How Your Lazy and Lousy Leadership Language May Be Tanking Your Influence with Others

August 8, 2023

I graduated from college in 1991 and landed in central Minnesota to start my professional career as a k-12 teacher and coach. Since I knew few people besides those I worked with, friendships emerged through my coworkers. Many of them had also made big moves for their teaching positions, so we naturally became like a second family to each other. It was easy to ascribe to the phrase: 


“We are like family here.”


While our intentions were good in thinking about my colleagues as family, I grew to realize that phrase was problematic.


Years later, I worked for a boss who regularly espoused that exact phrase, “We're like family.”

man covering his mouth in surprise

That was all lovely until the organization went through a few bumps and the cultural implication at the time became more combative with a domineering fist at the helm barking out orders to help out “the family.”



I didn't fully appreciate the connection until I read Sharone Bar-David's book Trust Your Canary: Every Leader's Guide to Taming Workplace Incivility. She writes in one of her articles:


“At the heart of this belief lies the notion that the closeness and caring that characterize family life allow members of the ‘workplace family’ to cross colleagues’ personal boundaries without being hurtful or inappropriate.”


Her perspective motivated me to eliminate this phrase from my vocabulary. While I still have close relationships with the people I serve, I've stopped short in recent years from thinking about (or espousing) them as actual family.


The Problem with Incongruency


Many of our everyday language traps result from habits that don’t actually align with our intentions. This results in an incongruency. When you and I are incongruent, we project confusion and doubt to others.


The examples below are the most common phrases I regularly encounter when language doesn't match what's intended. I'm still working to eliminate some of these phrases I've said myself.


As many of us discover, the leadership development journey is as much about what to stop as it is about where to start.


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!



“Frankly…” or “To be honest…”


A common example of incongruent language is prefacing what's about to be said with “Frankly…” or the closely related “To be honest…” Most of the time, when this is said, the intention is to emphasize candor.


Unfortunately, the listener sometimes hears the opposite. A sudden emphasis of candor may leave the other party wondering what changed. When I notice someone say, “To be honest…” during a conversation, I find myself wondering if they've been honest up until that point.


Skip the doubt and drop this qualifying language. If you notice yourself saying this a lot, you might ask yourself:


“Am I actually providing as much candor as I claim?"


Hollow Apologizing


I most regularly see unnecessary apologies at the start of a formal meeting or presentation when something unexpected occurs. It might sound something like this:


“I want to apologize in advance if I miss a few things in this presentation. Jon was supposed to present this section, but he's unexpectedly out today…I just got the material this morning. I'm not really the expert on this, so I hope you'll forgive me if there's missing information or if this leaves you confused.”


Hey, if it's just you and a few colleagues you know well, no big deal, right?


Yet, I've seen it happen often when someone opens with language similar to the above in front of an executive team or board of directors. I begin to doubt the presenter's credibility when I hear this kind of opening.


By all means, apologize if you've done something wrong or errored, but don't dig yourself into a hole before you've even started. Very few people care what preparation didn't quite go according to plan.


Instead, skip the unnecessary apology, give yourself a pep talk, and show up to serve, even if you did get the slides just an hour earlier.


Side Note: A close cousin of the above is spending inordinate amounts of time troubleshooting technology problems in front of your audience. Always arrive early to set up your tech and have a backup plan. If the technology fails and you can't resolve it in 15 seconds while on the game field, move on and adapt. 


“What we came up with…”


We all received an assignment or project that we weren't super excited about but got charged with delivering. I regularly recall presentations in school where a fellow student started a project presentation with, “OK, here's what we came up with…” To me, this phrasing implies throwing something together at the last minute.


That may work fine in your college marketing course, but it's an odd way to start a professional interaction. And yet, I've heard many proposals over the years begin with, “Here's what we came up with…” 


Oddly, most of the time, the person saying it has easily met or exceeded expectations. Still, either out of habit or their lack of personal interest in the topic, their language could be better.


If, indeed, it's the case that you're not as excited about the project as your stakeholder, I'm reminded of this quote from Susan David


“Emotions are data, not directions.”


Just because the work isn't compelling doesn't mean you must announce it. It's about who you are serving, not you.


What's better? Keep it simple and start with, “Here's my proposal…” or “After a detailed analysis, we're making several recommendations…”


Does anybody have any questions?


Like many leaders, I've attended more meetings and presentations in my career than I could count. A majority have been helpful in some way. And many of them ended with this:


“Does anybody have any questions?”


Well-intended? Sure. After all, don't you want to solicit questions?


Yes, but how you do it is critical.


