Dr Flavius Akerele III's The E Team Education blog

  Leadership books often promise revolutionary ideas. They introduce new frameworks, new buzzwords, and new ways of thinking. Yet after more than two decades in education, higher education, graduate medical education, nonprofit leadership, and consulting, I've come to a different conclusion. The best leadership lessons are rarely new. They're often the simplest. Do the right thing, even when no one is watching. Lead with good intentions. Treat people with courtesy and respect. Take care of yourself so you can take care of others. Build organizations where people can succeed without sacrificing their well-being. Somewhere along the way, many organizations lost sight of these fundamentals. Success Shouldn't Require Self-Sacrifice We've created workplaces where skipping lunch is viewed as dedication, where using vacation time can feel like letting the team down, and where employees hesitate to take sick leave because they know someone else will have to absorb t...

  You hired someone with a doctorate. What exactly did you expect them to do? Doctoral education is not simply about earning a title. It is years of learning how to research complex problems, analyze information from multiple perspectives, identify patterns, evaluate evidence, manage long-term projects, and develop solutions. As a result, doctoral-level employees often see challenges differently. They ask questions. They gather data. They look for root causes rather than symptoms. After collecting enough information, they will usually begin offering recommendations and proposing improvements. Don't mistake this for arrogance. They are not trying to show anyone up. They are not trying to take over. They are not trying to impress leadership. They are doing exactly what they were trained to do. Organizations spend considerable time and resources recruiting highly educated professionals, yet, sometimes become uncomfortable when those professionals begin applying the very ...

  As I watch the job market, follow the news, and scroll through social media "influencers," I find myself thinking about how we misuse certain words and phrases. I am Gen X. That means I absolutely understand the value of respect, but I am probably not what many people today would consider politically correct. My generation could throw hands, curse you out, and tell jokes that would probably get us canceled in today's environment. We were far from perfect. What we were not, however, was rude. Lately, it seems that being rude is being confused with being politically incorrect. They are not the same thing. Being politically incorrect means saying something that challenges social norms or accepted conventions. Being rude means treating people poorly, showing disrespect, or behaving without basic courtesy. My generation also understood something that seems to be missing today: consequences. If you ran your mouth recklessly, there was a good chance you would have to...

  Today, I am going to look at the word controversial . “Controversial: describes something that causes prolonged public disagreement, debate, or strong opposing views. It applies to topics, actions, or people that spark intense discussion and lack a general consensus”— Dictionary.com. “Root: stems from the noun controversy, which means a prolonged public dispute.” “Common examples: often used to describe polarizing policies, public figures, or debated art.” — Cambridge Dictionary There are certain people in the news right now publicly displaying abhorrent and antisocial behavior, yet the media keeps calling them “controversial.” I am not sure why. There is nothing controversial about simple rudeness, cruelty, or a complete lack of basic respect for others. (There is another term I could use, but I am keeping this PG.) At some point, we as a society need to stop romanticizing or excusing bad behavior under labels like “controversial,” “unfiltered,” or “not politically...

  Why institutions must begin treating leadership development and institutional memory as strategic priorities Dr. Flavius A. B. Akerele III Adapted from a keynote presentation delivered at the 12th Annual California International Conference on Management and Leadership at Alliant University (May 2026). Higher education institutions excel at developing disciplinary expertise, academic knowledge, and professional specialization. Yet many institutions still rely upon surprisingly informal systems for developing leaders. Faculty, staff, and administrators are frequently promoted into leadership positions based upon technical expertise, longevity, or operational success without receiving structured leadership preparation beforehand. Leadership often develops reactively rather than intentionally. I refer to this as the “accidental leadership” model. This approach may have evolved naturally over time, particularly during periods when institutions were smaller, organizational structures w...

  In today’s hiring landscape, we often talk about innovation, candidate experience, and organizational values. But there is one area that does not receive nearly enough attention: Process integrity. Recently, I participated in a multi-stage interview process for a role that included three clearly defined phases. Like many professionals, I approached each stage with intention, preparation, and respect for the organization’s time and expectations. The process began well. Communication was clear, expectations were outlined, and I was invited to complete the next phase: an assessment component designed to evaluate how I think, plan, and approach real-world scenarios. I completed the assessment thoroughly and submitted it as requested via Google Drive links. From there, the process changed. After some time, I received a final decision indicating that the organization had chosen to move forward with another candidate. The message referenced a “holistic review” of applicants ...