Why Your Team May Enjoy My Rant: Leadership Development is a Waste of Time and Money

September 12, 2023

I had a very respectable campus leader (let’s call her Maria) candidly share that she was not excited about the opportunity to leave several high-priority tasks to attend an executive team kick-off retreat last month.

“This is not about you, Joe. I’m just saying that I have never found these types of events impactful to the work. In fact, I generally believe leadership training and leadership development is a total waste of time and money.”

I raise a glass to toast Maria in this month’s post. I will put myself out there and say, I agree with you, doc!

Hear What I Am Not Saying

Seriously… Don’t bother. I am not saying LEADERSHIP is a waste of time. I am saying the development, or more specifically, the way we currently train leaders is a waste of time and money if you draw a tight circle around the return (results) on the investment.

If you prefer to avoid my rant and simply get something practical, skip to the end of this post. I list seven questions you should answer in the affirmative before doing any leadership team development.

Otherwise, commence rant…

The past decade has been a struggle for me. I have failed to create an overwhelmingly “plug-and-play” leadership guide for all humanity to change the trajectory of campus performance.

I have developed fancy models, checklists, bold statements, processes, principles, fortune cookie sayings, and so much more over the last ten years.

But, no… I have not created anything I believe has helped executive teams (and their teams) put more points on the board. Much of what I have taught and coached has helped deepen the Lead Measures and the reliability of Systems to put more points on the board, but my focus of this post is on leadership.

I have taken the position that leadership is skill-based. You either have it or you don’t. If a campus leader applies a set of skills competently and consistently, they will effectively evolve into a leader worth following.

I also hold the position that leadership is contextual. In other words, successfully navigating situations makes the leader (more confident and competent). However, please note that none of these sticks-in-the-sand have produced better leaders.

The problem is that if I want to teach people to be better leaders as a consultant, coach, and trainer, I must teach it as a linear truth with little tolerance for variation. This would be taught as a best practice or a standard, right?

But, alas, I don’t think leadership is teachable as a best practice or a standard. Leaders are born and then made by circumstances, struggles, pain, and setbacks, seasoned with a healthy dose of mentoring via genuine relationships along the way.

Oh, and the successful ones must tip their hat to a boatload of luck (GRACE) if they are honest.

In other words, my programs don't yield what they are hyped-up to deliver — Leaders.

Honestly, I observe my colleagues doing similar work yielding no better results.

Leadership is kind of a skill, but mostly an art form developed over a lifetime of modeling, trial, and error, reflection, and adaptation.

As the boss, you define leadership. Your choice - the good kind or the wrong kind. Over time, this becomes your leadership culture. If you define leadership as a set of behaviors, you then teach your people the importance of those behaviors. However, just because you define leadership as a set of behaviors does not mean that applying those behaviors yields LEADERSHIP.

You also must define leadership outcomes to follow those behaviors, and you must see that those behaviors yield those outcomes all the time to claim that they reliably give you LEADERSHIP.

Introducing my NEW workshop for campus leadership teams:

Helping YOUR High-Performing Leaders BUILD Higher-Performance Teams

Jump on the waiting list today!

According to Google, there are thousands and thousands of hits for the word leadership. I am pretty sure, without analyzing them all that there is no common application of the word, which leaves us with the problem identified above… How do you define LEADERSHIP in a helpful way to teach it uniformly and scale it consistently?

It has been argued that many focused hours of practice can help develop one into an expert.

This argument is missing one of the critical components of the original research. (In fact, in his book, Outliers, often overlooked when people reference it, Malcolm Gladwell says the same thing.) That talent must also be present, and the talented person must have a support system in place to allow them to develop their innate talent (and skill) while they practice.

Innate talent is essential. When I teach leadership skills, it either sticks or does not stick based on the talent the leader already has. Working to apply leadership skills on a doofus will still be inadequate leadership no matter how extensive the practice, development, or weighty the experience.

You can lead wherever you are is a paradigm held across most campuses across the country. This ideal is honorable, and I believe that all people have the ability to influence across their spheres of influence. The question is, with what potency (results-based impact)?

Campuses across the country spend millions of dollars in conferences, seminars, team trainings, and the like, to raise up leaders, but rarely, if at all, do any of these systems run a return on the investment on these interventions.

