Three Levers That Determine Whether Your Next Initiative Succeeds or Stalls
Every campus has a version of this story: A promising new initiative launches with energy and good intentions. Six months later, it's competing with four other priorities, the original champion has moved on, and frontline staff are quietly disengaging.
Leaders often read this as resistance to change. In my experience working with community colleges and institutions across the country, it's rarely that. It's fatigue.
Practitioners in higher education have been describing this problem for over a decade, and they haven't been subtle about it. They call it "initiative fatigue." They call it the "change du jour." They describe leaders chasing "shiny objects" and campuses "drowning in initiatives." One person I interviewed compared the cycle of new initiatives to a fad diet. An Inside Higher Ed writer recently called it an "initiative deluge.”
The term resonates because it describes something real: the disengagement, skepticism, and burnout that come not from the change itself, but from the pace and volume of change. Too many initiatives at once. No dedicated resources. Poor communication about why this one matters.
But naming the problem hasn't been enough to solve it. What's been missing is a framework that helps leaders diagnose what's driving fatigue on their campus and identify what they can do about it.
That's what I set out to build. Through research with institutional leaders and frontline practitioners at a community college, I studied how initiative fatigue is experienced across roles, what makes it worse, and what makes it better. What emerged is a framework built around three levels where fatigue takes root, and where leaders can intervene: institutional, management, and individual.
At each level, specific factors can push toward fatigue or toward resilience. These factors sit on a spectrum. On one end are contributors: the conditions that amplify exhaustion and disengagement. On the other end are remediators: the counterbalancing conditions that build resilience and sustain momentum.
At the institutional level, too many initiatives at once, disconnected from mission and driven by external pressure, pushes toward fatigue. The remediator? Fewer, more focused initiatives tied to a cohesive institutional strategy that builds on past successes rather than starting from scratch.
Excerpt of Infographic
At the management level, leadership turnover, siloed implementation, and no additional time or resources fuel burnout. The remediator? Stable, trusted leadership with cross-campus collaboration and dedicated change management support.
Excerpt of Infographic
At the individual level, surprise initiatives, job insecurity, and change framed as compliance breed withdrawal. The remediator? Planned, well-paced change with clear rationale, reassurance of job stability, and real opportunities for staff to make meaning of the work.
Excerpt of Infographic
The power of the framework is that these factors are identifiable and actionable. Leaders don't have to accept fatigue as inevitable. If you can name which contributors are active on your campus, you can deliberately strengthen the corresponding remediators. An institution drowning in disconnected initiatives can consolidate and align. A management team running change through silos can invest in cross-functional structures. A campus where staff feel blindsided can build in predictability and communication rhythms.
Initiative fatigue is not a character flaw of the institution. It's a set of conditions. And conditions can be changed.
I developed a one-pager that maps the full contributor-remediator spectrum across all three levels. If you lead change at your institution, I think you'll recognize your campus somewhere on it.
Which lever does your campus need to work on most: institutional, management, or individual?
Audrey Ellis is the Founder and Principal of T3 Advisory, a higher education consulting firm specializing in student journey mapping, guided pathways, and AI strategy. She holds a Doctor of Management from the University of Maryland Global Campus, where her research focused on community college policy and initiative fatigue. Audrey has spent her career working with community colleges, minority-serving institutions, and access-oriented institutions to strengthen the conditions for lasting institutional change.
This post originally appeared on T3 Advisory’s LinkedIn Page.