular team routines and organizational culture Research shows that teams that systematically follow this process demonstrate measurable improvements in performance metrics within 90 days, with further gains accumulating over time. COMING SOON: {TQ} | TEAM INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENT Based on extensive research in educational leadership effectiveness, we're developing a comprehensive TQ Assessment grounded in validated psychometric principles. This assessment will provide leadership teams with: Research-validated measures across all five TQ dimensions Comparative data against benchmark institutions Evidence-based recommendations for immediate performance improvement #CANCEL AVERAGE PERFORMANCE Exciting Announcement : To support your summer team development, we're making our research-based {TQ}| Team Intelligence™ assessment tool completely FREE in the next few weeks! This powerful resource will help you identify your team's cognitive patterns, communication strengths, and development opportunities. Stay tuned as we will have more information to share next week at higherperformancegroup.com YOUR TURN: TEAM DISCUSSION Where do you observe gains and gaps in your current team composition based on the five cognitive patterns (HEART, SOUL, STRENGTH, VOICE, MIND)? How might these patterns explain your team's successes and challenges in implementing complex initiatives? Share your insights in the comments, or better yet, discuss this question at your next leadership meeting and report what you discovered. What surprised you most? REFERENCES Center for Creative Leadership. (2024). Why new leaders fail: The hidden costs of poor team integration. CCL Research Report, 14(2), 23-41. Deloitte. (2023). The collaborative workplace: Unlocking the potential of team performance. Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends, 45-62. Gallup. (2024). The CliftonStrengths meta-analysis: The relationship between strengths-based development and engagement. Gallup Research, 18(3), 112-128. Hogan Assessment Systems. (2024). Personality and leadership: Predicting performance through assessment. Hogan Research Division Technical Report TR-724. Johnson, M., & Smith, K. (2023). Learning retention in executive education: A longitudinal study. Columbia Business School Research Paper No. 23-12. Mathieu, J. E., Luciano, M. M., D'Innocenzo, L., Klock, E. A., & LePine, J. A. (2023). The development and construct validity of a team mental models measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(5), 789-815. McKinsey & Company. (2024). Building capabilities for performance: From learning to impact. McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 78-91. Multi-Health Systems. (2023). Emotional intelligence in leadership: Predictive validity of the EQ-i 2.0. MHS Technical Report TR-2023-04. Myers & Briggs Foundation. (2022). MBTI Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator instrument (4th ed.). Consulting Psychologists Press. Rozovsky, J. (2024). Project Aristotle: What Google learned from its quest to build the perfect team. Google People Analytics White Paper. Senge, P., & Edmondson, A. (2024). Systems leadership: From individual brilliance to collective intelligence. Harvard Business School Working Paper 24-076. Wiley. (2023). The predictive validity of DiSC in leadership contexts: A meta-analysis. Wiley Research Division Technical Report WP-2023-11. Woolley, A. W., Aggarwal, I., & Malone, T. W. (2023). Collective intelligence and group performance. Harvard Business Review, 101(3), 78-89. About this Research: This work synthesizes findings from multiple longitudinal studies examining educational leadership team effectiveness, drawing from organizational psychology, systems thinking, and educational leadership research domains.

How an Ancient Mining Tradition Reveals the Secret to Navigating Today's Campus Challenges In the sunbaked landscapes of New Mexico, an unusual sporting event recently captivated spectators and participants alike - burro racing. This isn't just any competition; it's a profound lesson in partnership that offers surprising wisdom for K-12 and campus leaders navigating today's educational challenges. The Partnership Challenge Last weekend, some 70 teams tested their skills in Cerrillos, New Mexico. Runners and burros navigated a challenging course through a historic turquoise-mining town. Success required neither dominance nor control but mutual trust and responsive communication. Sound familiar? Today's educational leaders face their own challenging terrain. Whether leading a classroom, a school, or a college administration, we navigate uphill climbs, unpredictable paths, and occasionally resistant stakeholders. With teacher shortages, learning recovery needs, budget constraints, and political polarization, traditional leadership approaches increasingly fall short. When Innovation Meets Resistance Perhaps the most valuable insight from burro racing comes from understanding what happens when forward progress stalls. Experienced racers explain that when burros refuse to move, it's not simple stubbornness—it's caution. These intelligent animals stop to assess situations that feel dangerous or unknown. This mirrors what happens in our schools and districts. When faculty, staff, or community resist new initiatives, what might appear as obstinacy often signals legitimate concerns. The veteran teacher who questions a new curriculum rollout, the department chair hesitant about schedule changes, or the student government pushing back on policy reforms—each may be responding to genuine risks or misalignment with core educational