“Working to apply leadership skills on a doofus will still be inadequate leadership no matter how extensive the practice, development, or weighty the experience.”

Or, if one breaks down the skills into a set of skills or best practices, rarely do they align to a universal set of skills needed to get the work done to the next level. Rather, leadership has become just another word for launching initiatives, project management, and supervision of your division of employees.

From what I have studied, the great leaders of history (Lincoln, Alexander, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Genghis Khan, Charlemagne, Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, et al.) never were (fill in the blank) award winners. They didn’t have certificates of completion nailed to their office walls indicating they were “in sessions” to become better leaders.

And, if we did an analysis of all the countless participants in your system who enrolled in training programs or leadership development initiatives, how many of them have become great as a direct result of those initiatives? For those who did, would they have achieved their success regardless of the training? In many ways, I would argue a big Fat YES.

Is this a valid argument?

Great leaders historically did not advance their influence and impact using the methods incorporated in the training and development industry space (which is quite lucrative). With the advent of social marketing tactics, we are being bombarded by consultants and trainers who utterly believe their training methods produce GREAT LEADERS.

Prove it.

Show the return, and I will eat my left sock and come to work as your senior director of sales.

Leadership is an ability, that requires a set of circumstances, that requires luck, and that requires followers who are inspired. Analyses of historical leadership have never produced the same set of criteria between leaders. In other words, no two leaders are the same. Great books providing comparative analyses of leaders are found in plenty and rarely profess similar conclusions.

So, it is with conceit that we believe leadership is universally teachable via a shiny product or program that can be boiled down to a simple set of standards or best practices. It is even with greater hubris that we think the same leadership ability is within all of us. In my work, I encounter loads and loads of leaders (in title) who are not LEADING (results).

Just sayin.’

Here’s my challenge to you. The next time you are fixin’ to bring in someone to do leadership development, ask yourself the following questions. They are in no particular order.

Why? What are you hoping leadership development will do for you? Really answer this question as explicitly and specifically as possible. The more specific you can be, the more likely you will identify the true training opportunity or the true organization development problem that needs solving.
Is there something, or a situation in the organization that requires transformation? In other words, is there an opportunity to totally reinvent your success system?
Do you want your people to actually lead? According to James MacGregor Burns, leadership is defined as mobilizing a group of people from point A to point B. Is there a vivid Point B to move people toward?
Do your people have the innate talent to become leaders? Do they have good character, chemistry, competence, and credibility? Do they have hunger, humility, and smarts?
Does the organizational structure and culture allow your people to lead? Is the structure set up to allow leaders at lower levels in the organization to actually lead? If not, why bother?
Should you be developing all, or a few of them who (in turn) will lead the rest?
Do you have a framework for quality leadership? What common tools, language, and methodologies can be used to multiply these ideals across your system?

My guess is that most of the questions above may be answered with hope and a shoulder shrug.

Good News!

The development that followed my encounter with Maria had all 5s in the following categories:

The development experience treated leaders as engaged learners.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
The topic focus was deep enough to provide tools to immediately impact our practice.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
Follow-up support and discussion questions were made available to reinforce the learning.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
The development session allowed team time to focus the learning on a team challenge with opportunities to coach each other to problem solve.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
The development session provided measures of team accountability by asking how previous session tools had been applied in common practice.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
The development session was geared to equip our team with the tools, language, and methodology to advance our performance objectives as results.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Wrap Up

Yes, many leaders may want to fist-bump Maria because they have experienced a myriad of wasted time, resources, and productivity due to poor executive PD. The good news is that there are many great examples out there where Executive Team Coaching moved campus leaders to become system influencers who raised the standard of organizational culture, organizational clarity, and overall performance improvement.

Let’s turn those instances (from best practice to Better Practice) into the new status quo.

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!

