Two things every supervisor must give their staff

 

Three gifts every supervisor can give to their staff

 

Leaders come bearing gifts to their staff. They set the culture of the organization in positive and sometimes negative ways. The best leaders create a culture of clarity, development and optimism that we can accomplish our mission. All three of these are positive gifts to the staff they lead.

The gift of clarity is helping everyone be crystal clear as to what we are about and what our focus needs to be. The more sharply we can articulate our direction and focus, the more our staff can in turn focus their work! Focused clarity within organizations is not as common as one might think because it requires an enormous and ongoing effort  by leadership to clarify their mission and an equally enormous effort to keep the organization focused on that mission. However, that clarity is a great gift to staff as they know what the goal is and where their energies need to be focused.

The focus part of the equation is perhaps the hardest because staff and teams must figure out on a quarterly basis how they prioritize their work and what will constitute a "win" for that quarter. Not all activity is of equal value. The most important activity is what we ought to be focused on and that is the value of quarterly win cycles for everyone in the organization.

The gift of staff development is an indication of whether leaders are generous in seeking to help staff grow and develop or selfish in simply using staff for their own purposes. Think about the various work roles you have had over the years and ask the question, "did I leave that role with greater skill and success because someone intentionally developed me or was I simply left to my own devices?" Leaders have a stewardship responsibility to help staff grow, flourish and to give them opportunity to use their gifts fully. This is a truly significant gift and staff never forget the gift.

This gift is both selfish and unselfish. Selfish in the sense that the ongoing development of staff will come back to bless the organization and its work. It also creates a deep sense of loyalty to the organization because it signals a high commitment to staff. It takes time and effort to develop staff and they appreciate it. 

The unselfish part of the equation is that such development may mean that your actually develop someone out of the organization. Their capacity grows and there may not be a place for their additional capacity in your organization but they will flourish elsewhere. Regardless of whether they stay or move on to higher levels of responsibility, you have given them the gift of growth and development. It is an unusual organization or leader who makes this a priority.

The gift of optimism is an attitude that together we can get our job done and accomplish our mission. A leader's optimism with their staff is critical in today's uncertain and competitive marketplaces. Optimism creates momentum while pessimism creates discouragement. Optimism married to a culture of teamwork and cooperation allows organizations to see results that no one could accomplish on their own. Regardless of whether a leader feels optimistic on any certain day, they give a gift to their staff when they choose to convey a positive attitude.

This is especially critical in times of stress and uncertainty as we have been walking through in the past several years. The attitude of the leader cascades down through the team or organization. Leaders who exude hope and optimism in spite of the circumstances create a place of energy and encouragement. Never underestimate the power of this gift.

Every leader can give these three gifts to their staff - if they value their staff enough to do it. 

If you lead others, evaluate yourself against these 12 traits of a good supervisor

 

The best supervisors practice behaviors that build healthy staff and healthy teams. Consider these twelve characteristics of a good supervisor and evaluate how you do in these areas.

I Provide clear expectations to those who report to me

I provide clear expectations to those I supervise so they are never surprised.

I am accessible

My most important priority is the success of those who are part of my team. They get the best of me rather than the leftovers of my time and energy.

I am proactive in coaching.

Coaching and mentoring are always on my mind. How can I help my staff become more successful and develop them as people personally and professionally?

I provide the resources to get the job done.

When I give an assignment, I ensure that staff have what they need to accomplish the work.

I give candid and helpful feedback.

I am honest, candid, and gracious in providing feedback to direct reports. My goal is to help them grow and be the best that they can be. I don't shy away from hard conversations but am kind in my feedback.

I model what I espouse.

I walk the walk and live the talk. What I expect from others I model in my own work and practice. I don't ask of others what I am unwilling to do.

I am collegial in my relationships.

My staff are colleagues and not simply my employees. We are a team, and we will only be successful with one another. I treat them as valued team members and am always respectful.

I do not micromanage.

People need the freedom to figure things out and use their skills and creativity to accomplish their goals. I do not try to micromanage their work.

I craft a healthy team.

Everyone's happiness factor is affected by the health or dishealth of our team. I do all I can to ensure the healthiest team possible and deal with individuals who create dissonance on a team through relational issues or incompetence.

I insist on healthy practices.

Believing that culture is what is created or allowed, I seek to intentionally create a healthy culture while being clear that unhealthy practices, attitudes, or words are not part of that culture.

I listen well.

