Monthly Archives: March 2018

Abuse Strips People of Their Hope

Posted on by
Reply

The horrible effects of working under toxic employers are legion. Dan Allender, the author of the book, “Bold Love,” says, “Evil…strips people of their hope.”[1] A study found up to 15% of suicides committed in Sweden were “due to isolation and victimization at work.”[2] It is hard to hope in a future when caught in the brokenness of workplace relationships.

The stories told by participants in my research of toxic leadership portray a range of damage wrought by abusive bosses. In my experience, there is emotional, physical, and spiritual damage done by toxic bosses to their subordinates. No one is unscathed by their abuse. And these employees suffer deeply from a lack of hope.

The Wreckage

In a recent email, a victim described the migraines, nightmares, vomiting in staff meetings, depression, insomnia, and decision-making struggles she had while serving under a toxic church pastor. His manipulation, slander, and control had completely debilitated her by the time she resigned.

She has continued to struggle with many of these symptoms despite being under a godly pastor ever since. My own heightened anxiety prior to leaving a Christian mission organization resulted in chest pains and other physical symptoms.

One interviewee, Harris, described the spiritual wreckage from his experience. Having been shattered by a Christian organization, he struggled to regain an appreciation for the Bible, something that had been fundamental to his calling for more than thirty years of service in Christian ministry. He did not want to read his Bible during his usual morning devotional time for several months.

A recent note from another acquaintance, who had served under a toxic pastor, said,

“I was in serious denial, believing the best about [my boss], and actually holding out hope that he would be a significant mentor in my life. [He] caused all sorts of spiritual wreckage. [I] kept feeling completely inadequate and spiritually dismissed.”

My participants described all sorts of traumatic responses:

  • Adam was emotionally depressed.
  • Eugene lost his voice.
  • Ben got hives.
  • Harris described going through the stages of grief.
  • Frances lost direction.
  • Isaac felt betrayed.
  • And Eugene and Harris shared the financial strain it placed on their families following their termination.

Isolation

One particularly devastating result of workplace abuse is isolation. Where God has created man in and for community, isolation is a common result and method of control by evil leaders.

Isolation can be created, in part, by the intentional actions of the abuser or by the natural result of the victim standing up to the leader while others do not. Hare says psychopaths are effective at convincing others “it is they [the leaders] who are suffering and the victims are to blame for their misery,” thereby gaining followers and isolating the victim.[3]

During our final two months with a toxic organization, the CEO lied that others in the organization did not agree with our position. He was seeking to isolate us from our coworkers. This may be one of the reasons that a large percentage (38%) of co-workers do nothing to help the target of bullying in the workplace.[4] We fear isolation and will rarely stand against or for anything that may cause estrangement from our fellow man.

When there is no one to speak truth into their lives, abuse victims often believe they are all alone in their struggle. They believe there is no future for them but to “suck it up” and live with the pain.

The emotional trauma – a reordering of brain activity – will continue to increase and cause more and more dysfunction in future relationships if their backs are not stiffened by coworkers or leaders.

My family was fortunate in that we shared in our struggle with many current and former missionaries who understood the battle we were in. Standing together minimized the traumatic damage done by the leaders of our organization.

Believe Them

Recent sexual abuse and harassment reports in the United States have brought to the public purview the problems associated with abuse. It is extraordinary the number of women who are coming forward to tell their stories. However, there are those who continue to believe the cause of these whistleblowers is somehow deficient due to their delayed public testimonies. This situation is all too common for those who have faced any form of abuse, whether domestic or in the marketplace.

Whistleblowers rarely take a stand until they feel at least somewhat safe to out their oppressors.

With our “innocent until proven guilty” mindset, which is certainly a good and biblical judicial premise, we are hesitant to believe the evil of others. We want incontrovertible physical evidence of wrong-doing. Unfortunately, it is rare that there is such evidence, particularly after many years of dormancy. It is easy for those uninitiated to abuse to think the publicity given to these women is somehow desirable.

However, in the case of abuse, it is very rare that the whistleblower has the motive of “gold-digging.” The emotional stress created by others’ distrust in the whistleblower’s story creates an environment unlikely to give blossom to justice. Rachael Denhollander’s story of sexual abuse at the hands of Dr. Larry Nassar, the convicted Olympic and Michigan State University gymnastics physician, should be a lesson to the church. [Article]

If you understand both the traumatic effects of abuse and deep struggle victims have with sharing what is often seen as shameful to them, you will believe those who are suffering or have suffered under predators. Listen to their stories and consider their claims without prejudice. Welcome their sharing.

