Subscribe to receive updates, news from our blog. Get updates on the release of "Toxic Leadership: Power, Abuse, and Healing in Christian Organizations"
You have subscribed successfully!
Some error occured
Please fill all the required * fields.
Subscribe to Pearls & Swine
Subscribe to get Pearls And Swine posts to your inbox
The following is a study of personality disorders and other behavioral problems toxic leaders commonly have. A full diagnosis of an individual should be made by a trained professional, but these descriptions can help those unfortunate enough to be a subordinate to a toxic leader.
Alpha Males & Queen Bees
Alpha males are described as leaders “who aren’t happy unless they’re the top dogs.” Ludeman and Erlandson, who study and consult with “alpha males” in business management, argue that “70 percent of all top executives” can be classified as alpha.[1] Chamorro-Premuzic suggests one reason for both the large numbers of leaders with these personality traits and the frequent support they receive is the traits may appear positive such as “extraversion, openness to new experience, curiosity, and self-esteem.” Ludeman says, these leaders are “highly intelligent, confident, and successful.” But, the authors say they are “typically stubborn and resistant to feedback.”
According to Peggy Drexler, the term “queen bee” was coined forty years ago in a University of Michigan study of promotion rates among women in the workplace. These women leaders were “obsessed with maintaining their authority.”[2]
Drexler’s article, discussing the queen bee, argues they create unique dysfunctions in the workplace.
“What makes these queen bees so effective and aggravating is that they are able to exploit female vulnerabilities that men may not see, using tactics that their male counterparts might never even notice.”[3]
She says queen bees do not seek the development of their subordinates’ talents, but rather undermine “their professional standing.”[4]
Authoritarianism
Bonam, author of Leading from the Second Chair, says, “If you have the misfortune of working for a first chair who is a true autocrat, then you may find that any disagreement is seen as insubordination.”[3] Jean Lipman-Blumen says authoritarianism is “a hallmark of toxic leaders.”[4] The prevalence of authoritarian leaders within the Christian ministry is extensive according to Ronald Enroth.[5]
The literature suggests authoritarian leaders are unwilling to receive criticism from their followers. Allender notes that the arrogance of the autocrat “creates a mood of ‘follow me or get lost.’”[6] De Vries and Miller, describing the paranoid organization, explain the leader has a “tendency to centralize power,” and leaders “who feel threatened generally like to have a good deal of control over their subordinates.”[7]
Greenfield and Faulkner agree, saying, “An authoritarian pastor perceives himself as boss of the staff and gives orders that are never to be questioned.” Where there are disagreements, “there is no room for any input from staff members.”[8] Herrington, et. al., say authoritarian leaders are emotionally dependent on others. As a result, “Others are there to serve the leader’s purpose.”[9]
Why do authoritarian leaders lack willingness to hear other ideas? Lipman-Blumen argues, “Some leaders fall into the trap of believing in their own wisdom” as their followers become more and more dependent on them.[4] Within the Christian church setting, some suggest followers “can’t criticize leaders without being critical of God.”[10] Therefore, Enroth adds, an authoritarian “leader is beyond confrontation.”[5]
A leader may have “exclusionary proclivities,” according to Lipman-Blumen and “they are unlikely to take counsel or correction from those outside the charmed circle,” the secondary leadership of the organization.[4]
Autocrats have an unwillingness to hear counsel from subordinates and they seek to control followers. Edmondson argues authoritarian leaders use fear to control. And she says, “Control reinforces certainty and predictability.”[11] This form of management style was common in the past according to Frank Barrett who explains, “We have grown up with a variety of models of organizations, most of which have relied to some degree on a mechanistic view of top-down approaches to change.” This “top-down” approach emphasizes “routines and rules” for organizational control.[12]
However, Rob Hay suggests that the “authoritarian command and control approach of the old style business has given way to self-managing teams . . . and general autonomy.”[13] The authors of “Resilient Ministry” suggest authority, developed through relationships, is more important than the formal authority practiced by autocrats.
“While we don’t disregard the importance of formal authority and the role it plays in accomplishing God’s purposes, we suggest that relational authority trumps formal authority much of the time,” according to Burns, et. al.[14]
Narcissism
“The authoritarian religious leader is predominantly narcissistic,” according to Oates.[15] Langberg explains the name, “Narcissist” comes from the Greek mythological story of a young, handsome youth who had a “heart that was inaccessible to love.”[16]
One of Narcissist’s “rejected lovers” prayed that he be punished for his “lack of empathy.” Nemesis, the god of retribution to whom she prayed, “caused Narcissist to see his reflection in the water and fall completely in love with himself.” As he was unable to access his reflection, he “died of unrequited love.”
It is common for narcissists to occupy leadership positions. According to Chamorro-Premuzic, “An impressive 15-year longitudinal study found that individuals with psychopathic and narcissistic characteristics gravitated towards the top of the organizational hierarchy.”[17] Chandler and Fields explain, “Narcissistic leaders may pass selection screening because they possess strengths such as the ability to present a vision in a charismatic fashion, inspire others with rhetoric, and thereby persuade others to follow.”[18]
There have been many studies on the Narcissistic Personality Disorder according to George Simon, author of the article, “Narcissism: Pathological Self-Love,” despite the American Psychiatric Association removing the disorder from the DSM-5.[19]
He says, “Too many folks who know all too well how painful it is to live or deal with a narcissist” are seeking information on narcissism. He goes on to say, “Because ours is the age of permissiveness and especially ‘entitlement,’ narcissism has flourished, and just about everyone has a story to tell about dealing with a narcissist.”