Knowing that all good relationships are based on healthy communication, I listen more than I speak and engage my staff in dialogue rather than defaulting to simply telling them what to do.

I care about each individual as a person.

My concern for staff is more than that they get a job done. I care about them, their health, growth, and personal circumstances in a holistic way.

Eight reasons that supervisors don't lead as well as they could

 

I suspect that many staff would not give their boss or supervisor high marks for their supervisory skills or stewardship. It is true in ministry settings as well as secular settings. I expect that in smaller organizations there might not be as much expertise in this area but poor supervision is found in organizations of all sizes.

Before I share the reasons why I believe this is the case, let me remind you of how I describe the kind of teams that supervisors ought to aspire to. A good team is a group of missionally aligned and healthy individuals working synergistically together under good leadership with accountability for results. When you consider how rare these elements are on teams one has to conclude that there is a problem with the good leadership piece of the equation.

My own work with organizations around these issues has led me to conclude that there are eight principle reasons why leadership and supervision of others is lacking the quality it ought to have. 

First, we often put supervisors in their positions without giving them the training in how to build teams, empower people, lead others and resolve conflict to name just a few of the necessary skills. It is foolish to believe that anyone can take the leadership of others without some kind of training as it is a skill to lead. Moving from being an independent producer to an organizational leader is no easy step and without coaching and mentoring many never make the transition.

Second, there is rarely a specific set of expectations that are given supervisors other than the fact that others now report to them. In my book there are at least ten critical issues that leaders of others must pay attention to but how often is the case that no one has clearly laid out what it means to lead other people?

Third, supervisors often treat the supervisory role they have as a distraction from their own work without realizing that it is the focus of their new work. Leading others is never ancillary, it must be central. In fact, this is one of the expectations that is often never communicated. When supervisors or team leaders treat this as a necessary evil, their staff read it quickly and it does not encourage them.

Fourth, most supervisors or team leaders do not know how to create clarity for those they lead as to what they are going after, what the non-negotiables are and how they will interact with one another. Lack of clarity creates conflict, confusion, lack of common direction and lack of accountability. Yet many supervisors are not taught these important skills.

Fifth, many supervisors do not empower but tend to control. Empowerment within clear boundaries creates health while control without clarity creates disempowerment. Whether because of a lack of training or a controlling nature this deficit creates dysfunctional teams.

Sixth, when team is not central, supervisors do not develop their staff. After all, that takes time and energy and the team is not their highest priority anyway. Any leader who does not develop those they lead is neglecting the leadership stewardship they have. 

Seventh, many supervisors are not held accountable for the quality of their leadership of others. That means that many supervisors have no real incentive to pay attention to building the kinds of teams I mentioned above. Especially in the Christian arena (but not only) where senior leaders don't want to confront substandard work in the name of grace or niceness this situation continues to exist. 

Eight and perhaps at the crux of the whole matter, senior leaders are not themselves committed to leading others with health or taking the time to build the kinds of healthy teams we are talking about. When the example and direction does not come from the very top, it is not going to be a priority for the rest of the organization. Unless seniors leaders care about the issue, it will never become an important issue in the organization.

I know individuals with great talent and potential who are leaving their organizations for all of the reasons above. They have not been led well and they are disillusioned by it and want their lives and energy to count. The organization ultimately loses and I hold their leaders accountable for the loss. Don't let it happen in your ministry or organization. It is a net loss for all.

Eight reasons many supervisors do such a poor job of leading others

I suspect that many staff would not give their boss or supervisor high marks for their supervisory skills or stewardship. It is true in ministry settings as well as secular settings. I expect that in smaller organizations there might not be as much expertise in this area but poor supervision is found in organizations of all sizes.

Before I share the reasons why I believe this is the case, let me remind you of how I describe good teams as this is the job of supervisors to create. A good team is a group of missionally aligned and healthy individuals working synergistically together under good leadership with accountability for results. When you consider how rare these elements are on teams one has to conclude that there is a problem with the good leadership piece of the equation.

My own work with organizations around these issues has led me to conclude that there are eight principle reasons why leadership and supervision of others is lacking the quality it ought to have. 

First, we often put supervisors in their positions without giving them the training in how to build teams, empower people, lead others and resolve conflict to name just a few of the necessary skills. It is foolish to believe that anyone can take the leadership of others without some kind of training as it is a skill to lead. Moving from being an independent producer to an organizational leader is no easy step and without coaching and mentoring many never make the transition.