Remember that whistleblowing almost always means humiliation and shame, though you, as an outsider, may not understand why.

Call It What It Is

After hearing these stories, the use of the term, “oppressive” to describe a toxic boss may be too polite. The lying, manipulating, deceiving, demeaning, and controlling behavior of supervisors who practice toxic leadership has long-term emotional, physical, and spiritual effects on their subordinates. The church must not allow survivors to be isolated or forgotten.

NOTES

[1] Allender and Longman, Bold Love, 241.

[2] Astrauskaite, Kern, and Notelaers, “An Individual Psychology Approach to Underlying Factors of Workplace Bullying,” 223.

[3] “This Charming Psychopath,” under “A Survival Guide.”

[4] Namie, “2014 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey.”

The Failure of Boards and Preempting Toxic Strikes

Posted on by
4
https://spotifycreators-web.app.link/e/pwfdZj7wBRb

Let’s say a group of 40 current and former missionaries sent a letter to you as a member of the Board of Directors for a Christian organization. In that letter, the missionaries complained that the leadership of the organization treated employees and nationals harshly and lacked integrity and accountability.  Not only did these particular missionaries complain, but there had been a history of complaints against the founders and directors of the mission.

What would you do?

In our mission organization, nothing.

Though the board was asked to contact those who had signed the letter for their own personal stories of abuse, the board contacted only one individual and asked him to meet with the board and the leadership. Together, in one, happy room. He respectfully declined.

Board Accountability

The extent of board dysfunction and lack of accountability is shocking. Boards of organizations are normally given authority and responsibility for keeping their CEOs and chairmen accountable. Yet, among the Christian organization employees who were under abusive leadership with whom I have spoken, only one board did something about the toxic leader.

Other boards with oversight of the participants in my study either did little or took steps to remove the leader when it was long overdue. By then, many subordinates were already deeply injured and traumatized. One interviewee, Eugene, said his board took more than two years to remove the CEO. Graham’s took approximately ten years. One of the toxic leaders, a board chairman, has not been removed from his board and one toxic chairman continues in his position.

Following my resignation from a Christian mission organization, one stakeholder told me the organization did more harm than good. Yet, when confronted by an employee, one of the directors under the toxic CEO suggested the leadership had done so much good, they should not be challenged.

What clouds the vision of boards or others in authority such that they refuse their responsibility to remove leaders who create so much damage?

What stops them from taking a stand against, what many victims would call, oppression? There are a number of reasons I have found in my research.

Unity

One reason for the failure of boards to practice good oversight indicated by my research is members are often hand-picked by the leaders, particularly if those leaders are the founders of the organization. Having worked on choosing board members for my own organization, I would suggest the pull to find board members who understand, agree with, and buy into the vision of the organization is strong. Leaders want unity. Sometimes at any cost.

However, when the prospective board member’s agreement on all issues is expected by the founder or leader, there is likely to be trouble. For growth and effective ministry, a board of directors should not be expected to agree with the founder on all issues and should have the freedom to challenge ideas they consider unhelpful to ministry. And they should truly have a say in implementing their decisions.

I would suggest that prospective board members should be chosen that buy into the vision, but are those who can graciously challenge ideas.

Loyalty

Board members may feel beholden to the leader for their position.[1] Sometimes, the leader is a member of the board and, as Mulvey and Padilla suggest, it is more difficult for the board to remove one of their own.[2]

In my experience with toxic leadership, three of the eight board members in my organization were the founders of the ministry. Those board members who disagreed with how the organization was being directed resigned from the board rather than go to battle with old friends. Jean Lipman-Blumen quite accurately described these kinds of boards, saying they have a “clubby composition.”[3]

A truly active board and the humility of the director can do much to encourage honest disagreement. Active in that the board makes decisions for the direction of the ministry…they are not spoon-fed decisions already made by the director. But, for this to be practiced, the director must, in humility, give over power and control, something most who abuse their power have little interest in doing.

Greater Good

The question is often asked: Is the leader doing more for the greater good than harm?

As noted in research and our own experience, abusive leaders are often very talented and gifted at manipulation. Those, the leader needs to impress, like the board, are usually impressed. Boards often do not listen to the subordinates because they have seen many good things come from the leader’s bag of tricks.

To answer the above question, they will often say, “Absolutely! Look at the many programs he has developed and the wonderful fundraising.”

But, there is a stream of employees leaving the organization and instead of listening to the voices of those leaving, they are falling back on a belief there is greater good. Effective and safe exit interviews are very helpful in battling board biases.

