Higher Performance Insights | ENROLLMENT ≠ ENGAGEMENT: The Sobering Cost of Enrolling Students Then Losing Them

April 29, 2025

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.

EXPLORE YOUR OPTIONS CLICK HERE

Help Spread the Word

If you found value in this post, we’d love your help spreading the word! Please consider sharing this on your favorite social media platform and tag Higher Performance Group and Dr. Joe Hill. Your support helps us reach and inspire more awesome people like you!

Like What You've Read?

Get practical, research-based ideas to Accelerate Higher Team Performance delivered straight to your inbox every Tuesday.

< Older Post

More Blog Articles

Higher Performance Insights | THE FIELD GUIDE TO BUILDING AN AVERAGE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

By HPG Info • April 23, 2025

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.

Higher Performance Insights | DECISION MAKING REIMAGINED

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.