There is a certain kind of leader who is deeply committed to making sure nothing really changes. They are often praised for their ability to “keep the trains running on time” and for their calm focus on efficiency and return on investment. They measure success in the neatness of spreadsheets, the tidiness of processes, and the predictability of quarterly reports. They have a fondness for acronyms, balanced scorecards, and controlled messaging. On paper, they seem competent, reassuring even. But in reality, they are often presiding over decline, content to manage an organization’s slow erosion as long as it does not collapse on their watch. They live by a simple mantra: do not rock the boat, and certainly do not change the course.

The problem is that these leaders are adept at redefining decline as stability. They talk about “market share” in ways that conveniently avoid the fact that the overall market is shrinking. They boast about “maintaining position” even when the position is far lower than it was a decade ago. They rationalize losing students, customers, or influence by saying the losses are smaller than their competitors’. They have a hundred ways to say, “Yes, we are failing, but we are failing slower than the others, so that is progress.” This is what Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers might call a cultural legacy — a deeply ingrained habit of thinking that explains why organizations reproduce the same mediocre results year after year without anyone admitting how far they have drifted from their mission.

The arrival of a change maker into such an environment is like a sudden gust of wind into a stale, closed room. Change makers are not content with a slow drift. They ask inconvenient questions. They challenge assumptions that have calcified into unquestioned truth. They do not care about preserving the comfort of those in power; they care about serving the people the organization was created to serve. In Outliers, Gladwell writes about how success often depends on seizing the moment when opportunity meets preparation. Change makers see those moments everywhere. Status quo leaders see them as threats.

The reason is simple. If a change maker produces real, measurable, and meaningful results, they expose the flimsiness of the excuses that have been holding the institution together. Suddenly, the claim that “everyone is struggling” no longer works when someone in the same environment is thriving. The refrain that “we are improving slowly” sounds hollow when someone else shows what fast, effective improvement looks like. The story that “external forces” are to blame collapses when someone figures out how to navigate those same forces and still deliver for the community. Gladwell points out in Outliers that the difference between mediocrity and excellence is rarely about raw talent. It is about mindset, opportunity, and the willingness to work differently. That is precisely what makes change makers so dangerous to the keepers of the status quo.

You can see it in the subtle ways status quo leaders react. They start by downplaying the change maker’s success. “That was just a one-time win,” they say, or “It worked there, but it won’t work here.” If the results are undeniable, they pivot to claiming that the change maker’s work is unsustainable or that it required “too many resources.” If that does not work, they suggest that the change maker’s approach created “divisions” or “tensions” in the organization — code words for the discomfort that happens when long-ignored problems are finally addressed. In truth, these tensions are not signs of dysfunction. They are signs of growth. But growth requires courage, and courage is not the currency of status quo leadership.

Another tactic is to drown the change maker in process. Endless committees. Repeated “reviews” of decisions that have already been made. Mandatory alignment with strategic plans that are outdated before the ink dries. The goal is not to improve the work but to slow it down until the momentum dies. Status quo leaders understand that speed matters. Gladwell’s research on the 10,000-hour rule in Outliers is often misunderstood as a purely individual concept. In reality, it also applies to organizations. The more quickly an organization can practice, learn, and adjust, the more likely it is to achieve mastery. Slowing a change maker’s work is not just bureaucratic meddling; it is a deliberate attempt to prevent mastery from taking hold.

What makes this resistance so infuriating is that it often hides behind the language of prudence and caution. “We have to be careful.” “We have to consider all the stakeholders.” “We do not want to move too fast and make mistakes.” Of course, thoughtful planning matters. But when those phrases become a reflexive response to every bold idea, they are not about thoughtfulness. They are about fear. Fear of losing control. Fear of being exposed as less capable than the new person who just walked in the door. Fear of being forced to do the hard work of change.

It is important to say that not every cautious leader is a saboteur of progress. Sometimes caution is a necessary balance to the urgency of change. But the difference between healthy caution and status quo obstruction is in the results. Healthy caution helps refine the work without killing it. Status quo obstruction stalls the work until it is unrecognizable or abandoned altogether. And in environments where “return on investment” has become the holy grail, obstructionists can sound persuasive. They frame change as a risk to efficiency rather than the lifeline that could save the organization from decline.

But here is the truth: efficiency without relevance is a fast road to irrelevance. A perfectly efficient process that delivers the wrong result is still failure. An ROI calculation that ignores the long-term cost of inaction is nothing but a way of making decline look respectable. Gladwell’s Outliers reminds us that success stories are rarely about doing the same thing faster. They are about doing the right thing differently. That requires a willingness to disrupt, to challenge, and to take risks that cannot be fully measured in advance.

Change makers, by their very nature, refuse to accept that “good enough” is good enough. They push for equity when others are content with access. They demand excellence in outcomes, not just in appearances. They understand that transformation is not about chasing perfect metrics, but about creating a living, breathing culture that delivers on its promises to the people it serves. And that is precisely why they are often pushed out, sidelined, or labeled as “difficult.” It is easier to remove the person who challenges the culture than to change the culture itself.

The irony is that many organizations that resist change makers will eventually spend enormous amounts of money hiring consultants, launching initiatives, and holding retreats to try to solve the same problems the change maker was already fixing. By the time they admit the change was necessary, years have been lost, and the opportunity window may have closed. In Outliers, Gladwell talks about the “window of opportunity” that appears at the intersection of timing, readiness, and action. Status quo leadership is, almost by definition, leadership that misses that window — not because it is invisible, but because they are too busy defending the familiar to step through it.

We have to name what is at stake here. In education, this resistance costs students years of learning they cannot get back. In health care, it costs patients their well-being and, in some cases, their lives. In community organizations, it costs the trust of the people they are supposed to serve. This is not a theoretical problem. It is not just about governance or politics. It is about the tangible, measurable harm that is done when the fear of disruption outweighs the courage to lead.

So, what do we do about it? First, we have to stop confusing longevity with effectiveness. The fact that someone has been in a position for a long time does not mean they have been leading well. In fact, in some cases, long tenure can be a sign that they have mastered the art of avoiding accountability. Second, we have to reward results, not just rhetoric. When a change maker delivers, we need to lift them up, not tear them down. We need to replicate their work, not bury it in another “pilot” that never scales.

And third, we have to change what we value in leadership. If our hiring and promotion systems continue to reward those who can navigate politics without making waves, then we will keep getting leaders who protect the status quo. But if we start rewarding leaders who deliver transformative results, even when those results disrupt the comfortable order, we will change the culture from the top down and the bottom up.

Gladwell reminds us in Outliers that extraordinary success is rarely the product of extraordinary circumstances. It is the product of people willing to work differently within whatever circumstances they have. The choice we face in our organizations is whether we will make room for those people or whether we will keep pushing them out to protect our own comfort.

The truth is simple. The leaders who keep the trains running on time while the station crumbles will always feel threatened by the ones who can rebuild the station. But the future does not belong to the timekeepers. It belongs to the builders. It belongs to those who can look at a system in decline and refuse to accept that “holding steady” is enough. It belongs to the change makers who understand that the real ROI is measured not in quarterly reports but in lives changed, communities strengthened, and missions fulfilled. And if that threatens the status quo, so be it. That is the point.

Please share.

Julian Vasquez Heilig is a nationally recognized education leader, scholar, and advocate for equity whose career spans seven senior leadership roles in higher education, including dean and provost. Known for driving innovation and measurable results, he has led institutional transformations that strengthened academic programs, advanced diversity and inclusion, expanded community partnerships, and elevated national rankings. His leadership is grounded in the belief that true progress requires both bold vision and fearless action.