Narcissistic individuals are described as “conceited, boastful or pretentious,” according to the Mayo Clinic.[20] Chamorro-Premuzic says narcissists have “unrealistic feelings of grandiosity, an inflated – though often unstable and insecure – sense of self-worth, and a selfish sense of entitlement coupled with little consideration for others.[17]
Oates defines empathy as “putting oneself in another person’s place and experiencing that person’s needs as primary,” and lacking this other-centeredness is a common characteristic of narcissism.[15] Narcissists often “belittle or look down on people” they “perceive as inferior.”[20] “As a result…they naturally conclude they should come first: their needs (often lavish), their image, their success,” argue Chapman, White, and Myra.[21]
According to Chandler and Fields, “Narcissistic leaders…blame others for their failures.”[18] They “usually have no interest in self-insight or change.”[22] Oates agrees, saying, “The capacity for self-evaluation and self-criticism is absent.”[15] Subordinates are simply “expected to provide blind support.”[18]
If employees do not act in support of the narcissist, they become “increasingly expendable,” according to Oates.
Abuse and Bullying
Literature covering a broad range of relational abuse or bullying from domestic to workplace is extensive. However, most work done in this area of study is secular according to Jeff Crippen. He argues, “The secular world has more wisdom by far about abuse than does the Christian church.”[23] He explains, in A Cry for Justice: How the Evil of Domestic Abuse Hides in Your Church! that his own journey of understanding abuse was through books by secular social scientists.
According to a study of workplace bullying by the Ventura County California Grand Jury, bullying is defined as “an abuse or misuse of power that manifests itself in ‘behavior that intimidates, degrades, offends, or humiliates a worker.’”[24]
The authors of “An Individual Psychology Approach to Underlying Factors of Workplace Bullying” define bullying as “having unequal power and about being exposed to negative acts over and over again without being able to defend oneself in the actual situation.”[25] A Workplace Bullying Institute publication describes a variety of behaviors that are classified as bullying such as “being shouted at or sworn at, being excessively monitored, being isolated or excluded from activities, being threatened, [or] being physically intimidated.”
WBI says a large percentage (38%) of co-workers do nothing to help the target of bullying in the workplace, effectively isolating the victim.[26] Other bullying behaviors noted in “Exploring Victims’ Experiences of Workplace Bullying: A Grounded Theory Approach” were “forcing to work overtime,” “overruling decisions, removing responsibility,” attacking their “professional status,” giving “persistent criticism,” using “manipulation,” and “undermining, and false accusations.”[27]
Lundy Bancroft, a former codirector of the United State’s first program for abusive men, contrasts abuse with love saying,
“Genuine love means respecting the humanity of the other person, wanting what is best for him or her…this kind of love is incompatible with abuse and coercion.”[28]
Bancroft lists a variety of characteristic behaviors and thinking patterns of the abuser, saying they are “controlling,” “entitled,” “possessive,” and “manipulative;” abusers twist the truth, think of themselves as “superior,” confuse “love and abuse,” seek to present a “good public image,” feel “justified” in their thoughts and action, and commonly “deny and minimize” their behavior. He suggests, much the same as Namie, that abusers isolate their victim to retain control.
According to Einarsen, et. al., abuse is identified as “behaviors such as intimidating followers, belittling, or humiliating them in public.”[18] Robert Sutton agrees, noting the victims of abusers in the workplace “feel oppressed, humiliated, de-energized, or belittled.”[29] He also suggests the abuser normally aims “his or her venom at people who are less powerful rather than at those people who are more powerful.”
Many of these characteristics are found in descriptions of personality disorders. According to Clive Boddy, author of the article, “Corporate Psychopaths, Bullying and Unfair Supervision in the Workplace,” there is significant “cross-over” between psychopaths and bullies in the workplace. He says, “The traits of narcissism, lack of self-regulation, lack of remorse, and lack of conscience have been identified as those displayed by bullies. These traits are shared with psychopathy.”[30]
Robert Hare, author of This Charming Psychopath, says psychopaths have a “remarkable ability to rationalize their behavior.”[31] He also notes they are “deceitful and manipulative.” In addition, Narcissists are described as having a sense of “entitlement” and “superiority,” characteristics of an abuser or bully.[32]
However, Bancroft argues, though abusive individuals may have personality disorders, an abuser’s “value system is unhealthy, not their psychology.”[28] He notes recent research shows mental illness occurrence even in “violent abusers is not high.” Bancroft concludes, “Mental illness doesn’t cause abusiveness any more than alcohol does.” Though he provides a chapter in Why Does He Do That called the “Process of Change,” discussing counseling techniques and encouragement for treating abusers, he also notes, “It is more common for abusers to stay the same or get worse.”
Psychopathic Personality Disorder
A recent study in Australia “found that about one in five corporate executives are psychopaths – roughly the same rate as among prisoners.”[33] Some estimate there are “three times” the number of corporate board members in these categories than among the general population.