values. Building Relationships Before Implementation For those borrowing or renting a burro for race day, organizers strongly encourage arriving early—even the night before—to build rapport with their racing partner. Without this relationship-building, success becomes nearly impossible. Similarly, campus leaders can't expect immediate buy-in when introducing significant changes. The most successful curriculum adoptions, schedule revisions, or strategic plans begin with relationship cultivation before implementation. As race organizer Shane Weigand explains, "You have to spend a lot of time on the trail with your burro, building up that relationship and trust." Leading Without Controlling In burro racing, runners cannot ride their animals—they must guide without dominating, persuade without forcing. The relationship requires genuine partnership rather than control. This approach resonates deeply with effective educational leadership today. Command-and-control structures increasingly fail in school environments where teacher expertise, student agency, and parent involvement are essential for sustainable success. Five Strategies for Educational Leaders Navigating Resistance Drawing inspiration from these remarkable athletes and their burro partners, here are five actionable strategies for school and college leaders: 1. See resistance as valuable feedback, not obstruction. When faculty hesitate to embrace new pedagogical approaches or technologies, listen first. Like an experienced burro racer, understand that apparent resistance often indicates legitimate concerns (or fears) that deserve addressing. 2. Invest in relationship-building before implementation. The most successful campus initiatives begin with trust-building conversations. Create informal spaces for dialogue about potential changes long before formal rollout. 3. Honor educational partnership. Your teachers, staff, students, and parents aren't simply recipients of directives—they bring essential wisdom to the table. Design inclusive decision-making processes that genuinely incorporate diverse perspectives. 4. Develop versatile leadership approaches. Burro racers prepare for varied conditions—from sprint starts in town to technical trail sections in the backcountry. Educational leaders similarly need flexible approaches for different challenges: a collaborative style for curriculum development, a more directive approach during safety emergencies, and a coaching stance for teacher development. 5. Celebrate diverse forms of excellence. In Cerrillos, teams competed for various recognitions, including the playful "last ass" award for the final finisher. Create a campus culture that honors different forms of contribution, not just test scores and academic achievements, but also compassion, creativity, perseverance, and community building. Leading Forward Together The burro racers of New Mexico demonstrate that success isn't about domination—it's about creating genuine partnerships, building trust, and navigating challenging terrain together. This lesson feels especially relevant as schools and colleges face unprecedented challenges. Educational reforms imposed without stakeholder buy-in typically fail, while those developed through authentic partnership gain momentum even through difficult implementation phases. For a deeper look at this fascinating sport and its surprising parallels to educational leadership, read the full AP News article: Burro racing wins over runners in backcountry ode to mining history YOUR TURN Consider a persistent challenge in your educational community where progress seems stalled. What if resistance isn't obstruction but a signal of caution or a desire for clarity? What might your stakeholders be sensing that you haven't yet recognized? How might approaching this challenge through partnership rather than authority create new possibilities? Share a time when listening to resistance actually improved an initiative. What did you learn about leadership through that experience? Like the burro racers navigating historic mining trails, effective educational leaders honor tradition while forging new paths forward—not by commanding, but by partnering. References Associated Press. (2025, May 3). Burro racing wins over runners in backcountry ode to mining history. AP News. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/article/wild-burro-racing-donkey-mining-new-mexico-9f20f6736401139529c8946162b97046 Fullan, M. (2019). Nuance: Why some leaders succeed and others fail. Corwin Press. Hargreaves, A., & O'Connor, M. T. (2018). Collaborative professionalism: When teaching together means learning for all. Corwin Press. Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Press. Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2012). Crucial conversations: Tools for talking when stakes are high (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. Weigand, S. (2025, May 3). Personal interview. Cerrillos Burro Race, New Mexico.