< Older Post

Newer Post >

More Blog Articles

Higher Performance Insights | YOU ARE RIDICULOUSLY IN CHARGE (YOU JUST FORGOT)

By HPG Info • February 24, 2026

Two lists exist in every cabinet meeting. What you don't control: State funding. Board dynamics. Demographic shifts. Competitor success. Generational attitudes. What you do control: How much time you spend on the first list. Do this math: 4.7 hours of uncontrollable discussion × 8 cabinet members × 42 working weeks × $140/hour = $221,060 per year. That's not strategic planning. That's expensive therapy without the breakthrough. The leaders who thrived post-pandemic weren't dealing with easier circumstances. Same enrollment pressures. Same board dynamics. Same funding constraints. The difference? They stopped cataloging what they couldn't change and started obsessing over what they could. You are ridiculously in charge of your institution's future. You've just forgotten which levers you actually pull. THE DIAGNOSIS: HOW BRILLIANT LEADERS LEARN TO FEEL HELPLESS Let's talk about this like adults who've survived at least one budget cycle that made you briefly reconsider your career choices. There's a neuroscience phenomenon called learned helplessness — and it doesn't happen to struggling leaders. It happens to brilliant ones. Here's how it works. Scientists put dogs on a mat with a small fence. Mild shock, but the dog could hit a lever to stop it. The dog learned: I have control over my circumstances. Then they disconnected the lever. The dog tries, still gets shocked. Tries again. Eventually stops. The brain literally changes — goes inactive. Depression sets in. Here's the devastating part: they removed the fence. The dog could simply hop off the mat. But it didn't. Because the brain had learned that action is useless. Monday, 7:30 AM. Your CFO wants to "preview concerns" before the 9 AM cabinet meeting. You're discussing the demographic cliff, declining birth rates, economic pressures facing your student population. None of which you control. Tuesday, 2:15 PM. Your Provost wants to "debrief" yesterday's board meeting. You're discussing board member personalities, their unrealistic expectations, their fundamental misunderstanding of higher ed economics. None of which you control. Wednesday, 10:00 AM. Cabinet meeting. Agenda item: "Enrollment Strategy." What actually happens: 90 minutes lamenting Gen Z work ethic, competitor pricing models, and the state funding formula. None of which you control. By Friday, your brain has learned: The lever doesn't work. Action is useless. Nothing I do matters. Psychologists call this the Three P's Personalization ("I'm not good enough") Pervasiveness ("the entire system is broken") Permanence ("this is the new normal") Once these three patterns solidify, you don't need actual constraints to feel powerless. Your brain manufactures helplessness even when the fence is gone. Here's what nobody says out loud: the most expensive line item in your budget isn't salaries. It's the cognitive and emotional energy your leadership team spends every week on variables they cannot influence — while the controllable levers that would actually move your institution sit untouched in the corner like the gym equipment you bought with great intentions and excellent guilt. Comment "FRIDAY" if this was literally your last week. THE FRAMEWORK: THE CONTEXT EXCUSE TEST Call this the Context Excuse Test . Or don't. It'll still explain why your strategic plan died somewhere between "approved by the board" and "implemented by the deans." Last semester, I worked with educational leaders in two different cities. Los Angeles area: "Enrollment growth would be easier if we were in a stable Midwest market — where people have roots and extended family networks." Chicago area, two days later: "Enrollment growth would be easier if we were in a market like LA — where there's constant population influx and people are actively seeking new opportunities." Different contexts. Identical excuses. Same helplessness pattern. Here's the reality check: if your context theory were true — that your specific circumstances make success impossible — then Apple wouldn't sell iPhones in your market. Netflix wouldn't have subscribers. Starbucks wouldn't have locations. But they do. Because while tactics must adapt to context, universal human needs remain constant. Your students need education. Your faculty need purpose. Your community needs the outcomes your institution provides. The question isn't whether your context is hard. The question is: are you adapting your tactics while everyone else is cataloging their constraints? And here's the deeper truth the Context Excuse Test reveals: when you keep asking "why is that?" about any organizational problem, you eventually land at the one person who can actually do something about it. That person is usually you. A global CEO once explained to his executive coach why his company missed quarterly targets. "We brought in this executive from a competitor, and he infected the culture..." Coach: "Why is that?" CEO: "Because he came from a different organizational culture..." Coach: "Why is that?" CEO: "Because I didn't properly vet cultural fit during hiring..." Coach: "Why is that?" CEO: "Because... I guess I am ridiculously in charge, aren't I?" Coach: Not always. Legitimate external constraints exist. But far more rarely than we pretend. THE CASE STUDY: THE QUARTER MILLION DOLLAR CONVERSATION Let me tell you about a superintendent I'll call Mark (not his real name, but Mark, your former CFO definitely knows this story is about your first six months