13 Tell-Tale Signs Your Campus Brand Is Going to Diminish (Or Die)

June 6, 2023

Brand: A public image, reputation, or identity conceived of as something to be marketed or promoted


How do you know if your campus brand has one foot in the grave?


It’s a question that all leaders should ask – even leaders of growing campus communities.


As with almost everything in life, there are subtle signs that your peak may be near or cresting past it.


Other times, the signs of a dying campus brand are evident to everyone but the leader.

classroom of empty chairs

If you recognize that your campus is in trouble early enough, you can reverse the trend, regain energy and momentum, and run fervently into a new season.


Let the signs go unattended long enough, and things could be very different.


So, how do you know your campus brand is in trouble?


Here are 13 tell-tale signs that your campus brand is diminishing in value to your community.


1. Your Leaders are Losing their Hunger


A Higher Performance Team comprises Smart, Humble, and HUNGRY leaders. 


Hunger is a rare and beautiful thing.


It’s often easy to come by in your first years of leadership but hard to sustain for a lifetime.


Yet passion is vital to leadership because the hunger of a campus to thrive and develop will rarely exceed the hunger of its leaders.


How hot is your hunger? Here are 5 Signs Your Edge May Be Dulling As A Leader.


2. Your Campus is Afraid of Innovation


In the startup days, most campuses could pivot overnight.


You had to.


But as your impact grows, it’s easy to let innovation wane, especially when your campus has a rich history of success. 


How are you ensuring that your future is brighter than your past?


Teams who celebrate what they have been with more bluster than what they intend to BECOME will continue to watch their high-capacity leaders skip town and throw their energy behind another innovative campus culture willing to modernize the student experience. 


Down the road, that will leave you in a place where – even when you want to innovate – you can’t because all your smartest people have abandoned ship.


When was the last time you did something genuinely aggressive and cutting-edge? If you can’t answer that question, beware.


You may become a history lesson. 


Most people want to be a part of a winning team, and winning teams are reinventing how the game must be played. 



THE #1 BARRIER TO CAMPUS TEAM GROWTH


The Lead Team 360 will help you determine the #1 barrier between average performance and Higher Performance.

Complete the form below for FREE and instant access.


Looking to get a snapshot of your team's overall health?


Lead Team 360™

Diagnose your current leadership team health in the Lead Measures of Culture


Free 30-Minute Consultation Call

3. Campus Management is Replacing Campus Leadership


As your campus grows from a start-up pirate ship to a well-established Navy ship, you must manage what you’ve built.


Without great systems, executive clarity, and organization, you’ll never be able to sustain something that size, let alone steward it well.


The trap is that once you start managing, you may stop building anything of value. Instead, you manage what you’ve already built.


If all you do is manage what you’ve already built, your campus will likely die, and you won’t have much left to manage.


The key is to manage well but to keep leading – keep innovating, keep changing, keep experimenting, and keep figuring out new ways to accomplish your mission.


4. Maintenance is Overtaking Your Campus Mission


When I meet leaders of dying campus brands, they’re almost always in what I call ‘maintenance mode’ – maintaining the organization they’ve built has become more important than the mission that got them started.


In fact, when you drill down, very few can articulate or agree on what their mission truly is besides what they are managing each day. They just agree they need to maintain what they’ve got.


You'll have a bright future as long as the mission is central.


The end is near when maintenance begins to trump the mission and practices take over principles.


5. Your Campus Leadership is Fixated on Being Popular Rather than on Purpose 


Leaders with a soft heart (empathy) and a firm backbone (authority) are easy to spot. They are also scarce. 


How you treat your people AND your purpose is vital to the success of your system. 


Weak leaders are supportive of the needs of people yet unwilling to challenge them when those needs run against the core of their mission’s purpose. 


We’ve all seen leaders who “give the farm away” by becoming more interested in KEEPING their job than DOING it. 


If you are the leader and your campus brand is falling out of demand with your community, AND you are collecting loads of underperforming talent, put your finger on your nose, boss. Tag. You are it. 


If you are honest, your people are not your most important investment. Some of them are a SPEND to your institution. 


Your people wearing the team jersey of PURPOSE are your most important investment. 


6. You Criticize Younger, Upstart Leaders


Every leader is a young emerging leader at some point.


Young leaders bring innovation, ideas, and strategies to the table. In fact, they likely got your campus to where it is today, which is amazing.


But no one stays young forever.


After a decade in leadership, you’ll find yourself surrounded by younger leaders with different ideas.


Rather than deciding to learn from them, leaders of dying campus brands resist them, dismiss them, and sometimes ridicule them.


That’s a critical mistake if you want to stay relevant.


When you find yourself sitting around a table criticizing the ideas of young leaders, get nervous.


Back in the day, someone may have dismissed you, and look at what happened to them.


7. Your Personal Relationship with Your Values is on the Backburner 


Every leader has ups and downs in their relationship with their campus values.


Over a prolonged period, you cannot let your personal relationship with your beliefs go flat. Yet it does for so many leaders.


When your relationship with your core values goes flat, sound the alarm:


  • Stop
  • Reflect
  • Reset
  • Reclaim
  • Re-Boot
  • Reconnect


Behind every vibrant campus, you find leaders with a deep belief system.


When recruiting new leaders to your team, find leaders whose passion for your values burns white hot.


If values-centric people surround you, you’ll almost automatically become more on fire.


If your values have grown stale or are not as potent as your community deserves, we can help you RE-IGNITE here.


8. Your Best Talent is Burning Out Faster than you Can Replace Them


A clear sign that your campus brand is dying is that your RIGHT people are leaving, and your WRONG people are staying. 