Unfortunately, it is estimated the cost of psychopathy to American taxpayers is approximately “$460 billion a year.”[34]
Psychopathy is “characterized by high levels of aggression in response to frustration,” according to Zeigler-Hill and Vonk in their article, “Dark Personality Features and Emotion Dysregulation.”[35] Ross, Benning, and Adams described those with the disorder as “callous, calculating, manipulative, and deceitful.”[36] Robert Hare suggests, “Psychopaths seem proud of their ability to lie.”[31] Hare also says,
Their lack of remorse or guilt is associated with a remarkable ability to rationalize their behavior, to shrug off personal responsibility for actions that cause family, friends, and others to reel with shock and disappointment. They usually have handy excuses for their behavior, and in some cases, deny that it happened at all.
In addition, Psychopaths have a lack of compassion for others and are unable to show concerns for the needs of others, according to Jonason, Kaufman, Webster, and Geher.[37] Boddy agrees, saying they “have no conscience, few emotions, and an inability to have any feelings or empathy for other people.”[38] Simon adds, “Most researchers and theorists…view psychopaths as individuals devoid of conscience.”[19]
Machiavellianism
According to Chamorro-Premuzic, “Machiavellian individuals are politically savvy and good at networking and managing upwards,” making them, like those with narcissistic and psychopathic traits, often part of upper management of organizations. He suggests they have “superficial charm.” [17]
However, “Individuals who scored high on the Machiavellian scale were found to manipulate more, win more, were persuaded less, and persuaded others more in face-to-face interactions,” according to Jacob Siegel, author of “Machiavellianism, MBA’s and Managers: Leadership Correlates and Socialization Effects.”[39]
Chamorro-Premuzic agrees, stating they are deceitful and “ruthless.”[17] Siegler and Vonk argue Machiavellianistic individuals have little consideration for the emotional impact of their decisions, saying they “do whatever is necessary to achieve one’s goals without a great deal of concern for the emotional consequences of their behaviors.”[39] According to these researchers, this does not mean they are unable to identify the emotional states of others, but “they do not experience emotional discomfort when exposed to the suffering of others,” making them lacking in empathy.
REFERENCES
[1] Ludeman, Kate, and Eddie Erlandson. Alpha Male Syndrome. 1st ed. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2006. 58.
[2] Drexler, Peggy. “The Tyranny of the Queen Bee.” The Wall Street Journal. March 2, 2013, United States edition, sec. C1.
[3] Bonem, Mike, and Roger Patterson. Leading from the Second Chair: Serving Your Church, Fulfilling Your Role, and Realizing Your Dreams. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005.
[4] Lipman-Blumen, Jean. The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians–and How We Can Survive Them. Oxford University Press, 2004.
[5] Enroth, Ronald M. Churches That Abuse. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993.
[6] Allender, Dan B., and Tremper Longman III. Bold Love. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2014.
[7] Kets de Vries, Manfred, and Danny Miller. The Neurotic Organization: Diagnosing and Changing Counterproductive Styles of Management. 1st ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1984.
[8] Greenfield, Guy, and Brooks Faulkner. The Wounded Minister: Healing from and Preventing Personal Attacks. Baker Books, 2001.
[9] Herrington, Jim. The Leader’s Journey: Accepting the Call to Personal and Congregational Transformation. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003.
[10] Chrnalogar, Mary Alice. Twisted Scriptures: Breaking Free from Churches That Abuse. Revised. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010.
[11] Edmondson, Amy C. Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy. 1st ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2012.
[12] Barrett, Frank J. Yes to the Mess: Surprising Leadership Lessons from Jazz. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 2012.
[13] Hay, Rob. “The Toxic Mission Organisation: Fiction or Fact?” Encounters Mission Ezine, no. 2 (October 2004): 8.
[14] Burns, Bob, Tasha D. Chapman, and Donald C. Guthrie. Resilient Ministry: What Pastors Told Us About Surviving and Thriving. IVP Books, 2013.
[15] Oates, Wayne E. Behind the Masks: Personality Disorders in Religious Behavior. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1987.
[18] Schyns, Birgit, and Tiffany Hansbrough, eds. When Leadership Goes Wrong: Destructive Leadership, Mistakes, and Ethical Failures. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2010.
[21] Gary Chapman, Paul E. White, and Harold Myra, Rising Above a Toxic Workplace: Taking Care of Yourself in an Unhealthy Environment (Chicago: Northfield Publishing, 2014).
[25] Astrauskaite, Milda, Roy M. Kern, and Guy Notelaers. “An Individual Psychology Approach to Underlying Factors of Workplace Bullying.” The Journal of Individual Psychology 70, no. 3 (Fall 2014): 220–44.
[26] Namie, Gary. “2014 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey.” Workplace Bullying Institute. Accessed November 1, 2016. http://www.workplacebullying.org.
[27] Ciby, Mariam, and R.P. Raya. “Exploring Victims’ Experiences of Workplace Bullying: A Grounded Theory Approach.” Vikalpa: The Journal of Decision Makers 39, no. 2 (June 2014): 69–81.
[28] Bancroft, Lundy. Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men. Berkley Books, 2002.
[29] Sutton, Robert I. The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t. 1st ed. New York: Business Plus, 2007.
[36] Scott R. Ross, Stephen D. Benning, and Zachary Adams, “Symptoms of Executive Dysfunction Are Endemic to Secondary Psychopathy: An Examination in Criminal Offenders and Noninstitutionalized Young Adults,” Journal of Personality Disorders 21, no. 4 (August 2007).
