Navigating Isolation: The Frenemy Factor for CAOs

Originally published December 8, 2023 · Edited February 24, 2026 · About our editorial process

In our previous exploration of The Isolated Leader, we looked at the challenges faced by chief administrative officers who carry immense responsibility while walking a structurally solitary path. After reading the article, an insightful perspective was shared by Phil Smith-Hanes, Saline County Administrator. Phil’s insights unveil a layer of complexity he called the “Frenemy Factor” that CAOs must navigate.

The Frenemy Factor

When facing isolation, particularly in a political environment, the need for peers becomes increasingly evident. CAOs require allies who understand the intricacies of their roles and can provide support, guidance, and a safe space for candid discussions. Having peers who can empathize with their challenges is a vital lifeline for isolated leaders.

Phil Smith-Hanes points out that while CAOs may lack direct peers within their organizations, they often have counterparts in their communities. These counterparts might include city managers, county administrators, school superintendents, hospital CEOs, chamber of commerce directors, or university presidents. These are individuals who understand the unique challenges of leading public organizations.

The twist lies in the inherent conflict of interests. The CAO may find themselves at cross-purposes with these very peers. City and county governing bodies engage in political disagreements over shared issues. The chamber director or hospital CEO approaches the CAO for funding. Educators raise land use issues that fall within the city or county’s jurisdiction.

The concept of the “Frenemy” adds a real and practical layer to the isolation CAOs experience. The people who best understand your role may also be the people you face across a negotiating table next month.

Why Geography Matters

“Another reason I think the Think Tanks are valuable is that you intentionally curate groups of folks who do not share jurisdictional boundaries (maybe not even time zones). That allows us to be a little more trusting and free than we might be at a state association meeting… we know our issues are not going to come back to us.” — Phil Smith-Hanes, County Administrator, Saline County, Kansas

Phil’s observation names something that many CAOs sense but rarely articulate: proximity creates political complexity. The closer a peer is geographically, the more likely their interests will eventually intersect with yours in ways that constrain honesty. State association meetings, while valuable for networking and best-practice sharing, carry an inherent limitation. The people in the room may share your challenges, but they also share your political landscape.

This is the Frenemy Factor operating on Circle of Safety. What Sinek describes as Circle of Safety, the boundary within which people can be honest without calculating the political cost, is structurally harder to maintain with peers who share your jurisdiction, your media market, and your state association politics. The safety that honest peer conversation requires doesn’t exist automatically. It has to be designed in, including through the deliberate choice of who is in the room.

This is why intentional separation matters. When peers don’t share jurisdictional boundaries, media markets, or state association politics, the conversation changes. The calculation shifts from “What can I safely share?” to “What do I actually need to talk about?”

From Isolation to Intentional Connection

The Frenemy Factor doesn’t mean community counterparts aren’t valuable. They are. But it does mean that relying solely on local peers for the kind of honest, vulnerable conversation that leadership isolation demands is structurally risky. The same dynamics that make someone understand your role also make them a potential political complication.

Leaders who navigate this well tend to build two distinct networks: a local network for operational coordination and mutual support within the constraints of shared geography, and a separate network of peers outside their political ecosystem for the conversations that require full transparency. The decision to build and protect that second network is a Define What Matters question: is the CAO willing to invest in the conditions their own effectiveness requires, or only in the work those conditions are supposed to make possible?

One way to test this: think about the last time you held back in a professional conversation because of who else was in the room. Not because the topic was inappropriate, but because the political implications of full honesty were too high. That’s the Frenemy Factor at work. And it’s a signal that the peer structure you’re relying on may not be designed for the kind of support you actually need.

Framework Connection

The Frenemy Factor is a structural barrier to Face the Truth. When the people around you have competing interests, honest self-assessment becomes politically risky. The decision to build peer relationships outside your political ecosystem, despite the time investment and the discomfort of vulnerability with strangers, is Define What Matters in action. And designing your environment so that doing the right thing becomes possible is the core of Make It Real.

Related Reading

• The Isolated Leader – The foundation article exploring why the CAO role is structurally isolating
• Political Dynamics – Why governance dynamics compound the isolation and political complexity CAOs face
• Workforce Expectations – What the research shows about the disconnect between what leaders need and what their environments provide