Second, there is rarely a specific set of expectations that are given supervisors other than the fact that others now report to them. In my book there are at least ten critical issues that leaders of others must pay attention to but how often is the case that no one has clearly laid out what it means to lead other people?

Third, supervisors often treat the supervisory role they have as a distraction from their own work without realizing that it is the focus of their new work. Leading others is never ancillary, it must be central. In fact, this is one of the expectations that is often never communicated. When supervisors or team leaders treat this as a necessary evil, their staff read it quickly and it does not encourage them.

Fourth, most supervisors or team leaders do not know how to create clarity for those they lead as to what they are going after, what the non-negotiables are and how they will interact with one another. Lack of clarity creates conflict, confusion, lack of common direction and lack of accountability. Yet many supervisors are not taught these important skills.

Fifth, many supervisors do not empower but tend to control. Empowerment within clear boundaries creates health while control without clarity creates disempowerment. Whether because of a lack of training or a controlling nature this deficit creates dysfunctional teams.

Sixth, when team is not central, supervisors do not develop their staff. After all, that takes time and energy and the team is not their highest priority anyway. Any leader who does not develop those they lead is neglecting the leadership stewardship they have. 

Seventh, many supervisors are not held accountable for the quality of their leadership of others. That means that many supervisors have no real incentive to pay attention to building the kinds of teams I mentioned above. Especially in the Christian arena (but not only) where senior leaders don't want to confront substandard work in the name of grace or niceness this situation continues to exist. 

Eight and perhaps at the crux of the whole matter, senior leaders are not themselves committed to leading others with health or taking the time to build the kinds of healthy teams we are talking about. When the example and direction does not come from the very top, it is not going to be a priority for the rest of the organization. Unless seniors leaders care about the issue, it will never become an important issue in the organization.

I know individuals with great talent and potential who are leaving their organizations for all of the reasons above. They have not been led well and they are disillusioned by it and want their lives and energy to count. The organization ultimately loses and I hold their leaders accountable for the loss. Don't let it happen in your ministry or organization. It is a net loss for all.

Posted from Havana, Cuba


All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

Did you train the individual you put into a supervisory role?

One of the most common errors in staffing is to put someone into a supervisory role without training them what it means to supervise. Yet it happens all the time in both the ministry and the for profit world. Consider the skills necessary to lead a team:

• Ability to run a productive meeting
• The skill to empower staff and hold them accountable
• The ability to not micromanage
• Understanding how to position people for their greatest effectiveness
• Moving from an independent producer to leading through team
• Providing clarity to the team as to what they are about and how to get there
• Good emotional intelligence that allows for robust dialogue and the clash of ideas
• The ability to resolve conflict
• Understanding how to develop people

I could go on. What should be obvious is that we should never assume that an individual who has not supervised before knows the necessary skills. Even bright people need training in order to supervise well. Just because someone has been successful in their position does not mean they will supervise others well without some intensive and intentional training.

And if we don't provide that training? You doom those being supervised to frustration! You disempower a whole team when you do not provide them with good leadership.

When supervisors go south on you

In a healthy workplace it is unusual but in any workplace it can happen: a supervisor takes out his or her frustration on those who work for them in an unfair or unhealthy way. It may be in the form of public criticism or a biting email. Whichever, it leaves the staff member feeling disempowered, demoralized and sometimes angry.

What should one do?

Nothing - until the emotions have cooled. But, once they have it is usually prudent to express one's discomfort with the kind or tone of the communication in a respectful way. This does several things. First, it makes it clear to the supervisor that you are unwilling to be treated in a disrespectful way. Second, it clears the air. Third, the supervisor will usually back down and apologize. If they don't they know that they cannot be careless in their communications.

Supervisors are human and get irritated. We need to give them space and we hope they give us space. But, we need not accept careless behavior on their part toward staff. Respectfully pushing back sends a message that you will not tolerate disrespectful behavior.

(Posted from Miami)

Three essential EQ skills every leader and supervisor must have to be successful

The longer I lead the more convinced I am that much of one's leadership stands or falls on their EQ (Emotional Intelligence). Good EQ gives our leadership credibility while poor EQ sabotages it. Yet it remains a skill set that many pay too little attention to. If I had to identify three EQ skills that a leader or supervisor had to have to be successful in the long run they would be these.

One: Personal security. Insecurity is the menace of many leaders leading to all kinds of behaviors to mask that insecurity. Personal security is knowing who we are with our strengths and weaknesses and being OK with that. Secure individuals do not need to be right, they have no need to be defensive and can live from a "nothing to prove, nothing to lose" perspective. Secure leaders are healthy leaders while insecure leaders are not.