together, and he's smirking right now). Mark led a mid-sized district — 8,000 students, six buildings, an eight-member cabinet, and an average of 19 years in leadership. Combined credentials that could stock a regional conference. Combined ability to stop discussing constraints and start building solutions? Roughly equivalent to a committee asked to agree on lunch while honoring everyone's dietary restrictions, philosophical beliefs about food systems, and strong opinions about parking. His cabinet meetings broke down like this: 45 minutes on state funding cuts, 30 minutes on board behavior patterns, 20 minutes on competitor enrollment trends, 15 minutes on staffing shortages. Controllable variables got 12 minutes — squeezed in at the end when everyone was already mentally ordering lunch. Mark kept going to conferences. Kept getting better at being a superintendent. Kept paying the translation tax trying to implement what he learned with a team that remained fundamentally unchanged. Then he did something radical. He recorded three consecutive cabinet meetings, counted the minutes, and calculated the annual cost. $247,000. He presented the data to his cabinet with one question: "Are we okay with this?" The room went silent. Then his Director of Curriculum said what everyone was thinking: "We're spending a quarter million dollars per year complaining. That's... actually insane." That single sentence changed everything. Not a consultant's recommendation. Not a conference framework. Just the data, held up to the light, in front of the people who created it. Here's what Marcus built over the next three months: a meeting protocol where the first 90 minutes covered controllable variables only — decisions, execution, systems. The final 30 minutes became an "Environmental Scan" where constraints could be named, but only to identify tactical adaptations, never to vent. He implemented a "3 Why's Test" — any problem brought to the cabinet had to answer why it was persisting and why they were the right people to solve it. If the answers kept pointing to uncontrollable externals, it didn't belong on the agenda. Six months later: cabinet meetings dropped from 3.5 hours to 90 minutes. Decision velocity tripled. Implementation completion went from 42% to 78%. Annual complaint cost dropped from $247K to $27K. Same people. Same board. Same funding challenges. Same enrollment pressures. Different system. What you focus on expands. Mark's cabinet was expanding helplessness. Now they're expanding agency. BEFORE THE APPLICATION: WHY MARK'S SHIFT STUCK The shift didn't happen because he attended another conference or hired another consultant. It happened because he built a team operating system that made agency automatic — not a one-time intervention, but a sequential change in how his cabinet thinks together. This is the pattern The TEAM INSTITUTE was built to eliminate at scale. While most leadership development gives you frameworks to translate back to your team alone, we build the operating system that makes the shift from helplessness to agency structural — through 8 monthly sessions that develop from trust to empowerment to collaboration to breakthrough results. We don't fix people. We multiply systems. But whether you ever join The TEAM INSTITUTE or not, here's what you can implement Monday morning... THE APPLICATION: YOUR CONTROL AUDIT Here's what to do Monday morning (assuming you're not in crisis mode — in which case, bookmark this and do it Tuesday): STEP 1: RUN THE COMPLAINT AUDIT (45 minutes across two meetings) Have someone track — with timestamps — time spent on controllable vs. uncontrollable variables. Three columns. Tally the minutes. Calculate the annual cost using Marcus's formula. Then ask your cabinet Mark's question: "Are we okay with this?" Don't editorialize. Don't present solutions. Just hold the data up to the light and let the room sit in it. What this reveals: if uncontrollable discussion outnumbers controllable action 3-to-1, you have a learned helplessness crisis, not a strategy problem. And if nobody wants to track this in the first place — your team already knows what the numbers will say. STEP 2: RUN THE CONTEXT EXCUSE INVENTORY (30 minutes) Put this question on your next cabinet agenda: "What would have to be true for us to succeed despite our constraints?" Have each person list the three constraints they cite most frequently, then — this is the part that matters — what they would do differently if those constraints never changed. Go around the room. Read answers out loud. Watch what happens when every "if only..." statement reveals a corresponding "but we could..." action that's been sitting right next to it, ignored. If answers keep pointing to external changes needed, you're waiting for rescue. If someone says, "There's nothing we can do until X changes," they've adopted learned helplessness as a professional identity. That's a different conversation, but a necessary one. STEP 3: THE 30-DAY CONTROLLABLE SPRINT (Ongoing) For 30 days, 80% of cabinet meeting time covers variables your team directly controls. Track two numbers weekly: Complaint Ratio: Uncontrollable discussion ÷ Controllable action time Implementation Velocity: Days from decision to execution start After 30 days, measure whether the ratios moved. If they didn't, someone on your team is invested in the current story — and that's worth a very direct conversation. OBJECTION: "We don't have time for this" You're currently spending 245 hours per year generating helplessness. You're underwater BECAUSE your team invests energy in uncontrollables, not despite it. What