The 5 Temptations Every Campus Leader Must Overcome (Or Become the Joke at the Dinner Table)

May 2, 2023

Most leaders I know (and serve) are struggling and wish for a better reality. 



  • “What happened to community trust?”
  • “How do I get my team back to full strength?”
  • “Since when did the arena of education become such a powder keg?”

The last few years have put that struggle into hyperdrive.


The current leadership landscape has twisted leaders into a bundle of tired and (at times) timid souls scrambling to find the skills and strategies they need to make progress.

check engine light

There have been loads written about tactics to reclaim your momentum, but not enough people are honest to talk about the temptations that predictably show up to struggling leaders. 


While ‘moral’ temptations are part of the equation, it’s more nuanced than that.


It’s easy to settle in and become hooked on maintaining the status quo when the going is easy, the numbers are decent, and nobody is breathing down your neck. Often to the point of cheating the practices and disciplines that built your winning trajectory. 


It’s also easy to fall into lazy leadership in seasons of struggle. Regardless of the reason, when you’re in a slump, you’re tempted to cheat in ways you weren’t when things are going well.


Here’s what you’ll likely be tempted to do under sloth or stress that will cause your team to poke fun of you at their dinner table.


1. Moving the goalposts

Moving the goalposts signifies insecurity and is a horrible leadership strategy when uncertainty rules the day. 


Great leaders and teams
Plan, Do, Study, and ACT. 


Not ACTING is a common temptation for leaders and teams responsible for leading systems.


What do you do when data that used to make you smile now shows decline instead of progress?


A natural response is to shut your eyes and stop looking. 


Many leaders who track progress when their organization grows become immediately tempted to stop monitoring it when the growth stops. 


That’s a mistake.


Even worse, some leaders will move the goalposts toward comfort vs. courage. 


  • “Well, I know we used to track campus orientation visits, but that’s not important with everything else happening right now.”
  • “Let’s focus on the whole student experience instead of counting _________” (fill in the blank).


Can we be honest?  You never used to say that. 


Ever. 


And everyone around you knows it.


When you pretend that metrics no longer matter, you’re setting yourself up to become a victim of accidentalism. 


Intentionality and focus are the one-two punches for Higher Performance Systems. 


Compromising your expectation by lazily moving the goalposts is a terrible leadership strategy.



Practical Strategies to Reclaim Your Momentum and
Transform Team Performance


Enroll in the Lead Team Institute for the 2023-2024 academic year and Optimize Higher Team Performance.


Lead Team Institute
Enroll in the Lead Team Institute

2. Tamp Down the Vision

Another temptation leaders face when they’re struggling is to tamp down the vision.


Worse than moving the goalposts and changing how you keep score; average leaders are tempted to ignore the aims of the established vision for winning in the year ahead. 


This happens in many ways, but it predominantly surfaces when campus leaders say they’re committed to EXCELLENCE but have no way of measuring what that means from the student experience.


Example: We’re about making dreams reality.

  • Translation: We are currently struggling to provide programming and new partnerships due to our fixed program of study that can’t be changed in our current political climate. 


Example:
Community is our middle name.

  • Translation: We would like to meet more of the local workforce demands, but that “W” word is not received well by the powerful voices of our faculty.


The best way to get off mission is to tamp down your vision by running for popularity over purpose.


3. Blame everyone but yourself

Poor leaders point blame. Higher Performance Leaders take responsibility.


It’s easy to blame others or forces beyond control when things are not going as hoped.


Here’s the whine list of excuses I hear from top leaders when things go south. 


“Our underperformance is because of:”


➜ COVID

➜ Lockdown

➜ The Economy

➜ The Weather

➜ The Campus Down the Street

➜ Your City

➜ Your Culture

➜ The White House

➜ The Supreme Court

➜ The Faculty

➜ The Administration

➜ The Board


Anything but Themselves.


Blaming others is a clear sign of weakness (not strength) in a leader.


Deep down, most leaders know they have not lost ALL control. 