Safe Boards [Not]

Boards are often not a safe place to seek relief in toxic organizations. When a board member traveled to visit the organization with which I worked, a friend of mine sought the board member out to explain the dysfunction of the leadership. After listening to the employee’s story, he went directly to the leader and recommended the employee be fired.

One of my interviewees, Eugene sent a document outlining a plan for the CEO to use his gifts more effectively and rely on his subordinates for areas in which he was not gifted. The CEO sent Eugene’s letter on to the board chairman who recommended Eugene’s firing.

Oftentimes, boards are not safe places for employees to seek help. And in this world of sin, there will always be difficulties. There will never be the perfect board of directors. But, there are ways of preempting toxic strikes by leaders and the board can do much in building an organization that does not allow toxic leadership.

Notes:

[1] Chapman, White, and Myra, Rising Above a Toxic Workplace, 111.

[2] Schyns and Hansbrough, When Leadership Goes Wrong, 59.

[3] Lipman-Blumen, The Allure of Toxic Leaders, 174, Kindle.

Sinking a Christian Organization: Normal Leadership Failures

Posted on by
2

There once was a frog swimming happily in a river. He heard a voice call out from the riverbank. As he came closer he saw it was a scorpion. The scorpion asked the frog for a ride across the river.

The frog, knowing scorpions, refused saying, “Scorpions sting. How do I know you won’t kill me?” But, the scorpion calmly suggested, “Why would I do that? If I kill you, I will also die as I cannot swim.”

The frog, seeing the logic in the scorpions argument, allowed the scorpion to climb on him and began to cross the river. However, when he had gone nearly halfway, he felt a sting on his back. Turning he saw the scorpion removing his stinger.

The frog croaked, “You fool! Now we will both die. Why did you do such a thing?”

The scorpion admitted, “I couldn’t help myself. It’s my character.”

We normally understand Character to be deeply engrained. Sometimes even thinking there is no way to free ourselves (or others) from character traits that are destructive. However, the grace of God is able to transform our hearts and actions to be a sweet aroma rather than awful stench.

Manfred Kets de Vries

One of the finest research consultants in the psychology of business management is a Frenchman named Manfred Kets de Vries. He told the frog and scorpion story in his book, Leader on the Couch. He has written more than forty books and directs one of the largest leadership development centers in the world. My early introduction to his research was in the area of abusive leadership of which he has written much.

However, Kets de Vries has worked hard to speak to “normal” problems of leadership as well. In this blog, I want to share some of his research as it speaks to our own failings as leaders. Though we may not be compulsively abusive and manipulative in our leadership, we can be very ineffective due to a variety of character traits.

Though our characters may be deeply ingrained, those who desire to serve the Lord in a leadership capacity need the humility to see their failings and seek His character changing work.

With multiple degrees and experience in psychology and business, Kets de Vries describes several toxic leadership styles in Leader on the Couch. Though he discusses at length narcissistic and anti-social leaders – unfortunately common toxins among leaders – he names several less psychotic leadership destroyers.

Go Along and Get Along:

  • The Dramatist

The dramatist is “constantly in search of support, reassurance, and protection” according to Kets de Vries [pages 60-61]. They are a fragile lot and very effected by criticism or disapproval. And they tend to be insincere. Wouldn’t you be if you wanted the approval and assurance of others?

He says they are likable and charming and so other people want to initially work with them. However, their lack of competence and attention span make them underachievers.

  • The Dependent

Just as the name implies, the Dependent feels “helpless, inadequate, powerless, and ineffectual.” They function best when supported by others and have issues with anxiety. They are the downers of the organization [page 71].

They do not initiate projects and are happier having others take the lead. They will not give their opinions as they feel the need to please everyone.

  • The Self-Defeater

The inferior Self-Defeater happily accepts the blame for that which they are not responsible. They are “drawn to relationships where they’re subject to humiliation, suffering, and distress.”

They might be good followers because they are usually honest, ethical, and have a sense of humility. But, they are attracted at times to mean bosses. And they will often fail to finish tasks though they have the ability.

  • The Depressant

The Depressant is just like he sounds: depressed. Kets de Vries says, “They see themselves as inconsequential at best and anywhere from reproachable to contemptible at worst. Believing that they deserve to be criticized and derogated, they indulge in acts of self-denial, self-punishment, and self-torment.” [p. 95]

The Depressant does not make much of a leader as they “overestimate their difficulties and underestimate their capabilities.” They need constant assurance that they are okay. And, they can be very critical of their subordinates and fail to motivate them to use their gifts and abilities.