feels like "we're too busy" is almost always "we're afraid of what the data will reveal." OBJECTION: "My board keeps demanding answers about uncontrollables" Your board is asking about uncontrollables because you haven't given them confidence in your controllables. Boards don't micromanage competence. They micromanage uncertainty. When you shift from "here's why we can't..." to "here's what we're doing about what we CAN control," the temperature in the room changes. Your board is paying you to exercise agency — not to be a sophisticated narrator of external circumstances. Which of these objections is your system's default? Drop it in the comments. THE MATURITY SHIFT Immature leaders think: "If only our context were different, we could succeed." Mature leaders think: "What can we control that creates success despite our context?" Immature leaders collect constraints like Pokemon cards — gotta catalog 'em all, display them in meetings, occasionally take them out to admire how impossible everything is. Mature leaders acknowledge constraints once, then obsessively focus on controllable variables. Immature leaders wait for circumstances to improve. Mature leaders improve their response to circumstances. The difference is the difference between a superintendent who survives until retirement and a superintendent whose district becomes the model everyone else studies. One explains to the board why demographic shifts make growth impossible. One shows the board enrollment growth data despite demographic shifts. The Three P's aren't permanent. The lever might not have worked yesterday. But the fence is gone. You can hop off the mat anytime you choose. Your turn: what's one constraint you've been citing for the past year that — if you're honest — you've been using as an excuse to avoid action on controllable variables? Drop it in the comments. Naming it is the first step past it. Tag a cabinet member who's ready to make this shift. Or screenshot this and text it to your CFO with the message: "We're spending 4.7 hours complaining. Let's calculate our actual number Tuesday." IF YOU'RE TIRED OF TRANSLATING INSIGHTS ALONE You just diagnosed the gap — a cabinet spending a quarter million dollars annually on variables no one in the room can change, while the controllable levers sit untouched. That pattern is the symptom. The cause is operating at 60% capacity while funding 100%. Research shows that most leadership teams perform at only 60% of their potential — not because they lack talent, but because brilliant individuals never learned to multiply their intelligence together. If your cabinet costs $1M annually, the 40% gap represents $400K in annual burn. When 100% workload hits 60% capacity, you rotate through three bad options: Lower Standards Burnout Public Failure Most teams cycle through all three while the market decides. The problem isn't your people. It's the model. You're trying to multiply intelligence using addition. Multiplication requires a different system. THE TEAM INSTITUTE: 8 Months From Helplessness to Agency The TEAM INSTITUTE is a sequential developmental journey that transforms your cabinet from individually brilliant to collectively unstoppable — not through episodic workshops forgotten in 30 days, but through capability building applied directly to your actual challenges. Month 1: Base Camp — Team Profile and {BEST FIT} framework Month 2: Building Trust — The foundation that makes honest problem-solving possible Month 3: Empowerment — Distributing authority over controllable variables Month 4: Collaboration — Multiplying intelligence instead of fragmenting it Month 5: Broadening Influence — Leading beyond positional authority Month 6: Managing Change — Transformation without casualties Month 7: Managing Conflict — Using friction as refinement Month 8: Developing Others — Multiplying agency across your organization Each 2-hour monthly session builds on the previous foundation. You can't skip trust and jump to empowerment — that's abandonment, not leadership. What's Included: Team {BEST FIT} assessment and mapping. Team 360 baseline and follow-up. Type-specific protocols for your team's configuration. Monthly expert facilitation on your actual challenges. Between-session accountability. Executive coaching for senior leaders. The Results: 3x performance improvement. 29% higher engagement. 27% better organizational outcomes. Zero burnout increase. The Requirement: Full leadership team participation. Partial engagement produces partial results. If you're ready to stop explaining why things are impossible and start demonstrating what's controllable — let's talk. Schedule a 30-minute consultation to explore whether The Team Institute is the right intervention for your context. We'll discuss your team's current patterns, explore readiness, and determine whether this produces the systematic agency your institution requires. This isn't a sales pitch. It's a conversation between people who refuse to accept that learned helplessness is permanent. [LEARN MORE] [SCHEDULE CONSULTATION] FOUND VALUE IN THIS? Help other educational leaders discover it: → Repost with your calculated complaint tax — 4.7 hours × your team size × 42 weeks × hourly rate. Drop your number. → Tag a leader who's paying the learned helplessness tax right now → Comment with the constraint you've been using as an excuse — your honesty helps others feel less alone. The more leaders who shift from learned helplessness to ridiculous agency, the better our educational systems become. Follow DR. JOE HILL and Higher Performance Group for weekly Team Intelligence insights.

