The Price of Belonging

Leaders do not always recognize what people are learning from them. Beyond the decisions they make and the expectations they communicate, their everyday behavior can teach lessons they never intended. I have seen capable professionals gradually adopt conduct they once seemed uncomfortable witnessing, particularly when doing so brought them closer to someone whose approval mattered.

The change was rarely sudden. It often began with conversations in which a leader expressed frustration with a colleague who was not present. Others joined in, sometimes offering judgments that went well beyond the original concern. What troubled me was how these exchanges could become a way of demonstrating loyalty, until some participants began initiating similar conversations themselves.

There is nothing unusual about leaders needing trusted colleagues with whom to discuss difficult situations. At times, such conversations are essential. But I have also seen them become a means of gathering support for a particular judgment, especially when someone has challenged a decision or expressed an unwelcome opinion. The person initiating the discussion may feel reassured, while those invited into it feel that they have earned a place of confidence.

The change in those around the leader can be difficult to recognize as it unfolds. People who initially hesitate to join an unfair conversation may gradually discover that reinforcing the leader’s view brings them closer to decisions, opportunities, or simply the reassurance of being included. Some eventually begin questioning others’ competence or motives on their own, including when dealing with colleagues over whom they now hold authority. By then, the behavior no longer depends on the leader who encouraged it.

I do not believe this progression always reflects deliberate manipulation. Some leaders may be conscious of the alliances they are building. Others may simply find agreement comforting, particularly when their decisions are questioned. The people around them may have equally mixed motives. They can sincerely believe a criticism is justified while also recognizing that expressing it will strengthen their standing.

The leader feels supported, and those offering support feel trusted.

Each may regard the relationship as evidence of loyalty, even as it becomes harder for either to question the other’s judgment.

Meanwhile, the person being discussed may experience consequences without understanding their source. Colleagues become less forthcoming. An opinion that once received a fair hearing is now met with suspicion. A reputation built over years can begin to erode through private exchanges that are difficult to challenge because they are rarely acknowledged.

It would be comforting to think that only unusually insecure leaders encourage such behavior. Yet I suspect the temptation is more familiar than we care to admit. Most of us have felt the satisfaction of hearing someone confirm a criticism we already held. We may have been less curious about the facts because the account suited our view of the situation. We may even have welcomed the criticism because it came from someone whose support mattered to us.

For those of us who have exercised authority, there is a harder question: have we ever rewarded behavior in others that we would find unacceptable if directed toward ourselves?

People pay attention to what we allow in our presence, especially when it benefits us. They notice whether we question an unfair remark, even when it supports our position. They remember when criticism of an absent colleague earns approval or creates a sense of closeness. These experiences can shape how people conduct themselves long after the conversation has ended.

I have also known leaders who handled such moments with care. They could speak candidly about a difficult colleague without inviting others to diminish that person. They were willing to hear an unwelcome perspective, including one that challenged their own account. Their colleagues did not have to agree with them to remain trusted.

I remember those leaders because their conduct gave people room to exercise their judgment. Seeing them treat an absent colleague fairly gave others reason to believe they would receive the same consideration. That kind of confidence is difficult to establish through declarations alone.

There can be a real professional cost to resisting a conversation that others seem eager to continue. Sometimes the person initiating it controls opportunities or relationships that matter. It takes judgment to know when to speak, when to ask a question, and when simply to decline to contribute. I would hesitate to underestimate those pressures.

People also observe how we seek support, how we respond to disagreement, and what we seem willing to accept from those closest to us. Some will eventually carry those habits into their own leadership.

When I think about the price of belonging, I remember people who gradually came to practice conduct they had once seemed reluctant to witness. I also remember leaders who showed that trust could survive disagreement and that loyalty did not require an unfair judgment of someone else.

Reflection

Have you ever gone along with behavior you would otherwise have questioned because you valued someone’s trust or approval? What did that experience reveal about your own understanding of loyalty?