[37] Peter K. Jonason, Scott Barry Kaufman, Gergory D. Webster, and Glenn Geher. “What Lies Beneath the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen: Varied Relations with the Big Five.” Individual Differences Research 11, no. 2 (June 1, 2013): 81–90.
[39] Siegel, Jacob P. “Machiavellianism, MBA’s and Managers: Leadership Correlates and Socialization Effect.” Academy of Management Journal 16, no. 3 (1973): 404–11.
As my wife and I began to experience a particularly toxic boss, we had little understanding of how someone could be incredibly malicious in one moment and act like our best friend soon after. One moment Betty was yelling at my wife and that evening she was all charm and sweetness. The interplay of kindness and cruelty is a common experience of those who face off with toxic leaders.
These confusing behaviors make it difficult at times to identify abusive individuals. Are they toxic or my best friend? The American Psychiatric Association publication, DSM-IV-TR describes various personality disorders, one of the possible problems a toxic boss may have. The Association maintains that a personality disorder is “an enduring pattern of inner experience that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture.”[1] The literature I have read agrees that a personality disorder is a consistent attitude, not simply a one-time failure to act nicely.[2]
Heartless Evil
Most writers would not use the term, “evil” to describe these people, but Christian psychologist, Dan Allender does. He says, “All of us are capable of doing evil things, but evil people are driven by a self-interest that is so heartless, conscious, and cruel that it delights in stealing from others the lifeblood of their soul.”[3] He goes on to say,
“One awful, abusive event does not make a person evil, but when it represents a repetitive pattern of excessive disregard for others (mockery) and wanton, vicious refusal to look at the damage done (arrogance), then one can ascertain a significant inclination to evil.”[4]
Guy Greenfield and Brooks Faulkner further define evil people, saying, “The central defect of evil persons is not their sin but their refusal to acknowledge it.”[5] The research is clear that these dysfunctional people are deeply unbalanced. As Christians we know the world is fallen. Every person is sinful and will say or do mean things at times. But, Allender and others make it clear those who truly have personality disorders are consistently “driven” by their self-interest.
Whether the toxic leader has a personality disorder, or is better diagnosed as an “abuser,” which is not the same thing according to some psychologists, they are exceptional manipulators and refuse to humbly admit their failures [see this blog].[6]
Though the bosses of each of my study participants had their own characteristic weaknesses and most did not all readily describe their supervisor as “evil,” none of the leaders acknowledged their sins that were destroying relationships with their subordinates. None were described as “self-evaluating” or “humble.” It was a rarity that the leader changed his behavior for any extended length of time after being confronted.
A Layman’s Diagnosis
Psychologists assure us that diagnosing psychological dysfunction is not for the layperson. Alan Goldman warned, true diagnosis usually can only be made by a sufficiently trained individual.[7] However, multiple texts provide useful descriptions of the characteristics found in various toxic personalities. This makes it evident that the layman can at least try to understand the toxic personality of his boss and then be better prepared to interact or disengage with the boss.
Alpha males, queen bees, abusers, bullies, autocrats, narcissists, psychopaths, and Machiavellians are among the many descriptives of toxic leaders found in leadership positions. Some of these are considered “disorders” by the AMA and some are not. However, each creates havoc in the Christian organization. Each is incredibly destructive.
For a more extensive discussion on personality disorders and other such rot, click on this link.
Much of the research agrees; these leaders can be very charming and gregarious. They can be friendly and driven. Machiavellian individuals can sell their vision and convince others quite readily.[8] It is no wonder that they are often leaders of organizations. They can be very impressive individuals.
When I began to interview Eugene, a manager in an international mission organization, I was surprised to hear him describe the CEO as friendly, easy to get along with, visionary, and gregarious. I asked him how a toxic leader could be described this way.
Over the course of the interview, it became apparent Eugene received affable treatment for most of his ten years in relationship with the leader much as we had in our organization. However, other employees did not. In the end, Eugene had the unfortunate experience of tasting of the bitterness others had experienced all along.
It is common that toxic leaders are very specific in their abusive strategies, just as psychologists describe abusers.[9] Were they continually rude, abusive, manipulative, divisive, deceptive, and isolating, it would be rare that they would retain their positions of power.
However, the leaders of my interviewees wielded extraordinary emotional control over their subjects by showing charm and concern for their subordinates, continually creating a fog of confusion, called by some psychologists “gaslighting.”[10] And usually, boards were dazzled by their skills and unwilling to bring help to those under their destructive leadership.
Responsible?
Some interpret the diagnosis of personality disorder as meaning the individual has no responsibility for his actions. He is just wired that way. He can’t help it. However, biblically these badly broken people have just as much responsibility for how they interact with others as anyone else. Though they may be broken by the sin at the fall of man in the garden, or by parental abuse been turned into monsters, they are still broken by the sin for which all men are responsible. They are in need of faith and repentance just as all of us are in need. And, organizations have a responsibility before God to stop them in their destruction.
Notes
[1] American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR, 689.
[8] Siegel, Jacob P. “Machiavellianism, MBA’s and Managers: Leadership Correlates and Socialization Effect.” Academy of Management Journal 16, no. 3 (1973): 405.
[9] Bancroft, Lundy. Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men. Berkley Books, 2002. 68–69.
In my own experience with toxic leaders, it was common to hear 1 Peter 2:18 quoted or paraphrased by those who wished to protect the authority of leaders. I quoted it to myself at various times while suffering under leadership abuse. It is often interpreted as a theological barrier to the accountability of Christian leaders.
Does 1 Peter 2 mean that we blindly submit to church and parachurch leaders though they be described as liars, mean, narcissistic, and other nasty characteristics by their followers?
The apostle Peter begins this section on “submission” to various authorities at the beginning of the chapter. Starting in verse 18, Peter instructs,
“Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.” [1 Peter 2:18]
Upon initial reading, this verse appears to require absolute submission to abusive leaders. I asked participants in my study if and how they applied this passage to their interactions with their toxic supervisor.
Adam, a former employee of a mission school, said, “I used it against myself just to guilt myself into submitting to [the CEO’s] rule.” Adam said he related it to the Matthew 7 passage [“Judge not, that you be not judged”], telling himself “[the CEO] is very human. He is our director” and therefore, Adam should not judge or rebel against him.
Because Adam was in mid-level management, mediating between the CEO and faculty and staff, he would recall this passage as he struggled in his own relationship with the CEO and when he spoke with those with whom he worked. He would say to himself and others, “The Lord puts you under even unjust authorities. And the way you reach those authorities is to be godly and submissive and humble.”
He noted there were major consequences when employees would challenge the CEO. Rather than confronting the boss and facing those consequences, he kept his head down. He said,
“You have to go home and go to bed and get up the next day. And the only way to survive the next day is to rally your head to think, ‘You know this is just the way Christians live or this is just the way life is and you have to accept it.’”
Adam was in a position to counsel other workers who were suffering under the abuse as well. He felt he had an “obligation to mediate and so I would use things like that [1 Peter 2] on them and it was amazing how it worked!” He said others would respond, “Oh, you’re right. He’s just human.” The status quo was a achieved.
Ben, a director of a Christian education program, suggested that there were two “camps” of people at his organization. There were those who “camped out” in the 1 Peter passage, saying, “We’re just here to take it. It doesn’t matter what happens, it’s not our responsibility. We’ll take it. We’ll suffer. He is our master; therefore, we will be subservient to him.” The others were in the Matthew 18 camp, “constantly butting heads. Constantly trying to bring about change.” [for more on Matthew 18, click here]
Under Whose Authority?
So, how did those who “camped out” in 1 Peter 2 seek to submit to authority?
Ben suggested that he and his wife’s “accountability” was “to those who put us there.” The churches and individuals who supported them financially were their “bosses.” Rather than consider the CEO of the mission their “master” (vis-à-vis 1 Peter 2), Ben believed those who paid their salary (donors) were their boss.
For example, Ben recounted a sermon given by the founder that was a “tirade against the students” and spiritually “manipulative.” He sent the recording to several supporters, who were his mentors, for their advice. Ben said they all responded, “Something’s wrong. It’s not you…something’s broken.”
He believed it was to these supporters he was “subservient to in his position.” He finished by saying, “It is a very unique relationship to have. Because, yes, he is my boss. Yes, I answer to him. But my livelihood in no way depended on him.”
Slave or Employee?
I have found significant disagreement among commentators regarding the application of 1 Peter 2:18-25 to these situations. Peter instructs “household servants” to voluntarily submit in action and attitude to their master.[1] But, Alan Stibbs and Matthew Henry disagree on the identification of household servants. Where Henry argues broadly for any modern-day employee fitting the description of a household servant,[2] Stibbs suggests the Greek terminology means a slave, one who is under “absolute ownership and uncontrolled power.”[3]
This distinction is very important to employees of Christian organizations. It can mean the difference between continuing to work for a toxic boss in silence or confronting and possibly leaving the organization, in effect, rejecting their authority. If the passage is speaking broadly to any employee, it is easy to come to the conclusion that the employee is responsible to keep his mouth shut and submit to his each and every command (as long as it isn’t against the Word of God).
Because the passage is speaking in the context of slavery, however it is important to be careful in the application of it to our free-market economy. A slave, by definition, had little choice about their employment. They were not free to come and go as they pleased. Should they stand up to the master, especially a “harsh” one, they could expect a harsh response.
Rather, is it possible the passage is speaking very practically, giving the slave both hope and permission? “Hope” that, by submitting to the boss, the leader will see the slave’s good works, repent, and glorify God in heaven (verse 12 of the same chapter)? And “permission” to protect themselves by keeping their head down, knowing any response on their part is likely to bring harsh consequences from the master?
This is very different from the circumstances of a non-slave employee in a Christian organization. They have the options of confronting a professing Christian leader/brother in their leadership and to leave the organization at will. Bosses of Christian organizations are no more above the accountability of their brothers than the elders in the Ephesian church where Paul suggests they should be confronted “in the presence of all.” [1 Timothy 5:20]
As R.C. Sproul argues, Peter and the apostles refused to obey the dictates of the “senate of the people of Israel” in Acts 5:27-32 when told not to “teach in [Jesus’] name,” so the authority of any man is not absolute over God’s people.[5]
If man’s authority is not absolute [Acts 5:27-32] and Peter was speaking specifically to slaves, it may make more interpretive sense that leaders of free men should be held accountable. Submission to man’s authority is most certainly a biblical ethic, but not absolute, nor intended by God for the oppression of His people as they serve Him in the marketplace.