Higher Performance Insights | THE MULTIPLICATION GAP: Why Your Good Cabinet Isn't Great (Yet)

By HPG Info • February 17, 2026

Last semester, I watched the same thing happen: The boss announced a major initiative. Everyone nodded. Three weeks later? Eight separate executions masquerading as one strategy. Your cabinet doesn't have a dysfunction problem. You have a pronoun problem—and it's costing you $400K in wasted capacity each year. Count how many times someone in your last meeting said "myself" instead of "me." Then count how many times anyone said "we." That ratio? It predicts everything about your team's performance. Here's the pattern: "The board and myself decided..." "Between the Provost and myself..." "My cabinet and myself are aligned..." Two syllables instead of one. Grammatically incorrect. Functionally revealing. We've inflated from "me" to "MYSELF"—and in that linguistic upgrade, we lost the only word that actually creates multiplication: "we." Your cabinet has a multiplication problem. Eight talented leaders who've mastered individual excellence but haven't built the collective infrastructure that turns good performance into breakthrough performance. That gap between good and great? It's about shifting from "myself" to "we." And most leaders never learn how because "myself" has been rewarded your entire career. THE DIAGNOSIS: GOOD AT ADDITION, MISSING MULTIPLICATION Let's talk about this like adults who've led talented teams that perform well but wonder "what if?" Tuesday, 9 AM cabinet meeting. Everyone's prepared. Updates are thorough. Questions are smart. The meeting runs professionally. (Everyone nods in agreement. The strategic plan gets approved. Then eight people leave the room and interpret it eight different ways. This is what we call "alignment.") But when you announce a major initiative, you can see the mental calculation behind eight sets of eyes: "How does this affect MY area? What do I need to protect? How much can I delegate vs. do myself?" Three weeks later, the initiative moves forward. Sort of. Everyone executes their part. Professionally. Competently. But it feels like eight separate projects that happen to share a name , not one integrated effort multiplying collective intelligence. Or this: Your CFO and Provost are both brilliant. They collaborate when required. They're not territorial. But they've never called each other just to think through a complex problem together. They coordinate. They don't co-create. (They schedule "sync meetings" to align before the actual meeting. Then debrief after. That's not collaboration—that's collaboration theater with intermission.) Here's Why This Keeps Happening You hired for individual excellence. You measured individual performance. You rewarded individual achievement. Then you put eight individual high-performers in a room and expected them to spontaneously operate as a multiplied "we." They can't. Because multiplication requires different infrastructure than addition. Here's what nobody admits at leadership conferences (because we're all performing competence for each other): You hired people whose entire identity is built on being individually exceptional. Then you put them in roles where their primary job is to make OTHER people successful. That's asking Olympic sprinters to suddenly care more about the relay team's time than their individual split. They'd rather protect their reputation as "the smart one" than risk looking average by actually multiplying with others. Your "good" cabinet is actively choosing addition over multiplication because multiplication requires vulnerability they've spent careers avoiding. The real problem? You've built a cabinet optimized for individual excellence in roles that require collective multiplication. The Team Intelligence Formula: TQ = IQ × EQ × PQ Notice it's multiplication, not addition. Any dimension near zero collapses everything. IQ: Individual competence. You hired for this. Your cabinet is brilliant. EQ: Common language for communication and culture. This is where "myself" performers fragment—eight people fluent in different languages trying to have strategic conversations. PQ: Understanding how each person is wired and how roles multiply. Your CFO doesn't have to lead innovation just because they're smart. When any dimension is low, multiplication collapses to addition. Your cabinet isn't broken. It's just never been built to multiply. THE FRAMEWORK: THE A/50 VS B+/3 PATTERN Your cabinet