Being a leader can be isolating. We are members of the team, but we have a different role to play. One that – intentionally or not – keeps us separate. Other.
We can be vulnerable and transparent, allowing ourselves to be seen and known. If we are doing that consistently across all in our team, it lessens that otherness. Demonstrates our humanity, which helps transcend labels and levels.
Engaging in a human way with our teams is arguably key to effective leadership. Knowing and being known by our teams builds trust. Models connection. Creates a sense of identity for the team…a belonging that goes beyond the work.
As humans, we crave connection and leaders are no different. While connection is key to our effectiveness, how a leader connects and who they connect with are critical. When done right, a team flourishes and creates a sense of inclusion. When connection is inconsistent – or worse, consistently limited – a leader can undermine the foundations of the team.
Benefits and dangers of having an inner circle
Leaders cannot be an island and hope to be effective. Whether it’s sounding boards to vent or provide a reality check, someone to push us or push back, we all need people we trust in our corner.
Our inner circle ideally has a variety of representation. Perspectives that help us see more than we can alone. Different backgrounds, levels, and occupations that can offer insight to help us empathize, challenge, question, or push through.
We may be tempted to have folks from within our organization in that circle. After all, who better to give us insight to the inner workings of the team than someone in it? Who else could really understand the challenges and opportunities? Downward pressures or customer demands?
Warning Will Robinson. While team members offer an important perspective, it is critical to remember two things. First, there’s always a power imbalance at play. Second, perception is reality.
No matter how well we get along with members of our team, the reality is if they work for us, there’s a power imbalance. Creating safe ways for others to give us feedback is necessary. However, no matter how safe we try to make an environment, there’s always personal history and experience, organizational culture, and other dynamics at play that we must consider.
Perception is more straightforward. It doesn’t matter what’s really going on. What matters is what folks perceive is going on. That is their reality. If we regularly vent or soundboard with a member of the team, that stands out to others. They will assume special treatment and it risks “othering” the one getting it.
The members of our circle should be from outside the team and chain of command. We want to get feedback and input from within the team, absolutely. Consistently. From everyone.
What does othering look like?
I recall working for a manager that had lunch every day in the same spot with the same person. It was a member of his team and they ate and talked at the same table without fail. Others may periodically join them, but the core two were a staple.
Whether or not the manager leveraged this person as a member of his inner circle or not, there was a perception that they were special to him. They got access that no one else did. That access was pointed to as the reason for special assignments or promotions, regardless of the individual’s performance or skills.
While I’ve never seen access to a leader as a benefit, some do. In fact, in many organizational cultures, access is critical to be considered for promotions or other opportunities. When access is limited to a select few, others can get demotivated. There is perceived favoritism that fosters resentment and can impede folks from doing their best work.
Triggering threat state through exclusivity
The NeuroLeadership has proven research on how we evaluate threats and rewards in the work environment. While we each may value one or more over another, there are five categories they have named SCARF.
- S – Status
- C – Certainty
- A – Autonomy
- R – Relatedness
- F – Fairness
When we have connection with others, that points to relatedness. When those connections are only for a select few, not only do we NOT experience relatedness, but it is perceived as unfair and creates lack of status and certainty in our environment.
Inclusive environments are important to creating trust and a rewarding environment. When leaders create any sort of exclusivity in access, with intention or inadvertently, they are creating a threat state for much of their team. For whatever SCARF areas are important to each person on the team, it hits almost all of them. It is unlikely that favoritism WOULDN’T trigger a threat response.
Inadvertent creation of exclusivity
Not all favoritism and exclusivity are intentional or overt. They don’t have to be intentional to be harmful.
In a prior role, I was speaking with a peer who used an open-door policy rather than schedule 1×1’s or small group sessions to engage with his team. He felt like he didn’t have time to have dedicated sessions, and instead told folks to find him or put time on his calendar if they wanted to engage.
In theory, this was democratic. Everyone had equal access to his calendar. In practice, this led to exclusivity. Why? Few took advantage of the open door, and those that did were regulars.
Not everyone feels the same level of comfort “taking” a manager’s time. They may feel like they must have some sort of important issue to be resolved but then may worry they’ll be seen as someone that only comes to the table with problems.
If trust is built by knowing someone, and leaders are responsible for investing in our people, creating consistent opportunities for engagement is key.
While we may say our door is open to everyone, who is coming through it? What are they engaging for? Is everyone on the team getting the same chance for interpersonal interactions, development, and problem solving? If the answer is no, we’ve created exclusivity by not being intentionally inclusive.
A question leaders can ask themselves is “who do I see in a week or month?” If it tends to be the same people again and again, and others are missing, we have a challenge on our hands. When we put the onus of access on our teams, then it’s a burden that is unlikely to get addressed.
Be intentionally inclusive vs inadvertently exclusive
During lockdown and the days of virtual work, the days of unscheduled interactions with leaders were paused. More and more inclusive opportunities were created that weren’t centered around drive-bys or after-hours happy hours for the few that could make it.
Leaders had to be intentional about engaging their teams and doing so in a way that was accessible to everyone.
As we move into the world of hybrid working, and many return to the office full-time, inclusivity is a key consideration for all leaders. Without intention, inclusivity is an accident, and exclusivity is likely.
Every leader can stop and consider who they are engaging with on their teams and in what ways. Is everyone getting the same kinds of access and opportunities? Provided time for development conversations, mentoring, or just checking in?
The conversations may look different for each person. What is important is that they are happening, and team members are feeling the relatedness and fairness that comes with inclusivity.