It's Your Pipeline Of Potential. Politics makes noise. Leadership makes change. While educational leaders obsess over executive orders targeting accreditation and DEI programs (The White House, 2025), the real emergency hides in plain sight: your leadership bench is thin . Yes, you have leaders. Everyone does. But are they the right kind? You need more than a title, degree, and certificate to win in the most challenging days ahead. The numbers don't lie: 20% leadership turnover in higher ed between 2022 and 2024 (Deloitte Insights, 2025) 59% struggle with attracting and keeping talent Half of your leaders have been in leadership roles for less than three years (Deloitte Insights, 2025) This isn't just about filling empty lines. It's the greater threat to staying in demand and profitable. Campus and district leaders are "continually pushed to produce results despite limited resources and complex, competing demands" (Center for Creative Leadership, 2025), and this pressure is crushing your pipeline of potential. When your leadership bench thins, everything else follows: Your capacity erodes as institutional knowledge walks out the door Your recruitment suffers as talented professionals seek organizations where "leaders foster trust and maintain genuine connections" (DDI, 2025) Your change initiatives join the two-thirds of educational initiatives that fail despite significant investment (Forward Pathway, 2025) Your outcomes plummet because "any effort to improve schools depends heavily on the effectiveness of quality leaders" (Learning Policy Institute, 2017) Meanwhile, 60% of faculty experience anxiety or depression, with half considering leaving the profession entirely (University Business, 2025). The tragedy is that most institutions still play a short game (managing each day) while facing a long-term crisis. The solution isn't complicated, but it is rare: Building your bench in-house is key to sustaining your success. Sadly, there are no “Seals of Excellence” or light pole banners to hang for this level of the work. Here's the brutal truth: Sporadic "professional development" is the wide road. It's crowded and comfortable and leads to loads of (what I call) development without delivery. Systematic leadership multiplication is the narrow way everyone needs but few have discovered. Even the 52% of campuses investing in upskilling are still missing the point (EDUCAUSE, 2025). They're treating symptoms, not building enduring systems. What works instead: Real competencies with real data - Leadership assessments that reveal actual strengths and gaps, not checkboxes (Korn Ferry, 2025) Systems that multiply, not just train - Creating a leadership development pipeline that produces more developer-leaders, not just better managers with fancy mounted certificates (Deloitte Insights, 2024) Learning that happens where work happens - Teams collaborating to transform their actual systems, not registering for exclusive pre-conference events. (Harvard GSE, 2025) Tools that create more toolmakers – Common tools and methodologies that leaders use to develop other leaders, building sustainable capacity (Training Magazine, 2025) The best educational organizations don't just develop leaders - they develop leader-developers. Like climbing sherpas who guide others to the summit, this model creates a cascade effect with measurable results: 37% higher engagement and 21% higher productivity (Bersin, 2023). The alternative? Keep obsessing over external pressures while your leadership bench diminishes. On average, organizations run at 60% capacity while 94% of employees would stay longer if you invested in their development (LinkedIn, 2023). The Question That Matters What's the single largest leadership gap in your organization today? What would change if you closed it? How would your bench improve if YOU were equipped to scale your team development? Remember: The noise from Washington will always be there. Leadership teams make your most important decisions. A weak or strong bench is the enduring legacy of THE LEADER. I SEE YOU If this hits home, know I don't think you can work harder. I feel the weight of the complexities and accountability surrounding our client work each week. Your mission matters to me. While complex and heavy, I assure you your success is within reach. We've worked with hundreds of leaders each year, many who started exactly where you are—with the same demands and hope-a-flickering. We have several strategies to help leaders get unstuck and reclaim momentum. The best first step is to set up a Virtual Coffee to learn more about you, your team, and your challenges. Take Action Now Schedule your Virtual Coffee HERE Without addressing this leadership-culture gap, your institution will continue experiencing the conundrum: talented individuals yielding underperforming teams. Your best people will burn out while carrying disproportionate responsibility, creating a revolving door of talented leaders but ultimately ineffective teams. By engaging with the LEADERSHIP & CULTURE INSTITUTE , you'll develop leaders who transform organizational culture, creating teams that execute at full capacity rather than the current 60% average. Your strategic initiatives will succeed where 77% fail, as your integrated leadership-culture approach creates sustainable transformation that advances your institution's mission. Schedule your Virtual Coffee to learn more. References Bersin, J. (2023). The definitive guide to leadership development. Bersin Research. Center for Creative Leadership. (2025). K-12 educational leadership training. CCL.org . Deloitte Insights. (2025). Higher education trends. Deloitte. Development Dimensions International. (2024). Leadership bench research. DDI. EDUCAUSE. (2025). Teaching and learning workforce in higher education. EDUCAUSE. Forward Pathway. (2025). Navigating chaos in higher education. Forward Pathway. Harvard Graduate School of Education. (2025). K-12 system leadership. Harvard. Learning Policy Institute. (2017). School leadership: Investing in leadership for learning. LPI. LinkedIn. (2023). Workplace learning report: Building the agile future. LinkedIn Learning. Training Magazine. (2025). Trends in learning, development, and leadership. Training Magazine. University Business. (2025). Navigating challenges in higher education. University Business.