Poor leaders deflect it. Great leaders own it.


4. Imagine yourself in a new system

When you’re struggling as a leader, it’s completely natural to want to escape.


You start to imagine yourself in a new job—
any new job will do—and think about how much easier it might be if you did that rather than what you’re doing now.


The challenge with that thinking is that it leaks. Your people can sniff out when you start looking elsewhere. 


The fact is that every new team and system has issues. Often, the grass looks greener on the other side because THEY have a remarkable marketing department and because YOU haven’t gotten close enough to see the brown blades interspersed with the green blades. Not to mention the root rot found across every human system. 


Also, you bring yourself everywhere you go. This means you bring all your unresolved pain, challenges, unhealthy behaviors, and unresolved issues with you. 


In many ways, leaving a job you’re unhappy with is like leaving a marriage you don’t like. You imagine a new partner will be perfect, which is completely untrue (see above). Unfortunately, you (and your new team) bring your dysfunction into whatever you decide to do next.


Granted, there are times you might be called to leave. To everything…turn…turn…turn…


No one stays in a job forever.


Here’s the Big Idea to remember. You want to quit on a good day, not a bad day. And seasons of struggle are filled with bad days. 


If you’re not thinking clearly (and you’re not when you struggle), you’ll likely make a move you’ll regret later.


And because pain isolates you, you probably haven’t discussed this carefully with your wise people. You may be the only one who thinks leaving is a good idea. And if you’re the only one who thinks it’s a good idea, it’s probably not.


Curious about when it’s a good time to leave? Listen to these seven tell-tale signs: 


  • You’ve lost your passion.
  • There are no new partnerships you could get excited about.
  • You’ve impacted all the changes you can make.
  • Your vision no longer lines up with the system’s vision.
  • You feel indifferent toward your team and community.
  • Your excitement about what’s happening elsewhere is greater than your interest in what’s happening where you are.
  • Your inner circle agrees that it is time for you to fly.


5. Dulling instead of dealing with pain

When stress (and life) knock, you will answer it in a healthy way (self-care) or an unhealthy way (self-indulgence).


Usually, when I ask busy campus leaders how they’re doing, they admit they don’t take great care of themselves. 


When you don’t take great care of yourself, guess what you’ll do in almost every single case?


You end up falling into sensory indulgence —you soothe the pain with the “overs.” 


  • Overeating
  • Over drinking
  • Overworking
  • Over-exercising


The list is endless. Sensory indulgence involves doing anything you can to numb the pain without actually addressing the pain.


When stress and life overwhelm you, you will either respond to it in a healthy way (self-care) or an unhealthy way (self-indulgence).


But here’s the stinger: If you don’t intentionally choose self-care as a leader, you’ll default to self-indulgence. Your team will know if the ladder is true, and so might their dinner table.


The key to getting out of the struggle begins with recognizing that you’re in it.


Understanding your temptations makes it easier to avoid making the struggle worse.


Semester II is when you start planning for Semester I


This is one of the best opportunities to begin planning to accelerate your team’s performance.


For the past decade, I have served campus Lead Teams and know your system's performance is directly connected to your team's health (and smarts).


❓How’s your team’s communication and connection?
❓How’s the quality of your system’s alignment and execution?
❓What’s your plan for optimizing your Lead Team’s capacity?


As THE people leader for your system, I invite you and your leadership team to consider enrolling in the Lead Team Institute {LTI} for the 2023-2024 academic year.

Here is a quick link for more info.


This national initiative is designed to Optimize Higher Team Performance:


✅ Team Communication
✅ Team Connection
✅ Team Alignment
✅ Team Execution
✅ Team Capacity
✅ Reliable Systems


Our fall kickoff dates are filling up. Schedule your preferred fall kick-off date here.


Ready to reclaim your momentum and optimize Higher Team Performance?


Secure your spot today!


Dr. Joe Hill - Founder, Higher Performance Group


“Because everyone deserves to live in a community served by healthy teams and highly reliable systems.”

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