  • The Imposter

Some types of Imposters believe they are “sailing under false colors.” They may be very successful leaders, but they feel as though they are frauds.

Kets de Vries tells the story of a senior executive who was admitted as a young man into an Ivy League school – he believed it to be a “lucky break” and a result of an error by admissions. Over time he excelled and reach the level of CEO of a major corporation. However, he overwhelmed with questions of his ability to truly lead the company.

Despite having turned around a global arm of the company and extraordinary capabilities, he spent many sleepless nights questioning every decision he made. He was “haunted by nightmares” and developed an alcohol problem.

Not So Get Along:

  • The Controller

The Controller is “rigid, inflexible, and lacking in spontaneity.” Their judgmentalism and joylessness make them a bore to work with. They generally are good at being in submission to authority, though have a rebellious streak, but they are autocratic and condemning to subordinates.

Therefore, the Controllers will often continue in their positions of authority unhindered by their own bosses. Their boss cannot believe what the subordinates say about the Controller because he or she is always quite respectful to him. The Controller has them hoodwinked.

Unlike the Dramatist, Self-Defeater, or possibly Dependent, who are very sensitive to their failings, the Controller is not likely to respond to confrontation.

  • The Detached

There are actually two types of Detached personalities: The Avoidant and the Schizoid. Both have great difficulty relating to other people. The Schizoid appears to be completely uninterested in developing personal relationships whereas the Avoidant, though desiring relationship, actively seeks detachment due to self-protection. “They are painfully alert to the minutest signals of rejection from others, interpreting even the most neutral events as evidence of disdain or ridicule.” [p. 86]

Kets de Vries says they normally stick to low-visibility positions in an organization. Detached employees are unable to build networks, something necessary to develop the gifts and reach of the organization.

  • The Abrasive

Heinrich Himmler, the head of the Nazi SS, is used as a classic example of an Abrasive leader. He once said, “The best political weapon is the weapon of terror. Cruelty commands respect. Men may hate us. But we don’t ask for their love: only for their fear.” [p. 103]

The once CEO of the Sunbeam corporation, Al Dunlap, believed employees were expendable and the only goal of the corporation was making money for the shareholder. He oversaw massive layoffs and the firing of workers who had been with the company many years because they just were not not worth what he thought they should be.

Condescending, belligerent, and disrespectful are good descriptions of the Abrasive. They are authoritarian, harsh, cruel, and vindictive.

  • The Paranoid

Forrest Mars, the son of Mars founder, Frank, was paranoid. When he founded a separate company called Ethel M. Chocolates, he had two-way mirrors in his office so he could watch his employees carefully.

Paranoids are suspicious and distrust other people to such an extent they are consumed by it. They are very touchy and apprehensive, “magnifying even minor slights into major offenses.” [page 111]

According to Kets de Vries, the Paranoid pays “insufficient attention to the bigger picture, seeing hidden meanings and secret coalitions everywhere.” [page 117]

This is Us

Each of these types of leaders could be me. Our fears, desire to control the swirl of events that surround us, or void of relational capabilities can run our ministry into the ground.

But, nearly all of these are fixable problems. It takes humility and self-awareness to see microbes of these toxins running through our veins. This may come through the loving, or not so loving, critique of a coworker, subordinate or boss. If we can hear those voices we can seek the aid of God’s Holy Spirit and even possibly the counsel of those who know our psychosis, to become the leaders God desires his people to be.

 

Kets de Vries, Manfred F. R.. The Leader on the Couch: A Clinical Approach to Changing People and Organizations. Wiley.

Lions, Tigers, and Bears: Stories of Confronting Toxic Leaders

Posted on by
Reply

Graham, one of my interviewees when researching toxic organizational leadership, expressed dismay at his “naiveté” in believing there would be “healing and reconciliation” when he was involved in a confrontation with his CEO. His organization had been founded and built into an international mercy ministry by the CEO.

Having carefully planned a humble approach with the aid of two other high-profile, well-respected Christian leaders, he believed the confrontation of the CEO for multiple sexual harassment charges would be received in humility. He expected in the end the confrontation team “would hug and get it done!” Graham’s experience ended up in the loss of his job and he was “blackballed” by the CEO as he sought a new position.

Harris & Putting the Fun Back in Dysfunction

Harris told the board of a large Christian organization when interviewing for the CEO position, “I bet the most important relationship in any non-profit organization is the relationship between the CEO and the board chairman. They either push each other to a higher level and bring the organization with it, or they can drag the whole organization down into the swamp.”