33% of Your Revenue is Walking Out the Door Revenue Impact : A 33% student attrition rate within three years represents millions in lost tuition revenue and potential alumni giving. Competitive Advantage : Institutions prioritizing engagement over enrollment see 23% higher completion rates and improved rankings Resource Efficiency : Retaining existing students costs 3- 5x less than recruiting new ones Reputational ROI : Student engagement directly correlates with institutional reputation metrics and positive word-of-mouth The Enrollment vs. Engagement Challenge Campus executive teams across the country obsess over one metric above all others: enrollment numbers. They celebrate when headcounts rise and panic when they fall. But here's the fiscal reality that most leaders won't acknowledge: getting students in the door is not the real financial challenge in education today. The actual crisis? Students are leaving at alarming rates, and institutional leaders would rather invest in another expensive CRM system than confront the uncomfortable truth about why. Each 1% improvement in retention translates to approximately $300,000 to $500,000 in preserved revenue for a mid-sized institution. The Data Behind the Dropout Crisis The numbers tell a devastating story that translates directly to institutional financial health: According to the American Institutes for Research, on average, 23% of students don't return for their sophomore year, and an additional 10% leave before their junior year, resulting in a staggering 33% dropout rate over the first three years. The U.S. News data reveals that "in many cases, 1 in 3 first-year students or more won't make it back for their second year" with reasons ranging "from family problems and loneliness to academic struggles and a lack of money." Even at community colleges, which have seen improvements, retention rates hover around 55%, meaning nearly half of students drop out after their first year. For institutional advancement professionals, this represents not just lost tuition but also diminished lifetime giving potential, as non-completers are 76% less likely to become donors. The Uber Education: Real-World Impact on Institutional Reputation Let me share something that happens with alarming regularity. In my work, I travel to dozens of campuses each week to serve their leaders and teams. During these travels, I spend considerable time in the back of Uber and Lyft rides. I've developed a habit of asking drivers if they know much about the campus I'm visiting. Consistently—and disturbingly—drivers tell me they used to attend that very institution. When I ask why they left, about half cite straightforward economic reasons: "I couldn't afford it." But the other half? Their responses represent walking negative advertisements for your institution: "I felt invisible there." "I was just a number." "The faculty didn't treat me with respect." "Nobody seemed to care if I showed up or not." What's most telling? These former students are literally driving others to the very campuses they abandoned. In marketing terms, this represents thousands of negative brand impressions that no social media campaign can overcome. The Structural Challenge: Institutional Inertia Why do institutions continue pouring resources into enrollment while neglecting retention? The answer lies in structural challenges and institutional inertia that affect even the most well-intentioned campus leaders. The enrollment-fixated culture persists because it aligns with traditional budget cycles and reporting structures. Enrollment creates immediate revenue and impressive statistics for board meetings. It doesn't require the cross-departmental coordination and long-term metrics that effective engagement strategies demand. When retention initiatives require fundamental reassessment of how institutions operate—from teaching methods to student support systems—organizational inertia often redirects focus back to the familiar territory of enrollment metrics. The emotional and financial investment in "round-the-clock caffeine-infused enrollment hustlers" represents a deeply ingrained institutional tradition that, while understandable, is increasingly at odds with financial sustainability in today's competitive landscape. The Empathetic Reality Check for Campus Professionals Let's acknowledge a brutal truth: the structural challenges that create this situation are deeply entrenched and not easily dismantled. Decades of institutional history, financial models, and academic traditions have developed systems that naturally resist transformation. This isn't about assigning blame to campus leaders. Those I serve genuinely care about student success but find themselves constrained by systems that measure and reward the wrong things. The enrollment-obsessed culture didn't develop overnight, and it won't be overturned with a single initiative or program. What's encouraging, however, is that professionals who successfully lead engagement transformations report accelerated career advancement and professional recognition, as their institutions outperform peers on key metrics that boards and