Two: Self awareness. The better we understand ourselves the better our leadership can be. Other awareness and empathy toward others are not possible without self awareness. Self aware individuals understand their emotions and control them, their motives and regulate them and their relationships and keep them healthy. They also understand how they are perceived by others and how to manage their dark side (we all have one).

Three: Other awareness. Those who cannot understand the emotions, reactions, motivations and behaviors of others come off as uncaring, aloof and arrogant. Maybe even narcissistic. One cannot have empathy toward others without being aware of their needs and concerns. The best leaders are acutely aware of those around them and their needs. Only those who understand others can help them succeed and grow.

There is one more thing. It is possible to possess these skills but to neglect them - to become so consumed in our own stuff that we become careless with our self awareness, other awareness and it is possible for our personal security to become arrogance if not guarded. These three areas of EQ must be guarded, practiced and evaluated regularly for our leadership to be healthy. 


(Written from Berlin, Germany)

Before you make someone a supervisor, ask and answer these 7 questions

It is a common scenario: Someone does well in their job so we assume that they should be promoted to a place where they supervise others. This is not a good assumption. Some individuals who are wonderfully equipped in what they do are terribly equipped to supervise and in putting them in that role we both hurt them and those who end up reporting to them.

So, before you make someone a supervisor, ask these seven questions.

One: Are they wired to lead others?
Some people are wired as "individual producers" rather than as "organizational leaders." To illustrate, an individual producer is like the car salesman who has the skill to engage customers, help them find the best car and make the sale. It is an individual kind of job. Contrast that with the sales manager whose job it is to lead the team of salespeople. These are two different skill sets entirely. 

Two: Do they have the skills to help staff succeed?
The primary job of a supervisor is to ensure that their staff are successful at what they do. There is a skill to helping others succeed rather than focusing primarily on our own success. If they do not possess this skill, do you have the training to ensure that they learn the skill?

Three: Do they have the ability to empower others and delegate both responsibility and appropriate authority?
Unfortunately, many leaders believe that leadership is about telling people what to do and how to do it rather than empowering others to figure out what needs to be done and how to do it. Empowering others means that we define clear boundaries and then delegate appropriate responsibility and authority. Those who are unable to do so should never be put in supervisory roles.

Four: Do they love to help develop others? 
Leaders, managers and supervisors are successful when those they lead are successful. This means that the best have a high commitment to the development of people they lead. They want them to become all that they can be and be constantly sharpening their skills and abilities. Great leaders get great satisfaction out of developing their staff. And staff love to work for those who care deeply about them.

Five: Do they have a clear job description as to what their responsibilities as a supervisor are?
It amazes me how many organizations do not clarify with supervisors what is expected of them in this role. In our organization, for instance, we expect all leaders to have a personal development plan, to build a strong team, develop appropriate strategy, develop their people and mobilize necessary resources. In my view you cannot supervise well without doing these five things.

Six: Do they have a coach to ensure that their transition to a supervisory role goes well?
Moving from a concern about "my work" to a concern about "the teams" work is a significant jump. It requires a different set of competencies, skills and priorities. Having a coach along side of you in this transition can make the difference between success and failure.

Seven: Do they want to supervise?
Why ask the question? Because if someone is not motivated to do what has been described above, they will not make for good supervisors. Too often we push people to take a supervisory role to the detriment of those who end up reporting to them. If they don't want the role, never put them in the role.

All good supervision is relational

It is a simple concept but one that is often forgotten: All good supervision is relational. 

Too often, we make supervision a mechanical matter - developing systems (not bad in itself), reports (nothing wrong with them) and accountability systems (always a good idea). But, it is easy to forget that in the end, a supervisor's influence with the staff they are responsible for comes down to relationship. The better the relationship the more effective the supervision.

Staff don't want to be treated mechanically but as individual people. Some say one should treat everyone the same. That is foolish: people are different and needed to be treated differently. Over the years I have supervised many wonderful individuals who are just that - individuals whose needs, situations and wiring were all different. My time and relationship with each was different because they were different. In addition, how much face time each needed with TJ were different.

Relationship means that a good supervisor talks face to face both formally and informally with staff. We care about our staff as individuals and know something about their work, their family and their lives. We ask questions about them, not just about their work. We manage by walking around and interacting. And when we meet formally we have a dialogue rather than a monologue.