Like the proverbial “canary in the coal mine,” regular departures of your best and brightest talent indicate that your campus work culture is approaching toxic levels. It’s also a sign of bad leadership. Too many leadership vacancies could suggest that departing leaders warn other potential leaders to stay away.     


Campus sites should be the healthiest places on the planet to work, but, as many of you know, that’s not often the case. And campuses with a high turnover rate or a reputation for having a toxic work environment, can’t carry out their mission with integrity or effectiveness.


Luckily, plenty of resources are available to help you and your team overcome this barrier.


  • In the Lead Team Institute, I’ll show you how to foster a healthy workplace environment and build a culture of Higher Performance. 

  • In the Leading from Peace Keynote and Workshop, I’ll teach you and your team my burnout-avoidance strategy to help you align your time, energy, and priorities and work in your favor. 


9. Everyone on your Team Looks and Thinks Just Like YOU


The next time you’re facilitating your next all-campus team meeting, really look at the people staring back at you.


Do they truly represent a cross-section of your community? Or do they all fit neatly within the same racial, economic, age, orientation, cultural, and political boxes? 


Campuses that lack diversity often need help to connect with their communities and reach new people.


Your campus diversity might indeed be limited by its location, but there’s more to diversity than race and politics. Another form of diversity has to do with what happens between someone’s ears.


A lack of conflict is often seen as a positive to team culture. After all, it means everyone on your team is aligned, right?


Wrong.


If everyone on your campus lead team looks, thinks, and acts the same, one of two things is probably happening:


  1. Your team members are self-censoring their personal beliefs and concerns out of fear of ridicule or ostracization.
  2. Those same people feel unwelcome and silently exiting your “back door.”


Make no mistake, a campus should draw a line in the sand on specific value-based issues (like student success), but there are plenty of other areas where some diversity of thought should be tolerated and encouraged. 


Remember, campus unity is not the same as conformity. An unintended consequence of conformity is that engagement tends to stall out – small group conversations become stale, people get comfortable within their bubble, and “outsiders” feel increasingly unwelcome.


Suppose your team members are uncomfortable expressing doubts, asking questions, voicing concerns, or engaging in respectful dialogue on sensitive issues and topics. In that case, your campus is probably attractive to one type of person: People just like you. 


And that’s a well that’ll quickly run dry. 


10. Your Campus Finances are Always in the Red


I get it.


No one likes it when “education” and “money” are tightly woven into a sentence. But campuses require money to function – and that’s not a secret.


Poor fiscal management can hurt campuses as much as an individual’s livelihood and well-being. If your campus constantly runs over budget, you must initiate serious conversations with your people. 


The fiscal cliff of 2024-2025 is real and should not be scary for those preparing appropriately for this season. 


You may have inherited a bad financial situation from your predecessor, but a campus with out-of-whack finances will join the long list of those shutting their doors. 


Like personal credit card debt, this situation can sneak up on you and get worse the longer you ignore it – so you need to make a game plan and stick to it. 


11. Your Campus Has Little Presence in the Community


Let me ask you a question: Would anyone in your community who’s not a student even notice if your campus closed its doors tomorrow- like permanently closed?


Ouch.


Your campus exists for the sake of your community. This means a campus should be actively engaged in the greater community. Whether hosting food drives, community nights out, or disaster relief responses, campus involvement in the local community should be unmissable and tangible. 


Even if it means partnering with other schools, agencies, and nonprofits in your area, a campus should strive to be a blessing to the community it serves. 


But if all of your campus's energy and ideas are expended internally, it could be a sign that you are becoming irrelevant to your community and on the cusp of a death spiral. 


12. You’re Focused More on Keeping the Peace than Reaching New Students


A subtle sign of a dying campus brand is that it has completely given up on reinvention and is directing all of its resources to keep its current program and load.


This is a sad reality, but it happens more often than you think. In these situations, the goal is to make the faculty and staff as happy and comfortable as possible to prevent any conflict or potential of a “Vote of No Go.” 


The problem with this approach (of which there are many) is that instead of being a pro of the future, you’re letting the con dictate how you lead and vision forward. In other words, the “tail wags the dog.” 


In the short run of your tenure, this strategy makes sense. Your vision for success can’t be reached if you get thrown out. But the long-term consequences – like not investing in the innovative programs your community desires – will inevitably signal a death blow down the road. There comes a time when each leader must step into the arena, right?


13. You View Every Change in Culture as a “Threat” to Your Campus


Railing and ranting against regressive culture or the latest outrageous headline are easy ways to gain an audience (and maybe even earn a few hearty “Amens” from your people on the inside) in today’s polarized environment. 


But this approach to “relevance” will eventually backfire. As I said in Point 12 above, short-term gains aren’t the best indicator of long-term health. And campuses that stoke political and cultural resentment are slowly dying from the inside out.


The biggest problem with campus teams that focus on “culture war” grievances is that they foster an antagonistic and defensive campus culture. So, instead of focusing on reaching the culture, the emphasis is on judging the culture. 


Think of it this way: The world is a big place. Would you enroll in an institution that did nothing but ridicule and judge how you and people like you live? Of course not. And if you wouldn’t, why would anyone else? 


Every community has enough cynicism and resentment. Your campus should be a neutral and safe place to the ways of the nutty world – not a contributor. A dying campus brand focuses on judging the world. A thriving campus community focuses on building a refreshing alternative for the world.


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 April 15, 2025
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.
By HPG Info April 8, 2025
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.
Show More
Share by: