The ability to build and maintain constructive, trust-based relationships with colleagues at a similar level across the organisation. It involves influencing without authority, communicating with openness and respect, collaborating toward shared goals, and navigating differences thoughtfully.
“They may forget what you said, but they will never forget how you made them feel.” Carl W. Buehner
Why positive peer relationships matter
Most of what a leader needs to get done depends on people who don’t report to them. Budget, priority, cooperation on a shared deadline, a favour when something urgent comes up, all of it runs through peer relationships that exist entirely outside the chain of command, which means they have to be built on something other than authority.
Peer relationships also function as an early warning system that formal reporting structures don’t provide. A peer will often tell a colleague something they’d never put in a status report, a candid read on how a project is actually landing, a heads-up about a decision before it’s official, and access to that kind of information depends entirely on whether the relationship has enough trust in it to make sharing worthwhile.
The leaders who build strong peer networks aren’t necessarily the most likeable people in the building, they’re the ones who’ve been reliably useful and reliably fair over enough interactions that peers have stopped needing to calculate whether helping them is worth it. That reputation, once built, becomes one of the most durable assets a leader has, and one of the slowest to rebuild once damaged.
“It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.” Warren Buffett
What good and bad positive peer relationships looks like
| Bad | Good |
|---|---|
| Only reaches out to a peer when something is needed from them. | Checks in with peers periodically with no agenda beyond maintaining the relationship. |
| Takes sole credit for a win that depended on a peer’s contribution. | Names the peer’s contribution explicitly when reporting the win to others. |
| Raises a conflict with a peer to a shared manager before speaking to the peer directly. | Raises the issue with the peer directly first, reserving escalation for when that genuinely hasn’t worked. |
| Treats a peer primarily as a representative of their department rather than as an individual. | Takes the time to understand what actually matters to this specific person, not just their function’s general priorities. |
| Shares information with peers only when required to, and only what’s required. | Shares information proactively when it would help a peer, even without being asked. |
| Treats every disagreement with a peer as something to win outright. | Looks for the version of the disagreement that lets both people walk away with something real. |
| Airs frustration about a peer’s behaviour to others rather than to the peer themselves. | Raises the issue directly and privately with the peer it actually concerns. |
| Assumes a peer relationship that’s worked well for years will keep working without any maintenance. | Keeps checking whether the relationship still serves both people as roles, priorities, or pressures change. |
“If it’s about your mission, about spreading the faith, about seeing something happen, not only do you not care about credit, you actually want other people to take credit.” Seth Godin
Barriers to positive peer relationships
Bad experiences: A leader who has been burned by a peer before, whether through broken confidence, a stolen idea, or simple unreliability, often carries that caution into every subsequent peer relationship, even ones that have given no actual reason for distrust. The guardedness protects against a repeat of the past but also blocks the kind of openness that new peer relationships need to actually develop.
Prioritising self over the collective: Some leaders treat peer interactions as a contest to win, while others simply don’t factor shared goals into their thinking at all, whether that shows up as active one-upmanship or a quieter kind of self-absorption that never quite gets around to considering what peers actually need. Either way, peers experience the same thing: a colleague whose success doesn’t seem to include them.
Low or no respect: Leaders who discount the expertise or contribution of another function, whether from unfamiliarity with what that function actually does or a belief that their own area matters more, come across as dismissive even when they’d deny feeling that way. Peers rarely miss being treated as less important, whatever language is used to soften it.
Impersonal style: A detached, strictly business-only approach to peer interactions can look like professionalism from the inside, but from the outside it reads as disinterest in the person, not just efficiency in the task. Peer relationships that never move past the transactional rarely produce the trust needed when something actually goes wrong.
Withholder: Holding back information that a peer could reasonably expect to be shared, whether out of habit, self-protection, or a belief that information is leverage, reads as secrecy regardless of the actual intent behind it. Once a peer concludes they’re not getting the full picture, they start double-checking everything else too.
Low social skills: Struggling to read social cues, build rapport, or navigate the informal side of a relationship leaves some leaders with peer connections that stay superficial no matter how much time passes. Competence at the job doesn’t automatically transfer into competence at the relationship that makes the job easier.
Poor communication: Communication that’s unclear, mistimed, or pitched at the wrong tone for the relationship creates misunderstandings that often get attributed to bad intent rather than to the actual communication failure that caused them. Most peer conflicts trace back to a message that didn’t land the way it was meant to, not to any real disagreement underneath.
Possessiveness: Guarding resources, information, or credit as though sharing them were a loss rather than an investment creates predictable friction with peers who need access to move their own work forward. The territorial leader usually experiences this as protecting what’s theirs; the peer on the other side experiences it as being blocked.
Treating peer relationships as transactional: Only reaching out to a peer when something is needed from them, with no investment in the relationship in between, teaches that peer exactly how much the relationship is actually worth to the leader. People generally know the difference between being valued and being used, even when nothing is ever said about it directly.
Withholding credit and visibility: Failing to mention a peer’s contribution when reporting up, or quietly absorbing sole credit for a cross-functional win, costs little in the moment and a great deal over time. Peers notice who gets named and who doesn’t, and they calibrate how much to invest in future collaboration accordingly.
“The basis of social relationships is reciprocity: if you cooperate with others, others will cooperate with you.” Carroll Quigley
Enablers of positive peer relationships
Leverage influence: In peer relationships, direct authority is often absent, so focus on influence. Understand what matters to your peers and offer help or resources where you can. Build mutual trust by finding common ground and showing a genuine interest in their needs.
