Stop choosing between being a friend or a leader. The best executives do both

In the C-suite, relationships can make or break your effectiveness, and too often, we’ve been taught that you must choose to be either a friend or a colleague, but never both. The fear is understandable. Too much closeness, and you risk favoritism. Too much distance erodes trust, but our research and experience as leadership advisers point to a different reality: genuine, trust-based relationships are not a liability; they’re a leadership advantage. The real risk isn’t choosing one or the other; it’s failing to integrate both.

Morag’s Ally Mindset Profile data reveals a telling truth: 67% of respondents say their success has been undermined by their peer relationships or senior management. That’s not just interpersonal friction; it’s a strategic liability that can hinder collaboration, undermine leadership, and restrict career potential.

Why This Matters Now

The return to in-person work has reshuffled team dynamics. Some leaders are navigating hybrid work with colleagues they barely know outside a video frame. Others are relearning how to have hallway conversations and reading the social cues that once felt second nature. Layer onto this the loneliness crisis highlighted by the U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on Social Connection and initiatives like the United States Chamber of Connection, and it is clear leaders aren’t just managing business outcomes; they’re managing connection deficits.

And the upside of getting this right is significant. Gallup research has found that employees who have a “best friend at work” are more engaged, more productive, and more likely to stay with the organization. In the C-suite, where stakes are high and turnover costs are enormous, those benefits multiply.

Conventional wisdom says closeness creates bias, while distance fosters objectivity. The truth? Both extremes have costs: too close, and candor suffers; too distant, and trust evaporates. We need a third way: relationships that blend trust and empathy with clarity and accountability. This is the foundation of co-creation over competition. It’s about shifting from a scarcity mindset (“if you win, I lose”) to an abundance mindset (“we’re better when we win together”).

The Cost of Competitive Isolation

When leaders treat relationships purely as transactional, collaboration suffers. In Morag’s work, she’s seen executives default to “turf protection” rather than shared problem-solving—especially under pressure. This competitive isolation creates silos, hinders decision-making, and erodes trust.

And here’s the complication: as we move up through our careers, especially when we stay in the same organization, yesterday’s peer and friend can become tomorrow’s boss or colleague. We can’t avoid both roles, which means we have to recalibrate the relationship by making the implicit explicit. How can we maintain friendships while achieving results? That’s the relationship work of being better together.

I have seen it, too. In my work advising a biotech executive team, the CFO and COO were caught in a cycle of one-upmanship during board prep. By intentionally shifting toward a “both/and” approach—sharing early drafts, co-owning presentations, and agreeing on mutual success metrics—they moved from guarded competition to open collaboration. The result? Faster decision-making, a united front with the board, and a ripple effect of trust across the leadership team.

Here are some of the practical benefits of “Both/And” relationships in the C-suite:

• Better decisions, faster. When trust is high, peers are more likely to challenge assumptions without fear of backlash, leading to richer discussions and better outcomes.

• Resilience that endures. Friendships provide emotional ballast during crises, reducing burnout and supporting sustained performance, especially under pressure.

• Collaboration without the drag. Mutual understanding shortens the runway for complex, cross-functional projects.

• Fairness with Boundaries. Friendship doesn’t mean favoritism. It means respecting each other’s roles, decisions, and accountability.

Five practices for “both/and” leadership relationships

So how do leaders intentionally build relationships that are both personally enriching and professionally effective? Here are five practices that can turn potential rivalries into powerful alliances:

1. Show you care about the human

Show curiosity for the human being behind the role. When leaders demonstrate care beyond the scorecard, they build the trust that makes it easier for peers to speak up, share concerns early, and collaborate without second-guessing motives.

2. Share early, share often

Fast, unfiltered sharing of both good and bad news invites peers into the problem-solving process sooner. This means that opportunities are amplified, risks are identified and contained earlier, and no one is blindsided in the boardroom.

3. Hold each other to high(er) standards

Strong professional friendships can withstand tough feedback. This means candor is a safeguard, not a threat—leaders are more likely to challenge assumptions, sharpen thinking, and avoid costly missteps.

4. Create space for micro-moments

In hybrid and high-pressure environments, trust grows in small, everyday exchanges—a check-in before the agenda, a walk between meetings, a quick call to connect. These moments are the give-and-take that makes leadership work and build the trust that makes macro-decisions possible.

5. Model openness at the top

Admitting mistakes and asking for help gives others permission to do the same. This means resilience spreads, teams stick together under pressure, and the organization avoids the corrosive isolation that can occur when leadership is absent.

It’s hard to make friends as adults, and even harder in the high-pressure world of executive leadership. But that’s precisely why it matters. The loneliness crisis isn’t just a personal well-being issue; it’s a business performance issue. As leaders, we can either cling to outdated binaries or we can lead in a way that blends humanity with high performance. Choosing both doesn’t weaken your leadership; it strengthens it.

View the full article