In the past few weeks, I’ve watched strong, capable leaders work tirelessly to fix individual issues in their schools.
The problem isn’t effort.
The problem isn’t commitment.
The problem isn’t even leadership skill.
The problem is that many of these fixes never stop to ask a bigger question:
What is this doing to the system as a whole?
When leadership becomes a series of isolated fixes, we don’t end up with a stronger system—we end up with a more complicated one.
None of this comes from poor leadership. In fact, it often comes from deeply responsible leadership—leaders who care too much to let problems linger.
But over time, these well-intended fixes begin to stack on top of one another. Workarounds become routines. Temporary solutions quietly become permanent structures.
The system technically works…
but only because leaders are constantly holding it together.
There’s a term for systems like this: a kluge.
A kluge is something that functions—not because it was thoughtfully designed—but because it has been patched, layered, and adjusted over time. Each fix makes sense in isolation. Collectively, though, they create a system that is fragile, heavy, and difficult to sustain.
When leadership becomes governed by those patches—by exceptions, workarounds, and “just for now” decisions—we end up in what could be called a klugeocracy: a system run not by Clarity and design, but by accumulated fixes.
And schools are particularly vulnerable to this.
Not because leaders are careless—but because urgency is constant, people matter deeply, and the cost of slowing down can feel too high.
Most leaders don’t recognize a kluge system because nothing is visibly broken. In fact, things often appear to be running just fine.
But under the surface, the weight shows up in familiar ways.
Behavior systems grow instead of improve. New programs and protocols are added to address individual concerns, but expectations remain unclear and responses inconsistent. Adults become fluent in procedures but uncertain about purpose.
Teacher support becomes additive rather than stabilizing. Wellness initiatives, appreciation efforts, and check-ins are layered on top of already overloaded days. The intent is genuine, but the system continues to drain more than it restores.
Instructional leadership becomes crowded. Walkthrough tools pile up. Coaching models are introduced without removing compliance structures. Leaders begin to wonder why more structure seems to make the work feel heavier, not clearer.
Leadership time itself becomes consumed by maintenance. Meetings exist to coordinate other meetings. Emails clarify decisions that were never truly clear. Leaders spend more time managing systems than designing them.
At some point, it’s worth asking:
How much of your leadership energy goes toward maintaining the workaround?
Here’s the hard part: patching doesn’t feel wrong.
It feels responsible.
It’s faster.
It avoids disruption.
It keeps people moving forward.
In schools especially, leaders carry the emotional and moral weight of their decisions. When something isn’t working, the instinct to fix it immediately is not a flaw—it’s a reflection of care.
But over time, patching trades clarity for continuity.
The system keeps running, but only because leaders are absorbing the friction. And eventually, that friction shows up as cognitive overload, initiative fatigue, and Burnout that doesn’t come from too much work—but from work that doesn’t align.
Most leaders aren’t overwhelmed by effort.
They’re overwhelmed by systems that were never designed to be carried.
Kluge systems extract a quiet toll.
Leaders carry unresolved decisions in their heads because systems don’t resolve them. Staff experience change fatigue because initiatives are added without subtraction. Trust erodes as people struggle to understand why new fixes keep appearing without old ones disappearing.
And perhaps most importantly, leadership shifts from intentional to reactive—not because leaders lack vision, but because the system demands constant attention just to function.
That’s not sustainable. And it’s not why most leaders stepped into this work.
There’s a difference between fixing problems and fixing systems.
Patching asks:
What do we need right now?
Fixing asks:
What keeps creating this problem?
One manages urgency.
The other builds stability.
Here are a few questions leaders can ask to diagnose the difference:
If we removed this system tomorrow, what would actually break?
Is this solution addressing a root cause—or buffering us from it?
What assumption is this system built on?
What would clarity eliminate?
At some point, leaders have to decide whether they are system maintainers or system designers.
Both matter. But only one creates sustainability.
Fixing systems doesn’t mean dramatic overhauls or sweeping change. More often, it starts with restraint.
Subtraction before addition.
Clarity before structure.
Alignment before accountability.
It means examining leadership team roles so work doesn’t require constant coordination. It means agreeing on priorities so everything doesn’t feel urgent. It means designing time intentionally instead of filling it reactively.
Most importantly, it requires leaders to slow down just enough to step back.
This is where the real leadership work lives.
Not in fixing the next issue—but in asking what the pattern is revealing.
When leaders take the time to look at the whole system, they often realize the problem isn’t that things don’t work.
It’s that they only work because of them.
And that’s not a system. That’s a burden.
The question isn’t whether your school functions.
The question is whether it functions by design—or by you holding it together.
That’s a conversation worth having. And it’s one no leader should have to navigate alone.
Most importantly, it requires leaders to slow down just enough to step back.
If you’re a regular listener of the Leaning Into Leadership podcast, you’ve probably already heard me talk about my friends at HeyTutor.
HeyTutor delivers customized, evidence-based, high-dosage math and ELA tutoring for K–12 school districts across the country, offering both in-person and online options. Their programs are aligned to state standards and designed around real, measurable results—including one of the few tutoring models that has been vetted and awarded Stanford’s National Student Support Accelerator badge.
What really sets HeyTutor apart is that they handle the heavy lift. They recruit, train, hire, and manage tutors as HeyTutor employees, so districts don’t have to scramble to find staffing or manage another system. Their curriculum and platform tools also make it easy for schools to track student Growth through an accessible dashboard for tutors and teachers.
If your district is looking for tutoring support that’s structured, scalable, and built for impact, HeyTutor is worth a look. You can learn more about their work at heytutor.com.
Make sure to tune in this week to the Leaning into Leadership podcast where I’m sitting down with George Couros.