NOTES
[1]Stibbs, Alan M. The First Epistle General of Peter: An Introduction and Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988. Page 110.
[2]Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. Vol. V. 6 vols. Hendrickson Publishers, 2009.
[3] Stibbs, The First Epistle General of Peter, 114.
The following is the story of a reader who wishes to share the abuse she has faced both as a wife and in a Mission organization.
I’ve encountered spiritual abuse in a few forms since coming to Christ as a 12 year old. We must remember our foe, what it is he’s trying to ruin, and why he hates us. For women and girls, he will often use sexual or domestic abuse to steal, kill, destroy, silence, and disqualify. It seems to me that the suffering endured by those treated thusly is especially savored by the powers of evil. However I believe God’s sovereign will prevails, using it to guide and steer lives.
I will share two such experiences that may illuminate the issue for others. In my case, it was a missions organization and marriage – both holy callings I attempted to answer. My heart was to serve and honor the Lord in both instances, which I attempted to do with my whole heart.
In the Mission Organization
In my late twenties, I took a short term mission trip with an organization, doing a job for which I had specific needed skills and credentials. After the short term trip was over, I was asked to consider long term work with the organization. I was a newly recommitted Christian. I moved to an area where I had family to start the search for a sending church and raise support.
There was a regional director of the organization I was supposed to work with to facilitate this effort. He was a married father of five and a grandfather. At first I was unaware of any wrongdoing but over the course of the following months it became increasingly evident that he was trying to create situations for inappropriate contact. It was also evident to me that this was not his first time at this effort, and that others were aware of his propensity.
He revealed to me he was attracted to young people, and how he was able to identify and groom susceptible young women by manipulating, especially, fatherless women and girls. When I went to Atlanta to undergo the final training for entry into full time missions with this organization, I spoke about it to the leadership and several other people, both male and female. It was hushed up and they said I had “washed out” of the training program. I was told I was disqualified from service that very day.
I was mystified, shocked, confused, but mostly puzzled. That’s the thing I felt most.
I met with the elders of the evangelical church I was attending and accepted an offer to work as an engineer for my current employer. Perhaps God’s sovereignty chose for me the better path? But I did not participate in missions again until Musik-Bruken, an organization with Godly leadership and a high degree of integrity. No sheep devoured in MB!
In the Home
The second experience I had with spiritual abuse was in marriage. Having not come from an abusive home I was blindsided and unaware of what I was experiencing. It started the day he carried me over the threshold. I was committed to being a stay at home wife and mother, with strong convictions about marriage as a permanent union before God.
I was very confused about what I was experiencing, but it was like living in a shrinking small sliver of light. I prayed without ceasing.
I had two babies during that time, but eventually found the strength to leave while remaining faithfully married, and live separately until 8 years later when my husband divorced me. During that time, two different church leaders told me if I would only submit to my husband more, it would get better, and that stranding me (with a small infant), desertion (16 times leaving the state), isolation, disconnecting contact opportunities with the outside world (disconnecting the TV), no Christmas tree or gifts, no birthday presents, extended silence, changing churches every few months were probably my fault.
The book that felt like a lifesaver was “The Verbally and Emotionally Abusive Relationship” by Patricia Evan. I devoured that book. God opened my eyes to what I had been experiencing, affirming that it wasn’t me! I wasn’t a crazy liar or an unfit wife! It gave me strength to confront and change my circumstances for my children and myself.
God faithfully led us out of that dark place of spiritual and emotional atrocities into life and light and prosperity, and gave me a tenfold recompense financially in a single year for what I gave up. My former husband was briefly incarcerated however remains free now with an arsenal of guns and ammunition (our local authorities are aware of it!) and still has partial custody of our children!
I have since remarried, and with God’s grace we are safely navigating the remaining years of shared custody—their father takes them to the church I attend. They’ve been able to grow up in my church (however the lights dim somewhat when he drops them off). We have three more years before both are free from custody.
How do the church and parachurch organizations create toxic work environments? If we know the answer to that question, maybe – just maybe – we can save our witness to a watching world from the pit!
Millard Fuller (Habitat for Humanity), Father Kit Cunningham (Roman Catholic priest in Tanzania), Jimmy Swaggart (Assemblies of God), Mark Driscoll (Mars Hill Church), and many others have given the church a black eye. The abuse of Christian leadership has certainly distorted people’s view of Christianity. The failure of humility among abusive leaders has added to the common belief that Christians think they are “holier than thou,” yet are obviously not.
There are a number of books that delve into this topic with fervor including “Toxic Workplace: Managing Toxic Personalities and Their Systems of Power” and “Transforming Toxic Leaders.” Both books are well researched, but not specifically Christian in perspective. Both books reveal that, “Toxic leaders operate primarily within malleable or hospitable organizational cultures.“[1] In other words, it isn’t just the toxic leader about which we should be concerned, but a workplace culture that is particularly responsive to the abuse of power.
We can focus on ridding our organizations of specific leaders who abuse their power, but if the culture that allowed them, remains the same, there are continued opportunities for a toxic leader to go for the jugular once again.
What are elements of our workplace culture that are conducive to abuse?