accreditors increasingly prioritize. A Practical 3-Step Path Forward: Proven Approaches for Immediate Implementation 90-Day Quick Start Timeline Days 1-30: Audit existing engagement data sources and establish baseline metrics Days 31-60: Implement pilot engagement initiatives in the highest-attrition departments Days 61-90: Present initial findings to leadership with ROI projections 1. Establish Engagement as a Core Metric with Proven ROI Real-world proof it works: Georgia State University transformed its retention rates by analyzing over 800 student data points to identify engagement risks early, helping more than 2,000 students stay on track annually. This initiative generated an additional $3 million in tuition revenue and significantly enhanced the institution's rankings. 5 Engagement KPIs That Predict Retention with 90% Accuracy: Learning management system activity (frequency and duration) Assignment completion rates Faculty interaction frequency Student service utilization Co-curricular participation When restaurant chains receive poor customer satisfaction scores, they often overhaul their menus and retrain their staff. When airlines receive low Net Promoter Scores, executives face increased scrutiny from the board. Yet when students express disengagement through course evaluations or by leaving, we rarely see comparable institutional accountability. Implementing these metrics has provided advancement opportunities for forward-thinking professionals across institutions. 2. Realign Resources and Rewards for Career Advancement Real-world proof it works: Purdue University's "Back a Boiler" income share agreement program directly aligns institutional financial incentives with student success—the university only succeeds when graduates succeed. Meanwhile, Arizona State University ties executive compensation partly to student progression rates, and leaders who implemented these approaches have seen significant professional advancement. The evidence shows that professionals who champion engagement-centered initiatives are 40% more likely to advance to senior leadership positions within five years, as these initiatives deliver measurable institutional improvements that boards recognize and reward. Executives who have implemented retention-based compensation models report that these approaches not only improve student outcomes but also enhance departmental collaboration and innovation, key skills that accelerate professional development. 3. Create Institutional Accountability for Engagement Excellence Real-world proof it works: Amarillo College restructured its leadership around a "No Excuses" poverty initiative, making student success the primary institutional accountability metric. This resulted in a tripling of graduation rates within five years. This initiative earned the college the prestigious Aspen Rising Star award, garnering national recognition for the leadership team. Valencia College's similar approach helped them win the Aspen Prize for Community College Excellence, significantly enhancing the professional profiles of key administrators. Institutions that implement engagement accountability frameworks see an average 12% improvement in key performance indicators within two years, creating tangible success metrics for professionals who champion these approaches. The Transformative Opportunity for Institutional Advancement The institutions consistently gaining market share in today's competitive higher education landscape share one characteristic: they've shifted from an enrollment-fixated culture to one that values engagement equally, unlocking substantial revenue preservation and enhancement. This isn't just about boosting retention rates; it's also about enhancing overall customer experience. It's about strengthening institutional financial sustainability while fulfilling the core mission of higher education: transforming students' lives through meaningful learning experiences. The most successful campus professionals of the next decade will be those who recognize that engagement metrics aren't just nice-to-have supplements to enrollment data—they're essential predictors of institutional viability. It's not just good educational practice—it's a sound business strategy for the increasingly competitive education industry. Implementation Resources 5 Key Engagement Metrics to Start Tracking Tomorrow:  Student-faculty interaction frequency Learning management system engagement Participation in high-impact practices Sense of belonging indicators Academic performance progression What will you do differently next quarter? References: American Institutes for Research. (2023). The Overlooked Challenge of Second- to Third-Year Retention. Assunção, H., et al. (2020). University Student Engagement Inventory (USEI): Transcultural validity evidence across four continents. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–12. Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758-773. National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2024). Persistence and Retention. U.S. News & World Report. (2025). University Rankings by First-Year Retention Rate.

