Every leader knows this moment: a team member goes to peers first instead of me, gathers support, and only then brings the idea forward. To some, this looks like bypassing authority. To others, it feels like politics. But what if we chose to see it as data, not defiance?

The behaviour carries two signals at once: a sign of health in the peer group, and a sign of hesitation with authority. Both matter. Both invite us to think again about what it means to lead, not as a heroic decider, but as one who convenes.

What it means when a team member goes to peers first

1. Trust in peers

When someone chooses colleagues as the first audience, it reveals safety in the circle. Edmondson (1999) called this psychological safety: the belief that we can risk our voice and not be diminished. Such safety is rarely found in hierarchical spaces; it is often born among equals. (see Positive Climate article for more on this topic)

This is also about belonging. Cialdini (2001) described social proof as the way we take our cues from those around us. In moments of uncertainty, we look sideways before we look up. In organisational life, this means that ideas are legitimised not only by logic but by acceptance within the group.

What we see here is the “hidden wiring” of the workplace, Krackhardt and Hanson’s (1993) phrase for informal networks of trust and influence. Leaders may wish everything flowed through formal channels, but life is not built that way. Ideas move on the current of relationship long before they reach a decision table.

At its root, this is the deep human need to belong. Baumeister and Leary (1995) showed that belongingness is as basic as food or shelter. To share an idea first with peers is to seek connection before exposure. It is a way of saying: Let me know I am not alone in this.

This is also the soil out of which stewardship grows. Block (2024) argues that the leader’s role is not to be the sole source of accountability, but to create conditions where peers hold one another accountable. When people consult laterally, they are already doing the work of community.

Example: A product manager wants to adopt a new design tool. Instead of presenting it directly to the director, she pilots it with two colleagues, gets their reactions, and builds a case before approaching formal authority. On the surface this is lobbying; beneath it, it is an act of peer convening.

2. Lack of trust in leader receptivity

The harder signal is that people may not trust their ideas will land well with authority. Detert and Burris (2007) showed how often employees withhold suggestions when they believe leaders will ignore or punish them. Silence is rarely laziness; it is self-protection.

Prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979) helps explain why. Loss weighs heavier than gain. The sting of rejection looms larger than the joy of acceptance. So people reduce the risk by seeking peer support first.

And then there is hierarchy itself. Magee and Galinsky (2008) remind us that power distances even when unintentional. Leaders may think they are approachable, yet the very fact of authority can create hesitation. An “open door” does not always feel open from the outside.

Finally, trust is more than goodwill. Mayer, Davis and Schoorman (1995) define it in three parts: competence, integrity, and benevolence. If any of these are in doubt, even slightly, people will test with peers before they test with you. Their behaviour becomes feedback, not just about them, but about your relationship with them.

Example: In a hospital ward, a nurse notices a safety concern about equipment. She speaks first with colleagues on her shift to check whether they have seen the same problem. Only after this informal consultation does she raise it with the chief nurse. The sideways move reflects both peer trust and the perception that hierarchy carries risk.

Strategies for leaders when team members go to peers first

What then is the invitation? Not to close down these behaviours, but to respond in a way that strengthens both peer trust and leader openness.

• Affirm the good. Acknowledge that seeking peers first shows initiative and collective care: “I value that you tested this with the group. What did you learn?”

• Welcome the unfinished. Signal that rough ideas are safe with you: “Bring me the early sketch, not just the final plan.”

• Normalise the testing phase. Position peer consultation as a strength, but balance it with transparency so everyone knows how final decisions will be made.

• Reduce the risk of speaking up. In meetings, create space for “half-baked” ideas or use rounds so everyone speaks, not only the bold.

• Show benevolence in action. Demonstrate that your interest is not in defending authority but in serving the team and its purpose.

Each of these strategies is a form of stewardship, choosing partnership over patriarchy, and service over self-interest (Block, 2013). Instead of reading the peer-first move as avoidance, leaders can host it as the beginning of accountability, not the end.

Example: A consultant inside a large organisation “pre-sells” a change proposal to several allies before a steering committee. Instead of scolding him for politicking, the leader asks, “What conversations did you have that gave you confidence to bring this forward?” By valuing the relational work, the leader transforms what might be resistance into contribution.

The leader’s inner work

We should also name what happens inside us as leaders. When someone bypasses us at first, the reflex can be irritation: “Why wasn’t I consulted sooner?” That feeling is data too. It tells us about our pull toward control, our desire to be centre stage.

Block (2013) calls stewardship the act of holding power in service, not possession. This requires translating irritation into curiosity, defensiveness into invitation. The move from “Why didn’t you come to me?” to “What did you learn in those conversations?” is the inner work of convening.

This is not easy. Leaders live under pressure to perform, to be decisive, to show control. Letting go of the need to be first consulted feels like loss. But in truth, it is a gain: the gain of a team that owns its ideas, that tests them, that is willing to risk them together.

Reflection questions

• When my team members go to peers before me, what is the story they are telling about our culture?

• How do I show, in practice, that unpolished ideas are safe with me?

• Where might my authority, intended or not, be amplifying the risk of speaking up?

• When was the last time I felt bypassed? How did I respond, in service of control or of community?

• What is one invitation I could make this week that lowers the cost of speaking up to me?

• How might I treat moments of “pre-selling” not as resistance but as early signs of accountability taking root?

Conclusion

So how should you respond when a team member goes to peers first instead of you? Not with defensiveness, but with curiosity. It is a sign of strength in the peer group and a sign of fragility in the relationship with authority. Both can be true at once.

The leader’s work is not to demand first access, but to host conditions where trust is not an either/or. Where the confidence people feel with their peers is matched by the openness they feel with you. That is the shift from leader as hero to leader as convener (Block, 2024).

Thanks to Ioana Bora, a fellow European coach, friend and professional colleague, for suggesting this question in a recent conversation.

References

• Baumeister, R.F. and Leary, M.R. (1995) ‘The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation’, Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), pp. 497–529.

• Block, P. (2013) Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. 2nd edn. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

• Block, P. (2024) Leader as convener. Cincinnati, OH: Designed Learning. Available at: https://designedlearning.com/leader-as-convener/ (Accessed: 29 August 2025).

• Cialdini, R.B. (2001) Influence: Science and practice. 4th edn. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

• Detert, J.R. and Burris, E.R. (2007) ‘Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open?’, Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), pp. 869–884.

• Edmondson, A. (1999) ‘Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), pp. 350–383.

• Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979) ‘Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk’, Econometrica, 47(2), pp. 263–291.

• Krackhardt, D. and Hanson, J.R. (1993) ‘Informal networks: The company behind the chart’, Harvard Business Review, 71(4), pp. 104–111.

• Magee, J.C. and Galinsky, A.D. (2008) ‘Social hierarchy: The self‐reinforcing nature of power and status’, Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), pp. 351–398.

• Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995) ‘An integrative model of organizational trust’, Academy of Management Review, 20(3), pp. 709–734.