Kusy and Holloway (Toxic Workplace) present six “system dynamics” that promote toxicity:
1) The structure changes to accommodate the toxic personality. 2) The organization tolerates the toxicity, provided the individual is productive. 3) The team climate changes when the toxic person is present. 4) The organization’s leaders are unaware of the toxic person’s behavior. 5) Less productive team meetings are tolerated. 6) The organization contributes to the toxic person getting away with counterproductive behaviors.[2]
Common to most of the literature I have read, toxic leaders are allowed to continue spewing poison because their productivity (marketing, organization, etc) is deemed of greater importance than their relational destruction – number 2 above. Common to that same literature is the belief that in the end, toxicity wins and the organization and its witness to Christ loses.
This particular issue 2) is largely responsible for all six “dynamics” listed above if you think about it. 1) Organizations move their toxic leaders somewhere else in the structure so they can keep the leader at work. 3) Despite toxic people always changing the climate – because that is what toxins do – they keep the toxic leader at work. 4) Toxic people know how to be on their good behavior for their superiors, so their bosses fail to see the toxins. 5) Less productive meetings are fine because the leader does so much for the organization! And of course, 6) we can’t possibly get rid of this fine worker!
Interpreting Grace
Sometimes the toxic boss is tolerated because we think grace means allowing the destruction of relationships. We think biblical grace is a get out of jail free card. But, that is not the full biblical meaning of grace. Grace also provides a means of escape from temptation…letting the abuser know their behavior is evil. And when he refuses to respond, put him out. Israel was sent into exile. Other nations were sent up against them. This was also grace. Providing the opportunity to see the damage you are doing and repent.
Nearly every interviewee in my study spoke of showing grace to their leader. And grace was my own theme as I spoke with others in my organization about our toxic leader. Rather than calling them to account for their abusive leadership, we were overlooking their sins that were badly damaging the organization’s witness.
Culture of Authority
Finally, I would like to add that organizations that have a desire for strong leadership (sometimes just nice words for an authoritative leader) provide ample room for abuse. One church sought out a pastor who had strong doctrinal positions. Strong doctrinal convictions are admirable. But, how the pastor applied his convictions without love or humility (1 Corinthians 13) tore the church apart. He had an overwrought sense of authority from on high as the pastor, and beat his congregation to death.
The Phariseeism that Jesus criticized is often driven by strong convictions lacking clear, biblical basis or the humility to recognize it. Laying upon members expectations that are in reality man’s rules – no matter how formed from scripture in principle – creates a culture of authoritarianism ripe for the abuse of leadership. Phariseeism gives leaders permission to control their subordinates, a fundamental element of abuse.[3]
So, What Can Be Done?
That is all the bad news – or least in part. There are things that can be done to provide a toxin-lacking environment where abusive leadership has little opportunity to flourish. Besides the obvious opposites of all the elements listed above, Kusy suggests a number of countermeasures.
He says, “We discovered in our research that organizations that had concrete, behaviorally specific values and adhered to them had few problems with toxicity.“[4] He notes that those specific values can be in written policy or just closely followed in the culture of the organization.
The development of those values and policies that keep leaders (and team members) accountable are forthcoming in future blogs!
NOTES
[1] Goldman, Alan. Transforming Toxic Leaders (Stanford Business Books) (p. 106). Stanford University Press. Kindle Edition.
[2] Kusy, Mitchell. Toxic Workplace!: Managing Toxic Personalities and Their Systems of Power (Kindle Locations 1091-1097). Wiley. Kindle Edition.
[3] See Bancroft, Lundy. Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men. Berkley Books, 2002.
[4] Kusy, Mitchell. Toxic Workplace!: Managing Toxic Personalities and Their Systems of Power (Kindle Locations 1505). Wiley. Kindle Edition.
This is Part 1 of a 2-Part series on Matthew 18. The second – “Stories of Matthew 18 Under a Toxic Boss” – provides real-life examples of those who sought to apply Matthew 18 in their battles with toxic leaders.
Jesus’ words in Matthew 18 were a fundamental struggle for my family when we faced toxic leadership in a mission organization.
Watching as others were run away from the mission for disagreeing with the CEO gave us reason to hesitate to confront him. We had sold our house in the US. We were dependent on the organization to provide housing for our family and school for our children half way around the world. We joined the organization expecting to serve until our retirement. The last thing we wanted to do was jeopardize all of that.
Most the literature I have read takes for granted the applicability of Matthew 18 to all Christian relationships, as most of the Christians whom I have interviewed took for granted its applicability to their interactions with their toxic supervisor in a Christian organization. Some theologians and some who have experienced abusive leadership however, question the use of Matthew 18:15-20 in conflicts with someone of greater authority.
Jesus says in this passage:
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
[Matthew 18:15-18 (ESV)]
There are three steps Jesus encourages when a brother sins against you.
Go one-on-one to confront the brother,
if he doesn’t repent, take one or two more people along to confront him once again,
finally, if he refuses to repent, tell the church.
Though these seem to be pretty straightforward steps to take, there are a number of questions to be asked when that “brother” is toxic in their behavior and is higher in authority in the organization than you are.
When I began studying toxic supervisors in Christian organizations, I expected to find more written about this question from a biblical perspective. Would Jesus apply Matthew 18 to an employee under the authority of a Christian boss? I expected to find that most would believe this passage applies only to two brothers, equal in authority, and under an ecclesiastical [church] disciplinary structure.