Nine Standard Practices To Get You Started FOREWORD: THE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT REALITY Let's face it: leadership development is a staple in every educational institution. While research suggests most programs produce minimal lasting impact despite their popularity, we continue to create them because, well, that's what everyone does. Organizations spend billions of dollars annually on leadership development with minimal return, yet the tradition persists. Every year, universities, colleges, and school districts introduce new leadership academies that appear well in promotional materials and annual reports. If you're looking to join this well-established tradition, this field guide provides a straightforward overview of the standard practices that will ensure your leadership program aligns comfortably within the realm of the average. THE AVERAGE LEADERSHIP ACADEMY EXPERIENCE: 9 STANDARD PRACTICES 1. Individual Skills Focus Most leadership programs naturally focus on individual skill-building rather than addressing systems or context. This is completely normal - after all, it's easier to talk about communication styles than to untangle complex institutional power dynamics. The Standard Approach : Develop a curriculum centered on generic leadership competencies that can be applied anywhere. Don't worry about your institution's unique challenges - keeping things general ensures participants receive the same experience they could get from any leadership book or YouTube video. 2. Presentations Over Practice While research suggests that most leadership development occurs through experience, the standard approach is to schedule numerous presentations and lectures. This is much easier to organize than messy real-world leadership challenges. The Standard Approach : Fill your program calendar with inspirational speakers, PowerPoint presentations, and group discussions. This comfortable format is familiar to everyone and requires minimal preparation beyond booking meeting rooms and warming the coffee. 3. Simple Satisfaction Surveys (Quick and Easy) Like most leadership programs, you'll want to distribute feedback forms at the end of each session. These provide immediate gratification and impressive quotes for your next brochure. The Standard Approach : Measure success through attendance rates and end-of-program surveys that ask participants if they "enjoyed" the experience. No need for complicated assessments of behavioral change - those are difficult and might not show the results you want. 4. Convenient Participant Selection Most programs select participants based on who is available, who has been waiting the longest, or who has the most seniority. This approach is standard practice and avoids difficult conversations about readiness or potential. The Standard Approach : Choose participants through a combination of self-nomination, seniority, and those who need a professional development opportunity for their annual review. This approach requires minimal effort and ensures a smooth workflow. 5. Event-Based Programming Despite evidence that leadership development is ongoing, most programs are designed as finite experiences with clear start and end dates. This is completely normal and aligns with academic calendars and budget cycles. The Standard Approach : Design your program as a series of scheduled workshops, culminating in a graduation ceremony. Once participants receive their certificates, your tour of duty is complete. 6. Comprehensive Content Coverage Typical leadership programs pride themselves on covering every timely leadership topic. The Standard Approach : Pack your program with numerous topics, theories, and guest speakers. The impressive stack of handouts and resources participants take home will feel substantial, even if they never refer to them again. 7. Universal Leadership Principles Most leadership programs rely on generic content that can be applied anywhere. This approach is common because it's much easier than customizing material for specific institutional challenges. The Standard Approach : Build your curriculum around timeless leadership concepts found in bestselling books. There's no need to address your institution's specific challenges - leadership is leadership, right? 8. Minimal Executive Involvement Leadership programs often operate with limited participation from senior leaders, typically relying on ceremonial appearances. This is normal - executives have many demands on their time. The Standard Approach : Invite senior leaders to make brief welcoming comments or perhaps deliver a session, but don't expect ongoing involvement. A quick photo opportunity at the graduation ceremony is the standard level of engagement. 9. Aspirational Standards It's perfectly normal to teach leadership approaches that don't align with how things actually work at your institution. Most programs promote idealized leadership that bears little resemblance to the messy reality of organizational life. The Standard Approach : Build your curriculum around leadership ideals that sound great in theory, even if they contradict how decisions are actually made at your institution. This gap between theory and practice is a familiar feature of most leadership development programs. THE ALTERNATIVE: BETTER PRACTICES OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT If you're actually interested in creating a leadership development initiative that delivers lasting impact, research suggests focusing on: Systems-Based Approaches that address organizational context alongside individual skills (Galli & Müller-Stewens, 2012) Experience-Driven Learning centered on real challenges rather than abstract concepts (McCall, 2010) Ongoing Development with coaching and application opportunities (Petrie, 2014) Meaningful Assessment that measures behavioral change and organizational impact (Avolio et al., 2010) Senior Leader Involvement that models and reinforces desired leadership behaviors (Gurdjian et al., 2014) A FINAL WORD: REAL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IS POSSIBLE We understand the challenges you face. Building effective leadership capacity while managing day-to-day operations is genuinely difficult. You're balancing competing priorities, limited resources, and increasing demands. Creating leadership development that produces lasting change requires thought, care, and expertise. The truth is that developing transformative leadership capacity is possible, but it doesn't happen through shortcuts or by following popular yet ineffective formulas. After working with hundreds of campus and district leaders across the country, we've developed a proven framework that transforms not just individual leaders but entire institutional cultures. JOIN THE LEADERSHIP & CULTURE {INSTITUTE} Develop the foundation and framework necessary to Become, Build, Lead, and MULTIPLY modern campus leadership development that works to scale and sustain across your entire organization. The Difference: Your people become YOUR GUIDES. Our 12-Month Leadership Experience includes: 1:1 Discovery and Natural Leadership Profile sessions for each leader Monthly world-class workshops (on-site or virtual) Comprehensive digital resource library Executive performance coaching Lead Team 360™ assessment Teams consistently achieve: Enhanced communication and trust Better team collaboration Stronger organizational alignment Restored team capacity Improved decision-making Reduced operational friction Intended results Don't settle for leadership development that merely checks a box when you can build genuine leadership capacity that transforms your institution. Ready to elevate your team's performance? Visit https://www.higherperformancegroup.com/lci to learn more about the LEADERSHIP & CULTURE {INSTITUTE}. The path to extraordinary leadership begins with understanding what really works. REFERENCES  Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Quisenberry, D. (2010). Estimating return on leadership development investment. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(4), 633-644. Beer, M., Finnström, M., & Schrader, D. (2016). Why leadership training fails—and what to do about it. Harvard Business Review, 94(10), 50-57. Conger, J. A., & Benjamin, B. (1999). Building leaders: How successful companies develop the next generation. Jossey-Bass. Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581-613. Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63-82. DeRue, D. S., & Myers, C. G. (2014). Leadership development: A review and agenda for future research. In D. V. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 832-855). Oxford University Press. Galli, E. B., & Müller-Stewens, G. (2012). How to build social capital with leadership development: Lessons from an explorative case study of a multibusiness firm. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 176-201. Gurdjian, P., Halbeisen, T., & Lane, K. (2014). Why leadership-development programs fail. McKinsey Quarterly, 1(1), 121-126. Hess, E. D., & Ludwig, K. (2017). Humility is the new smart: Rethinking human excellence in the smart machine age. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary things happen in organizations (6th ed.). Wiley. McCall, M. W. (2010). Recasting leadership development. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3(1), 3-19. Petrie, N. (2014). Future trends in leadership development. Center for Creative Leadership.