is full of A/50 performers —people who earned A grades by investing 50 hours of effort. Grinding. Perfecting. Out-working everyone. The formula that built their careers: More effort = Better results. A/50 performers struggle with collective multiplication. (And yes, they're exhausted. Which they mention. Frequently. Usually in the context of explaining why someone else's approach won't work.) They've been rewarded for individual excellence through heroic effort. They don't know how to operate in "we multiply together" mode because they're still counting contributions. "I stayed until 8pm Tuesday." "I sent three emails over the weekend." "My section is more thorough than yours." This is why your high-performer cabinet operates at 60% capacity despite 100% effort. Because A/50 performers can't multiply—they can only add and compare. B+/3 performers? They earned B+ grades with just 3 hours of effort. Not the highest grade, but remarkable efficiency. Smarter strategy beats harder grinding. Here's what they figured out: Study groups beat solo grinding (collaboration multiplies understanding) Asking the right questions beats reading everything (leverage others' knowledge) Good enough on time beats perfect too late (execution matters more than perfection) Who gets credit doesn't matter if the team wins (ego takes back seat to results) B+/3 performers default to "we" because "I alone" was never enough. They say things like: "What if we combined your approach with mine?" "Who else should be thinking about this?" "This got better because of what you added." They've developed the one skill A/50 performers never needed: multiplication instinct. (Your A/50 performers secretly think B+/3 people are lazy. Your B+/3 performers know A/50 people are inefficient. Both are right. Neither is winning.) "A/50 performers earned success by grinding harder. B+/3 performers earned it by thinking smarter. Your cabinet is full of A/50s trying to multiply. That's why good stays good instead of becoming great." If your entire cabinet is A/50, you've built a team of individual excellence that underperforms collectively. That's why multiplication feels impossible. THE 60% CAPACITY CRISIS Research shows leadership teams typically perform at 60% of their potential. If your cabinet costs $1M annually, that's $400K burning every year. Not from incompetence. From interference. High IQ leaders who lack common language (EQ) and understanding of how each person is wired (PQ). Here's the good news that changes everything: Your cabinet isn't broken. They're not resistant. They're not incompetent. They're operating on addition infrastructure while attempting multiplication work. That's a design problem, not a people problem. Design problems are solvable through architecture, not heroics. You don't need different people. You need different infrastructure. The talent is already there. The potential is already funded. You're just missing the multiplication system that turns "good" into "great." Your turn: The Multiplication Audit Think about your last three strategic initiatives. For each one: Did it fragment into eight separate executions? (+1 for each YES) Did anyone call someone ELSE just to think through a problem together? (+1 for each YES) Did results feel like stapled-together work or genuinely integrated thinking? (+1 if integrated) Score: 0-2: Addition mode. $400K+ burning annually. 3-5: Transitioning. Some multiplication happening. 6-9: You've cracked the code. You're multiplying. Drop your score below. THE APPLICATION: BUILDING MULTIPLICATION INFRASTRUCTURE STEP 1: The Pronoun Audit (15 minutes, solo) Open your last three cabinet meeting notes. Count pronouns: How many times: "I," "me," "my," "myself" How many times: "we," "us," "our" "If 'I/me/myself' outnumbers 'we/us/our' by more than 2:1, you don't have a team. You have a meeting where individuals report progress on separate projects that happen to share a budget." (If this exercise makes you defensive—"but context matters!" "But nuance!"