The better the relationship with those we supervise, the more our influence because the best supervision is deeply relational. Relationships build trust and understanding, building blocks to developing engaged staff. 

12 questions to measure the engagement of your staff from the Gallup organization

In my work with organizations, a common theme is that staff often don't feel that their organization or supervisors genuinely care about them, their work or their development. Yet the happiness of our staff is critical to the success of an organization. The Gallup organization has identified twelve critical questions that measure the engagement of staff. They also give supervisors an outline of things they need to be paying attention to. Here they are:

• Do you know what is expected of you at work?
• Do you have the materials and equipment you need to do your work right?
• At work, do you have the opportunity to do what you do best every day?
• In the last seven days, have you received recognition or praise for doing good work?
• Does your supervisor, or someone at work, seem to care about you as a person?
• Is there someone at work who encourages your development?
• At work, do your opinions seem to count?
• Does the purpose of your organisation make you feel your job is important?
• Are your colleagues committed to doing quality work?
• Do you have a best friend at work?
• In the last six months, has someone at work talked to you about your progress?
• In the last year, have you had opportunities at work to learn and grow?

Source: Gallup's 12 questions taken from 'Elements of great managing' by Rodd Wagner and James Harter (Gallup 2006)

Does your staff work for you or with you?

There is a big distinction between having staff who work for you  and staff who work with you. And it is all in the attitude of the supervisor and how they see the staff of the organization.

I meet far too many leaders who think that staff works for them. They can be demanding that staff respond to their needs when they require it - even late night phone calls to solve some travel problem. If they become irritated with staff it is easy to marginalize them, after all they have failed the leader. If they disagree with the leader they may be seen as no longer loyal. As long as staff jump to their requests and give the honor they believe due to them all is well. When that does not happen, they are easily shuttled aside. 

This is not a surprise if a leader thinks that staff are there to serve them. In fact, it is to be expected.

There are healthier leaders who see staff as those who work with them - toward a common goal. While there are levels of leadership, these leaders develop a collegial, open, candid and friendly atmosphere where everyone's work and opinion is valued and appreciated. They understand that they as leaders serve those who work for them. It is a two way street of staff serving one another in order to accomplish something important. It is with not for. 

These are the cultures where staff feel appreciated and a vital part of the enterprise or ministry. And this is where you find healthy leaders whose ego needs do not need to be met by people jumping at their request. In fact, these leaders are deeply sensitive to the implications of their requests and ensure that they do not cause undue difficulty for staff.

In your organization if you lead. Do staff work for you or with you?

Learning to understand those we work with

There are few skills more important than that of learning how to understand those who we work with. It was Barnabas who watched and understood Paul after his conversion when others were deeply fearful of him. It was also Barnabas who understood John Mark when Paul wrote him off as a a failure: He got it right when Paul got it wrong.

Paul grew in this area and was a good read of Timothy and Titus, two men who he took under his wing to mentor. First and Second Timothy are full of insight into Timothy's wiring, propensities, strengths and weaknesses with specific wisdom and insight brought to bear by Paul. Paul had learned to do what Barnabas did instinctively, exegete people.

Everyone has fears, insecurities, strengths, unique wiring and blind spots that impact who they are, how they relate and how they are perceived. Good leaders learn how to exegete and understand those they lead and work with because it allows them to speak into their lives in a way that would otherwise be impossible.

This is a skill that can be learned. Often young leaders, like Paul, are too busy with their missional agenda to understand those around them. Hopefully, like Paul, they also learn the importance of exegeting people and opportunities along with the text.

Several simple suggestions for those who want to grow in their ability to exegete colleagues and staff. First, spend time in dialogue with them. It is in dialogue and probing that one best understands where another individual is coming from, what drives them and their framework of thinking and understanding. This is what Barnabas did with Paul in the early days. When others were afraid of him and therefore shunned him, Barnabas took him aside and talked with him - encouraged him and discipled him.

Second, watch, listen and observe words and actions. It is amazing what one can learn by simply being a good observer of words and actions. This is important in understanding those who report to you, those who are your colleagues or those above you. They more you understand how people think, how they react and how they make decisions the better you can influence their thinking and work productively with them.

Third, take time to mull and think about why a staff member reacts or acts the way they do. Just as insight into texts come to those who preach and teach as they mull the text so insight into people comes if we will take the time to mull them. People are complex and the better we understand their complexity the better we will understand who they are and what informs their actions.