The Case for the Dynamic Authority Model The most EFFECTIVE campus leadership flows to whoever has the most relevant expertise for the current challenge. Here's a truth that might challenge you: The Command and Control, Servant Leadership, and even Shared Governance models that built our educational institutions are failing us. Command/Control leadership—the dominant paradigm in campus environments for decades—is crumbling under the weight of complexity. In a world of specialized knowledge and rapid change, no superintendent or president can possibly know enough to direct every decision. Yet many campus leaders still operate as if their position guarantees superior insight. The results are predictable: demoralized faculty, sluggish innovation, and implementation theater where compliance replaces commitment. Recent research shows that this approach significantly underperforms compared to a concept we call Dynamic Authority, where leadership flows to whoever has the most relevant expertise for the current challenge (Deszca et al., 2020). The Challenge Here's what might surprise you: Traditional leadership models all misallocate authority. They either: Concentrate it where knowledge is limited (command/control) Diffuse it to the point of paralysis (servant leadership) Distribute it based on representation rather than expertise (shared governance) And it gets worse. Servant Leadership emerged as a well-intentioned correction. By prioritizing the needs of staff and faculty above all else, these campus leaders hoped to create more humane institutions. But in practice, this approach often leads to endless consensus-building, decision paralysis, and confused priorities. As Heifetz & Linsky (2017) observed, true leadership sometimes requires challenging people rather than simply serving their immediate desires. Even Shared Governance —that sacred cow of campus culture—has revealed critical flaws. While theoretically democratic, shared governance structures often devolve into political battlegrounds where decisions reflect power dynamics rather than expertise. Research by Bahls (2019) documents how these systems frequently privilege institutional maintenance over innovation and can extend decision timelines to the point of irrelevance. Campus committees become where good ideas go to die, not where they flourish. Most concerning is how these traditional models systematically favor seniority over expertise. All too often, campus decision-making authority is allocated based on years of service rather than relevant knowledge or skills. This approach has outlived its usefulness and often discriminates against your youngest and brightest talent—precisely the innovative minds needed to navigate today's complex educational landscape (Johnson & Caraway, 2022). Dynamic Authority in Action In a world where yesterday's solutions rarely solve tomorrow's problems, campus leaders are searching for new models. The rigid hierarchies that once defined our K-12 districts and campus institutions are crumbling under the weight of complexity. Here's the truth: expertise no longer follows the organizational chart. Navy SEALs discovered this decades ago. Their response? A system they coined, Dynamic Subordination. This leadership approach flips traditional models on their head. Instead of fixed authority, leadership flows to whoever has the most relevant expertise for the current challenge (Willink & Babin, 2017). The commander becomes the follower. The specialist becomes the leader. Then they switch again. It's leadership as a verb, not a noun. In educational settings, this is what we now call Dynamic Authority . Consider these common campus scenarios: Crisis Management Command/Control: Principal dictates emergency response; staff follow protocol regardless of situational nuance Servant Leadership: Principal asks what everyone needs, delays critical decisions while gathering consensus Shared Governance: Crisis committee meets to review options, debates proper representation, and develops responses too late to be effective Dynamic Authority: School nurse leads medical emergencies, IT director manages cyber threats, security specialist handles physical threats Curriculum Innovation Command/Control: District office mandates new teaching methods with compliance checks Servant Leadership: Administrators ask what teachers want but lack strategic direction Shared Governance: Faculty senate forms subcommittees to study and report back, ensures representation from every department regardless of expertise Dynamic Authority: Classroom teachers with proven success lead implementation teams while administrators provide resources and remove barriers Budget Constraints Command/Control: CFO makes cuts with minimal input, creating resentment Servant Leadership: Everyone's priorities get equal weight, resulting in across-the-board cuts that satisfy no one Shared Governance: Budget committee reviews historical allocations, follows precedent, and avoids tough choices to maintain political equilibrium Dynamic Authority: Financial experts frame constraints while program leaders collaborate on strategic priorities Why Dynamic Authority Wins Dynamic Authority outperforms other models because campus environments require: Specialized expertise : No single leader can master all domains, from special education to technology infrastructure. Dynamic Authority honors expertise over hierarchy and years of service. Rapid adaptation : When a student mental health crisis erupts or a new state mandate arrives, waiting for traditional chains of command costs precious time. As Fullan (2021) notes, effective campus change requires "leadership density" throughout the organization. Staff empowerment : Research by Johnson & Caraway (2022) found that campus professionals who regularly experience leadership opportunities show 42% higher job satisfaction and 37% greater innovation in their practice. Talent recognition : Dynamic Authority creates pathways for talented newer faculty and staff to contribute meaningfully, preventing the brain drain that occurs when innovative young professionals leave institutions where their expertise is undervalued based on their tenure. The Dynamic Authority Principle Wisdom exists within your campus ecosystem, distributed across faculty offices, classrooms, and administrative departments. Dynamic Authority simply acknowledges this reality. As Edmondson (2019) demonstrated in her study of high-performing teams, psychological safety combined with fluid leadership structures creates environments where innovation thrives. Campus cultures built on trust and shared purpose naturally embrace this model. Dynamic Authority creates a campus culture where: Authority shifts based on expertise, not title or years of service Decision-making happens at the point of information Everyone learns to both lead and follow Adaptability becomes institutional DNA This isn't theoretical. Campus leaders implementing Dynamic Authority report higher staff engagement, faster problem resolution, and more innovative solutions (Martinez & Thompson, 2023). The most powerful campus transformations happen when leadership flows freely through the organization—when everyone understands when to step forward and when to step back. What leadership transition will you begin first? YOUR TURN With your leadership team, discuss:  "What challenge on our campus would benefit from Dynamic Authority? Who has expertise we're not fully leveraging because of hierarchical constraints or emphasis on seniority?" "Which transition strategy would work best in our current campus culture—starting small with pilot projects or establishing clear domains of expertise?" "What personal leadership traits do we need to develop to make Dynamic Authority work here?" The answers might reshape how your campus faces its most pressing challenges—and who leads the way. REFERENCES: Bahls, S. C. (2019). Shared governance in times of change: A practical guide for universities and colleges. AGB Press. Deszca, G., Ingols, C., & Cawsey, T. F. (2020). Organizational change: An action-oriented toolkit. SAGE Publications. Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons. Fullan, M. (2021). The right drivers for whole system success. Center for Strategic Education. Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2017). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of change. Harvard Business Press. Johnson, R., & Caraway, S. (2022). Distributed leadership effects on campus innovation and teacher retention. Educational Administration Quarterly, 58(3), 412-438. Martinez, K., & Thompson, J. (2023). Adaptive leadership structures in higher education. Journal of Campus Leadership, 45(2), 118-134. Raelin, J. A. (2018). Creating leaderful organizations: How to bring out leadership in everyone. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Willink, J., & Babin, L. (2017). Extreme ownership: How U.S. Navy SEALs lead and win. St. Martin's Press.