—that's data too. Multiplication doesn't require defending yourself from your own meeting notes.) STEP 2: The Monday Morning "We" Ritual (20 minutes) Start every cabinet meeting with this question. You answer first. "What's one thing happening in your life—work or personal—that you're genuinely excited about OR struggling with? Real answer. Not your portfolio update. Something true about you as a human." Go around the room. Just listen. Don't fix. Don't problem-solve. After everyone shares: "Thank you for trusting us with that." Do this for 8 weeks. Watch your pronouns shift from "myself" to "we." STEP 3: The Multiplication Question (30 minutes in the next cabinet meeting) Put this on your agenda: "How do we shift from coordinating excellence to multiplying it?" Ask: "Was our last initiative eight excellent individual executions that got coordinated? Or one integrated effort where the whole exceeded the parts?" Then: "What would need to be true for us to multiply intelligence instead of just adding it?" Write down 3-5 agreements. This becomes your multiplication infrastructure. THE MATURITY SHIFT: FROM ADDITION TO MULTIPLICATION Immature leaders think: "My team is good enough." Mature leaders think: "Good is the enemy of great, and multiplication is how we get there." Immature leaders accept professional collaboration. Mature leaders architect collective multiplication. Immature leaders think "we" happens naturally among talented people. Mature leaders know "we" requires intentional infrastructure. "Immature leaders accept professional collaboration. Mature leaders architect collective multiplication. The difference is the difference between a cabinet that works hard and a cabinet that works exponentially." One produces solid results through heroic individual effort. One produces breakthrough results through collective intelligence. Your cabinet is good. The question is: Are you ready to build great? Real talk: Which of your cabinet members is an A/50 performer (heroic individual effort) vs. B+/3 performer (multiplication instinct)? Don't name names publicly—but if you counted and your entire cabinet is A/50, that's not a people problem. That's a hiring-for-the-wrong-variable problem. Comment below: How many of your cabinet members have multiplication instinct vs. addition mindset? Your honest answer reveals whether you're one hire away from transformation or one system away. Tag someone on your team who defaults to "we" before "myself"—they've earned the recognition. THE TEAM INSTITUTE : FROM ADDITION TO MULTIPLICATION IN 8 MONTHS Your cabinet just diagnosed the gap between addition and multiplication. That gap? It represents every strategic initiative that fragments, every decision that requires three follow-up meetings, every brilliant idea that dies in translation. This is the pattern The Team Institute was built to eliminate. While most leadership development teaches YOU frameworks to translate back to your team (hello, translation tax), we build the multiplication infrastructure WITH your entire team—through 8 monthly sessions that develop from trust to empowerment to collaboration to breakthrough results. We don't fix people. We multiply systems. The 8-Month Architecture: Month 1: Base Camp - Understanding your Team Profile Month 2: Building Trust - The foundation of multiplication Month 3: Empowerment - "We" distribute authority Month 4: Collaboration - "We" create together Month 5: Broadening Influence - "We" lead beyond hierarchy Month 6: Managing Change - "We" transform without casualties Month 7: Managing Conflict - "We" use friction as refinement Month 8: Developing Others - "We" multiply talent What's Included: Team {BEST FIT} assessment revealing addition vs. multiplication patterns Team 360 baseline measuring current EQ and PQ Monthly expert facilitation applied to your actual challenges Between-session accountability that embeds multiplication Executive coaching for senior leaders The Results: 3x performance improvement. 29% higher engagement. 27% better organizational outcomes. Zero burnout increase. The Requirement: Full team participation. You can't build multiplication with "some of us." YOUR NEXT MOVE If you're ready to transform addition into multiplication—if you sense your good cabinet could be great—let's talk. Schedule a 30-minute consultation to explore whether THE TEAM INSTITUTE will build the multiplication infrastructure your organization requires. This isn't about selling you something. This is about whether you're ready to build multiplication. [SCHEDULE CONSULTATION ] Found this valuable? Help other leaders discover it: → Repost with your honest answer: "Does my cabinet add or multiply?" → Tag a leader building multiplication infrastructure → Comment with your Multiplication Audit score The more leaders who shift from addition to multiplication, the better education becomes. Follow DR. JOE HILL and Higher Performance Group