I've often seen the “Does anybody have any questions?” combined with a somewhat nervous glancing around the room, odd facial expressions, and occasionally walking away without saying more. Sometimes, body language suggests that this “question” was merely intended as a segue to the next item on the agenda.


If questions are present, you want to convey that you're ready and willing to respond. I often say, “Who has the first question?” Not only does that wording invite interaction, but it also portrays confidence. Be sure also to provide time for people to think before they respond (the teacher in me recommends 8 seconds). If you only hear silence, follow up with “A question I'm commonly asked is…” that reinforces a key message.


Either way, assume your audience have questions and demonstrate that you are ready and willing to engage.


Self-Congratulatory Language


I regularly listen to podcasts while working out or traveling to expand my perspectives and thinking on timely topics. The hosts on my playlist are all very knowledgeable and highly experienced. 


Many of them also start the episodes explaining how awesome and helpful the forthcoming conversation will be with so-and-so. I typically 1.75X through that noise to get to the good stuff, but it makes me cringe a bit each time I hear someone telling me how to feel about what I am about to experience instead of allowing me to come to a positive conclusion on my own. 


We all need to market our work, but how you do it is critical.


Rather than, “This is some of our best work ever,” or “I know that you're just going to love this,” or using anything containing the phrases “value bomb” or “blown away,” consider a different approach.


Donald Miller, the bestselling author of 
Building a Story Brand, said this recently on one of his latest podcasts that hit a homerun: 


“Insecure People talk about themselves. People who are confident talk about others. Demonstrate through your language that you understand the problem the other party faces, and then explain how you can help address it. If you talk about yourself, do so in the context of how it helps your stakeholder get to where they need to go.”


When it's essential to highlight your credibility, make the claim stronger by citing a respected third party. When my work becomes relevant in a dialogue with someone who doesn't know me, I'll sometimes offer this:


“Google Analytics ranks our HPG site as the #1 search result for “Leadership Team Performance” in the United States.”


The implication? A respected entity other than me says that my work is helpful for campus leaders who want to improve.


Virtually every leader has third-party examples they can point to. Spend a few minutes surfacing your go-to examples to frame your work well.


Insensitive Phrasing


We've all used language that may have seemed fine but landed with another person very differently. Leaders should be especially vigilant about their references to faith, gender, culture, or other dehumanizing phrases that don't align with their intended message.


When expressing disagreement with an idea or another, I sometimes hear, “Well, I don't care if…” or the more direct, “I hate it when…” Yes, while people may use that language in everyday dialogue, expressing “not caring” or “hate” for someone or something might land very differently with others within your sphere of influence.


What's better? Use gracious language that aligns with the intended message. Stating, “I have a different opinion…” or “Yes, I'm aware that finance thinks differently about this…” conveys a clear thought without the emotional baggage.


Avoid language referencing gender, culture, or physical attributes when that's not what you're discussing. Accounting for “man-hours” or referring to all people as “guys” isn't inclusive. 


More problematic phrases like, “We just need some warm bodies” or “It's time to put butts in seats” imply that humans are things, not people. Additionally, language like “He doesn't have the cojones…” may have sounded cool in high school, but mixing or comparing human beings to body parts is never professional.


Instead, say what you mean: “There are four open positions that we need to fill,” or “We still have 40 tickets to sell for the event,” or “I have concerns about his initiative.”


Beware also of analogies that evoke a clear image but not one you intend. An example I’ve heard is, “We all need to open our kimonos…” said in the context of sharing information or data. In addition to being culturally insensitive, it creates an image that isn't appropriate in most workplaces.


Application – Next Steps


Opinions vary on wording, but the more significant point is to examine the leadership language you're using that might not align with what you intend. Perhaps an example above has surfaced where this could be true for you.


Then, pick one phrase to change or replace with different wording. Aim to use it at least once a day. Right now, I'm working on replacing the phrase “you guys” with “you both” when referring to our adult son and daughter together.


Drop me a note if you were poked a little by this post and how we can stay on the journey of “better” together. 



Related Reading

Trust Your Canary: Every Leader's Guide to Taming Workplace Incivility* by Sharone Bar-David.


P.S. Campus teams, on average, function at less than 60% of their performance potential because they don't invest in team capacity and team potential.


The HPG Team has created a training and coaching practice to help teams win against the gravitational pull of average performance, and we can help YOU!


  1. Check out our suite of leader and team resources 👇🏼
    https://www.higherperformancegroup.com/resources
  2. Set up a call to explore the next steps 👇🏼
    https://www.higherperformancegroup.com/schedule


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