Those who become exegetes of those around them find themselves with much better relationships than those who don't. In fact, those who don't build this skill often end up with shallow relationships because they never took the time to understand their colleagues. In the end it can short circuit one's leadership effectiveness.

Supervising people with low EQ

Healthy EQ is one of the most important factors in healthy staff, teams and interactions with others in a ministry setting (or otherwise). What does one do when a staff member has poor EQ which inevitably makes supervision more difficult and other relationships problematic?

First, admit the issue exists and needs to be resolved. This may seem  like common sense but the reality is that in the name of Christian "nice" and "grace" we often overlook real issues that have real consequences to people around those whose EQ is problematic. Don't ignore it! It does them no favors, nor those who are impacted by the EQ issues.

Second, have the courage to sit down with offenders and be absolutely honest with them as to how their behaviors are negatively impacting others. This requires a supervisor to be completely candid and honest (nuances are not a specialty of those with EQ issues) and  be clear about how they are impacting others. To be sure they are hearing you, ask them to reflect back to you what they are hearing. Don't sugar coat the issues: they are real and they are impacting others around them.

Third, be clear as to what is acceptable in your organization and what is not. Some behaviors are not acceptable, allowed, or OK because of their negative impact. They need to know this. Provide coaching to them on alternative ways of dealing with situations where they are likely to get themselves into trouble. What they need to hear is your resolve that the issues need to be addressed.

Fourth, if necessary, get a low EQ staff member professional help - coaching or psychological help. In my experience, about half of those who have serious issues can be helped and the other half cannot be because of their own emotional defenses. If necessary, place them on a documented improvement plan to force the issue. 

Fifth, if you cannot help them and if their behaviors are negatively impacting others, either find a role where their presence is not as problematic because they are isolated or be willing to help transition them out of the organization. Remember that it is not just you as a supervisor that pays the price of their issues but those around them who are impacted. The leader and the organization actually lose points with staff when they don't deal with those staff members who negatively impact others.

The bottom line is that you cannot ignore EQ issues. 

Supervisors and staff: Maintaining appropriate boundaries

Leaders have an interesting dilemma when it comes to how close or distant they are socially from those they lead. It is often something that they don't think much about but it has important ramifications for how they relate to others.

There is a difference in the relationship between peers and those one leads. This is obvious when a leader is promoted from within and goes from peer to supervisor. Everyone knows that something has changed and that the relationship is different.

It is different because now one who was a peer is leading those he or she was a peer with. Now instead of relating as peers, they are asking hard questions and holding others accountable for results. Often the transition is not easy. I remember one such transition myself where I was now supervising former peers and some of them never adjusted to it.

The issue of social distance can be framed this way: How close or distant do I position myself as a leader from those I lead, knowing that while we have a collegial relationship it is not by nature a peer relationship?

Some leaders try so hard to be best buds with those they lead that they lose their ability to speak into the lives, ministries, or strategies of their team because that is not the function of being best buds. In other words, in their attempt to be "one of the boys or girls" they lose their ability and authority to lead well. It is a leadership error.

Other leaders are so intent on their leadership role that they become distant and unapproachable from those they lead. Another leadership error because the human element is lost to the leadership role.

Social distance for a leader really depends on the situation. The best leaders are highly personable on a personal level. They care about families and kids and the personal issues of life and easily engage in discussions that deal with the human issues we all face. On that level, the relationship feels like a relationship of peers.

On the other hand, when leading the team, or pressing into a work related issue, they put on the hat of leader and can move into a collegial but clearly a leadership role where they are not afraid to give direct feedback, deal with a difficult issue or press into the work of those they supervise. In this role they are clearly not peers and need to be taken seriously by those they lead.

The most complicated relationships are those where a former peer was also a close friend. Now, there is both a friendship and a supervisory capacity that must be negotiated. In some settings they remain defined by the friendship but in the leadership setting it is the supervisory role that must be realized and acknowledged by both parties.

Wise leaders are both friends and leaders and they understand when it is appropriate for the social distance to be close and when it must be more distant. When social distance is too close it is difficult or impossible to lead. When it is too distant it is difficult to be seen as a leader who cares. Good leaders can and do switch from close to farther depending on the situation. They are collegial and human but also leaders and supervisors. If you are a leader, think about how you negotiate social distance with those you lead.

Leaders can be friends, colleagues and supervisors. They regulate the social distance depending on the situation so that they lead well. But they will never just be "one of the boys or girls."