One biblical commentator did. France suggested this instruction was intended for professing Christians on “equal footing.” He argued Jesus was giving directions to two professing believers, neither of which had greater authority.[1] In addition, Susan, one of my interviewees, said it did not apply to non-ecclesiastical environments [like a Christian parachurch organization], though she did seek to communicate early in her conflict with the toxic leader in a private, one-on-one manner. Ben, another interviewee, believed he was not responsible to confront his supervisor, the CEO, using these principles.
However, it is more common for commentaries and sermons to gloss over the application of the passage in the context of unequal power structures.
But, a mentor of mine shared a third way – neither ignore the passage in such contexts nor take it for granted in its application to the context. He suggested Matthew 18 be applied in these circumstances, but in a more principled nature. Rather than legalistically demanding its application in the three specific steps outlined by Jesus, the process should consider the threats inherent in one-on-one confrontations with a toxic boss, and proceed to broaden the scope of application to those who have the authority to discipline the non-repentant.
As I have interviewed targets of leadership abuse over the years, this is in fact what I found in their practice of this passage in real life. Though most of the writers and my interviewees believed the process of an employee confronting an erring boss should be modeled on Matthew 18, the steps of going to the toxic boss one-on-one, then taking one or two others along, and then telling it to the church was not a clear or simple process for any of these survivors.
There was no consistency in how my interviewees applied the passage to their given circumstances except in principle.
Step One
In most cases, there were multiple individuals confronting the leader at different times one-on-one.
But, those with whom I have spoken said it was rare the boss responded with a change of behavior to the one-on-one confrontations. Two of my interviewees, John and Arnold, for example, noted their CEOs always justified or explained away their sin, often blame-shifting. They saw this happening both in interactions with him and as others confronted the boss. Two other interviewees, Martha and Eugene, explained their bosses would not respond at all. Frances’ boss cut off all communication with her.
This is to be expected when dealing with those who abuse power.
Mary Alice Chrnalogar has worked with many who have been under the spiritual abuse of churches. In abusive situations she says, “Isolated confrontation of leaders by a layperson is dangerous.”[2]Therefore, Jean-Lipman Blumen helpfully suggests, “Dissenters do better when they have a group standing with them.”[3]
It is my opinion, the first step of confrontation be seen more broadly than the employee personally confronting the boss.
If the supervisor has been confronted by others (for possibly different reasons) and continually shows a lack of repentance, the first step has taken place already.
There is no need to confront an individual who clearly does not have the humility to respond to loving exhortation. It is unnecessary, and unwise, to walk into the lion’s den alone.
Step Two
Sometimes the second step of bringing one or two more along to confront the boss was also unclear.
John said he began immediately with this step when he brought two others with him to confront the CEO on sexual harassment charges. He fully expected the high-profile leader to humble himself, seek forgiveness, and begin the healing process. John said his team had a plan prepared for the leader to get counseling and continue in the ministry. . . a face-saving plan John fully expected to be welcomed by the leader.
However, the leader refused to admit wrong and in the end fired nearly 40 employees who called for his repentance.
Unfortunately, in none of the experiences of those whom I have interviewed has the leader repented of their destructive sin after various kinds of confrontations—one-on-one or in groups.
Step Three
The third step becomes the most complicated for those serving in Christian parachurch organizations.
This has been apparent in my study as in every interviewee’s case, no formal church authority was informed such as the local church to which the leader was a member.
As parachurch and mission organizations, no one ecclesiastical governing body was given authority by the organizations to act as “the church” found in Matthew 18.
Considering this inconsistency in applying the third step of this biblical text to these situations, Arnold suggested the only higher authority he believed he could be accountable to were the stakeholders in his ministry – his donors. Some will consider this route in bringing accountability to their leaders, though most are concerned about gossip. One particular individual contacted several ministry supporting churches with information about the toxic leadership.
Though none brought any formal ecclesiastical charges against the leader, at least one dropped their financial support of the mission agency. This certainly is a form of accountability in keeping with the “third step” of Matthew 18.
Generally, employees of Christian organizations are encouraged to fulfill, in principal, the third step of bringing their complaint before the church by reporting to the board of directors of the ministry.
Few of my interviewees have taken the matter to a higher authority like the ministry’s board of directors. And, as is found in much of the literature, few boards respond to these complaints even if ministry subordinates do bring it to their attention. In one toxic organization, forty missionaries sent a letter to the board asking them to investigate the leader. In response, the CEO encouraged the board to require psychological testing for their missionaries.
The board did not in turn investigate the matter despite the overwhelming number of complaints.
Often boards have been handpicked by the founder or CEO and are “indebted” to him. Their egos are often “stroked” by being part of an important mission or having a nice resume entry. In our case, when the going got tough (as missionaries made clear the toxicity of the organizational leadership to the board), board members resigned rather than seeking to bring accountability to the leader.
There are times when the working conditions get even worse when board members are apprised of the situation because the leader seeks greater control over his employees.
Clearly, the practice of Matthew 18 is not a simple matter in toxic Christian organizations. But, as one interviewee (Living in Liberty Blog) argued, someone must stand up to toxic bosses. How, who, and when takes wisdom and careful consideration of the dangers involved.
[2] Mary Alice Chrnalogar, Twisted Scriptures: Breaking Free from Churches That Abuse, Revised (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 67.
[3] Jean Lipman-Blumen, The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians–and How We Can Survive Them (Oxford University Press, 2004), 149.