Consider your style: How others perceive you matters. Cold, impersonal, or distant behaviour can hinder collaboration. Focus on leaving a positive impression by being approachable, friendly, and responsive.
Understand others: Take time to assess the motivations and needs of your peers. Understanding what they want, how they work, and what they expect will allow you to navigate relationships more effectively.
Become a navigator: Learn how to get things done within the organisational structure. Identify key gatekeepers, allies, and influencers who can help move projects forward. By building relationships with those who hold power, you can expedite processes.
Manage your competitive instinct: A little competitive energy can be motivating, but when it tips into one-upmanship, it costs more in peer trust than it gains in personal wins. If you sense peers pulling back or excluding you from discussions, treat that as a signal to actively share credit, information, and airtime rather than compete for them.
Build conflict competence: When disagreements arise, keep the issue separate from personal emotions. Avoid making peers feel dominated or undermined. Approach conflicts with a focus on facts and shared goals.
Feedback directly: If a peer behaves unfairly, avoid gossiping or airing grievances publicly. Instead, address the issue directly and privately. Explain how their behaviour affects you without blaming or attacking them.
Stay aware: In difficult situations, stay self-aware. Reflect on how you respond to peer conflicts, are you too rigid or too accommodating? Mentally prepare for tough conversations and rehearse responses.
Consider win-win: Winning every negotiation may damage relationships. If you always come out ahead, your peers may become resentful. Strive for a balance where both parties feel they have gained something.
Invest in the relationship between the asks: Reach out to peers when you don’t need anything from them, not just when you do. A relationship that only activates around requests reads as transactional no matter how politely the requests are phrased.
Give credit generously and specifically: When reporting up or discussing a shared win, name the peer’s contribution explicitly rather than letting it blend into a general “we.” Credit costs the giver nothing and is one of the most reliable ways to earn a peer’s future goodwill.
“Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much.” Helen Keller
Reflection questions on peer relationships
1. How do you influence peers more effectively without relying on authority? How well do you understand their priorities and challenges?
2. What impression do you tend to leave on your peers? What small adjustments could you make to leave an even more positive impression?
3. How well do you understand the needs and motivations of your peers? Do you know who is supportive and who might resist your ideas?
4. How effectively do you navigate the organisation to get things done? How could you be even better at understanding who the key influencers and gatekeepers are?
5. Are you seen as someone who works towards shared goals or someone who competes for recognition? What steps can you take to encourage joint problem-solving?
6. How do you handle conflicts with peers? Do you focus on the issue at hand, or do personal emotions sometimes cloud your judgement?
7. How do you balance healthy competition with cooperation? When does competition with peers help drive success, and when does it create unnecessary friction?
8. How do you address unfair behaviour from a peer? Do you confront them directly, or let resentment build up?
9. How self-aware are you in challenging peer situations? Do you notice when you are being too rigid or too accommodating?
10. Do you aim for balance in your peer negotiations? When you “win,” do you consider how your peer feels about the outcome?
“The leaders who work most effectively, it seems to me, never say ‘I.’ And that’s not because they have trained themselves not to say ‘I.’ They don’t think ‘I.’ They think ‘we’; they think ‘team.’… This is what creates trust, what enables you to get the task done.” Peter Drucker
Micro practices for peer relationships
1. Reach out without an ask: This week, message one peer with no request attached, just a genuine check-in or a piece of information they’d find useful.
2. Name them by name: Next time you report on a cross-functional win, explicitly name which peer contributed what, rather than letting it fold into a general “the team.”
3. Go to the source first: Next time a peer does something that frustrates you, resist raising it with your manager or a colleague first. Talk to the peer directly before anyone else hears about it.
4. Learn one thing about them as a person: In your next interaction with a peer, ask a question that has nothing to do with the current project, and actually remember the answer.
5. Share one piece of information you weren’t asked for: Identify one thing you know that would help a peer’s work, and send it to them proactively this week, without waiting to be asked.
6. Audit a long-running peer relationship: Pick one peer relationship you’ve relied on for a while, and ask honestly whether you’re still investing in it or just coasting on the trust that was built earlier.
“You can make more friends in two months by becoming interested in other people than you can in two years by trying to get other people interested in you.” Dale Carnegie
Explore related leadership resources
To further develop this capability, examine how it intersects with other core leadership dimensions across the libraries:
Leadership library:
- Compassion: Build authentic peer bonds by acknowledging the unique pressures and challenges your colleagues face, moving beyond transactional interactions.
- Groundedness: Maintain your composure and consistency during cross-functional conflicts, serving as a reliable partner who isn’t easily swayed by political shifts.
- Listening: Foster mutual respect by giving your peers full attention, ensuring you understand their departmental priorities before advocating for your own.
- Emotional Intelligence: Navigate the subtle social dynamics of peer groups with high self-awareness, managing your impact and reading the room effectively.
Supporting libraries
- Positive view of people (Traits): Approach peer collaborations with an inherent belief in your colleagues’ competence and good intentions, which naturally lowers defensive barriers.
- Inclusivity (Traits): Actively bridge gaps between different functions, ensuring that diverse peer perspectives are invited and integrated into shared projects.
- Sociability (Traits): Leverage your natural ease in social settings to build the informal networks that often make formal collaboration much smoother.
- Interpersonal relationships (EQ-i): Focus on the give-and-take of professional connections, developing the “social capital” needed to influence others without formal authority.
Continue exploring: Return to the Leadership Library to view the full directory of competencies and resources.