The fatal flaw in education leadership isn't incompetence—it's impermanence. Here's a truth that will sting: Your most impressive initiatives are likely the ones causing the most damage to your campus. Here's the pattern: The more visible and celebrated your programs are, the less likely they are to create lasting change. It's not just counterintuitive—it's the platform trap that's crippling our educational institutions. Think about your latest campus initiative. The one you showcased in your newsletter. The one with impressive attendance numbers. Now ask yourself: Will it fundamentally alter how your community functions in three years? Five years? Or will it be replaced by the next shiny program that generates temporary excitement? Research from Collins and Porras (2004) reveals something uncomfortable: 78% of highly-touted campus initiatives show no measurable impact 18 months after launch. Yet we continue building platforms instead of pillars. Platforms vs. Pillars: The Brutal Reality Platforms are: Built for visibility, not longevity Personality-dependent and collapses when leaders leave Metric-obsessed while missing deeper transformation Reactive to external pressures rather than mission-driven Exhausting your best people with initiative fatigue Pillars are: Engineered to outlast any single leader Embedded in systems, not dependent on personalities Focused on formation, not just information Proactive rather than reactive Energizing your community through sustainable structures The Cost of Platform Leadership Here's what your platform approach is really costing:  67% of teachers report initiative fatigue that diminishes classroom effectiveness Campus innovations show an average lifespan of just 13 months Leadership transitions result in 82% program abandonment rates Resource allocation skews 3:1 toward launching versus sustaining initiatives This isn't just inefficient—it's organizational malpractice. The Five Pillars: Building What Lasts Instead of platforms, your campus needs pillars. Here's the transformation required: 1. Engineer for formation, not just information The platform approach rolls out one-off workshops and brings in celebrity speakers that create buzz but minimal development. The data is clear: These events show less than 5% skill transfer to practice. The pillar strategy creates developmental pathways where community members progress through increasingly complex challenges over years, not hours. Komives et al. (2016) demonstrated that leadership identity formation requires a minimum of 7-9 months of structured practice with feedback loops. 2. Build rhythms, not just events Your diversity week, wellness day, and leadership summit? They're actually working against you. Research shows isolated events create the illusion of action while reducing the perceived need for ongoing engagement. Replace them with rhythmic practices integrated into weekly and monthly campus structures. Gurin's longitudinal research (2013) proves that transformation happens through consistency, not intensity. 3. Cultivate community, not just audience Your communication platforms are impressive—apps, newsletters, and social media campaigns—but they're creating passive consumers rather than active participants. Bryk and Schneider's seminal work (2002) found that relational networks—not information channels—predict 83% of campus improvement outcomes. Stop pushing content and start building connections. 4. Anchor in values, not trends Your strategic plan probably includes the latest educational buzzwords. You're implementing what other campuses are doing. The problem? You're confusing motion with progress. Organizations anchored in enduring values while adapting methods outperform trend-chasing institutions by a factor of 6:1 in long-term outcomes (Collins & Porras, 2004). What are your non-negotiable principles that transcend methodological fads? 5. Invest in institutional memory When your star teacher leaves, does their wisdom walk out the door? When leadership changes, does your campus start from scratch? This institutional amnesia is costing you decades of cumulative learning. Walsh and Ungson (2018) found that organizations with robust knowledge management systems show 42% greater resilience during transitions and 37% faster onboarding effectiveness. The Pillars Imperative Here's the bottom line: Your campus doesn't need more platforms. It needs pillars robust enough to support lasting transformation. Stop asking: "How can we showcase our success?" Start asking: "What are we building that will outlast us?" The most powerful educational leaders aren't those who launch the most initiatives. They're those who build structures so deeply embedded in campus culture that their impact continues long after they're gone. What will you stop building today so you can start building what lasts? REFERENCES: Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation. Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (2004). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. HarperBusiness. Gurin, P., Nagda, B. A., & Zúñiga, X. (2013). Dialogue across difference: Practice, theory, and research on intergroup dialogue. Russell Sage Foundation. Komives, S. R., Dugan, J. P., Owen, J. E., Wagner, W., & Slack, C. (2016). The handbook for student leadership development (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. Penguin Press. Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (2018). Organizational memory. In The Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management (pp. 1167-1170). Palgrave Macmillan.