There is a quiet layer of higher education that rarely gets public attention. It does not sit in glossy brochures. It is not captured in rankings. It does not trend on social media.
It happens in offices with marked-up drafts, in cohort conversations that stretch past scheduled class time, in feedback that stings a little at first and then slowly reshapes someone’s confidence.
That is the layer Dr. Jennifer Putnam lives in.
In this episode of The Bulldog Mindset, we talked about educator preparation, doctoral mentoring, and the structure behind strong graduate programs. But what stayed with me after we stopped recording was something deeper than program design or accreditation requirements.
It was the multiplying effect.
Leadership That Multiplies
Every classroom teacher influences dozens of students a year. A principal influences hundreds. A district leader influences thousands.
But the people who prepare those educators influence all of them.
That is multiplication.
Dr. Putnam works with practitioners who are already in schools. They are teachers, principals, central office leaders. They come to the EdD program thinking they are strengthening a skill set. What often happens instead is an expansion of identity.
Several times in our conversation, Dr. Putnam described watching candidates who did not see themselves as leaders begin to speak differently about their work. She described projects that gently require leadership. She described confidence that forms gradually, then visibly.
This left me with a new perspective: educator development, at least at the doctoral level, is not only about research. It is about self-perception.
When someone shifts from “I am just a teacher” to “I am capable of shaping curriculum across a district,” a ripple is created…..
That kind of shift is rarely loud. It is earned in drafts, in critique, in revision, and in cohort dialogue.
Cohort Culture Is Not a Design Detail
We talk often about cohort models in graduate education. They are convenient from a scheduling standpoint. They create efficiency.
But listening again to Dr. Putnam describe the culture of her cohorts, I was reminded that cohesion is not an administrative decision. It is relational architecture.
In the transcript, she speaks candidly about telling students on day one that they will be frustrated with her at some point. She names the tension before it arrives. That kind of transparency lowers defenses. It creates permission for struggle. That is not accidental pedagogy.
When doctoral candidates move through a program together, they learn to process critique together. They learn to lead together. They learn to argue constructively. They learn to recover from feedback. That is preparation for real leadership.
Most professionals in education do not have many spaces where they can speak openly about system challenges without political consequences. A strong cohort becomes that space. It becomes a rehearsal ground for decision-making and influence.
We often measure graduate programs by completion rates or dissertation topics. We rarely measure whether participants leave with stronger professional courage.
That might be the more significant metric.
Continuous Improvement Is Not Compliance
One of the most revealing moments in our conversation came when we discussed accreditation and state oversight. Education programs sit under heavy accountability structures. It would be easy to drift into box-checking.
Instead, Dr. Putnam described a steady cycle of evaluation. Reviewing project data. Soliciting candidate feedback. Adjusting assignments. Refining expectations.
She said something that deserves attention. Graduates report that their work does not feel like busy work. They describe projects as difficult, relevant, and meaningful.
That is not a small distinction.
Many graduate students across disciplines quietly tolerate assignments that exist because they have always existed. When a program continually asks, “Is this still relevant?” it models the same improvement cycle it expects candidates to use in their schools.
The program becomes a lived example of instructional leadership.
In other words, candidates do not just study improvement. They experience it.
The Post-COVID Shadow
Near the end of the episode, we discussed the post-COVID educational landscape. Dr. Putnam reflected on reopening old lesson plans from 2020 and remembering the emotional weight of that season. She described back-to-back meetings where each student broke into tears.
Six years later, we still do not fully understand the long-term effects of that disruption.
Her comment that we may not yet have captured all the ripple effects stayed with me.
Higher education often moves quickly to stabilize. To normalize. To return. But the students entering today were in middle school during that period. Their developmental arc was altered. Their understanding of school, structure, and community was shaped by disruption.
Preparing educators now requires acknowledging that context. It requires equipping leaders to respond to emotional complexity, attention variability, and evolving expectations around flexibility and connection.
Doctoral mentoring in this moment is not simply about curriculum alignment. It is about preparing leaders who can navigate an unsettled terrain with steadiness.
That is different from preparing leaders in 2016.
Leadership Without the Spotlight
Dr. Putnam admitted, somewhat reluctantly, that she does not seek the spotlight. She did not initially want to record the episode. Yet she continues to step into leadership roles. That tension is worth noting.
Some of the most effective academic leaders do not chase visibility. They accept responsibility when called. They influence quietly. They build structures that others thrive in.
The work of an associate dean often looks like problem-solving in hallways, conversations that prevent escalation, and background planning that keeps programs functioning smoothly. It is not glamorous. It is essential.
When we talk about institutional strength, we often reference strategy or vision statements. In reality, institutions are stabilized by people who know how to listen, how to collaborate, and how to steady overwhelmed colleagues. That is leadership.
What This Episode Adds
Strong institutions are built through policy and infrastructure. They are sustained through people who invest deeply in others’ growth.
It might be tempting to describe this as a butterfly effect. A small action in one place leading to consequences somewhere else.
But that is not quite right.
The butterfly effect depends on unpredictability. It assumes outcomes emerge from complexity and chance.
What Dr. Putnam’s work represents is different. It is a multiplying effect. It is intentional. It is structured. It is built through deliberate mentorship, careful feedback, and sustained formation. The impact is not random. It is cultivated.
A doctoral seminar becomes a district initiative. A dissertation becomes a curriculum shift. A hesitant teacher becomes a confident leader.
The multiplying effect does not rely on chaos. It relies on formation. And over time, that formation reaches classrooms far beyond campus.
If you would like to hear the full conversation, you can listen to The Multiplying Effect – Mentoring Educators Who Lead on The Bulldog Mindset on Spotify or wherever you stream podcasts.