He said he had no idea how badly it was going to go between he and the chairman. Harris was told repeatedly, prior to joining the organization, their board was dysfunctional. During the interview process, a charming member of the board said, “You probably heard that we have a dysfunctional board?” He told the board, “Yes, actually I have heard that, but I like to put the fun back in dysfunction.” Unfortunately, despite his extraordinary success in two other major, international mission organizations, the fun was not put back in the dysfunction.

The ideas Harris put to his vision to bring the organization out of its humdrum existence were viewed as an affront to the board chairman. Because Harris’ ideas did not come from him, he would not accept them and went on the offensive to destroy Harris’ ministry.

Isaac & the Cycler

Isaac experienced aggressive toxicity in the final months of his ministry with an educational mission he served. Isaac said he had several meetings with the CEO and the meetings went through a “cycle…of flattery and guilt and threatening…He would flatter us – tell us how great we were – then talk about our obligation. Then he would talk about our supporters – what would they think – then [finish] with threats.”

When Isaac resigned, he continued to work part-time for the mission, seeking to help the organization while they sought a replacement. Because Isaac was beginning work with another organization, the CEO sent a letter to the immigration authorities at the airport asking them to stop Isaac and his family’s entry to the country on their return from a short trip to the United States. Though unsure the letter would have had any impact on their travel plans, Isaac explained they missed a connecting flight and flew into the country through another city, thereby circumventing the immigration at the local airport unintentionally.

Adam & the Wives

Adam, a missionary in the developing world, recounted an experience when his wife had purchased plane tickets for their trip home for furlough and the CEO’s wife “demanded that she change the flight.” Adam’s wife responded, “I’m sorry, I can’t.” Adam said, “That was the moment they realized we weren’t always going to say yes.” The CEO and his wife’s treatment of Adam and his family changed after that. He observed that future conflict “had to travel through my wife.” He said, “She took the brunt of all these incidences and I believe that they knew we were peace loving people…but, I really believed they used that against us, because they knew…like a bully they can get away with it.”

Eugene & His “Friend”

Though Eugene “felt like quitting,” he said, “If I accepted the position of Senior Vice President, I was responsible to the organization as well as responsible to my friend, [the CEO].” He added, “The organization has to be one of the leading international missions, and I just felt like, [the CEO] is bringing this mission down.”

Though he had heard of the CEO’s failure to interact well with those under his authority, he believed, as a friend there could be a positive outcome to his confrontation. He was willing to take the risk of confronting the CEO with the hope there would be a positive outcome. Within days of his confrontation of the CEO, Eugene was told to give over his laptop, credit card, and cell phone immediately. He said, “That was a huge slap in the face.” He said, “I couldn’t believe he could be that cold-hearted.”

Root Canals

Each of the participants in my study had been involved in confrontations with their bosses. All but one were fired or felt it was necessary to resign because of the negative impact the leader had on their families. Only one outlasted her boss.

I asked each what effects there were to them and their families. They each described emotional, physical, and spiritual effects they experienced. Harris summed up the common results of the participants’ experiences when he said, “I don’t like to use inflated language, but some of these things really do have catastrophic consequences for an individual and their family.” Like having a root canal without the tooth being fixed.

Effects on Others

Eugene spoke of the impact his forced resignation had on those who depended on him. He said,

Here are 250 missionaries you have been basically counseling for seven years, intimately involved with their lives…for some of them, I was the one key person on the way to some future they were looking toward. And, all of a sudden, that all disappeared. That was very hard. Basically, we had to trust the Lord knew what He was doing and that he would take care of those people too because it wasn’t our responsibility any more.

After Eugene’s firing, the organization was unable to fill his position because, “Nobody wanted the job. They figured, ‘If Eugene is his best friend and can get fired, I don’t want that.’”

Physical and Emotional Effects

Though Adam and his family resigned from the organization in 2012, he said, “The consequences are still unfolding for our family.” When he first resigned he “felt exhilarated, liberated.” While they finished out their term, Adam said he “enjoyed [the country] in a way that I had not up to that point.”

He remembers watching his “family cry all the way to the airport,” knowing he had made the right decision but it was very difficult. Graham added that he and a few of his closest colleagues who were fired suffered “various levels of depression” over the years since.

One church employee, Susan, described her migraines and depression. Adam says he was “emotionally depressed for at least two years after” leaving. He said he was “physically irresponsible which goes with depression; Eat all I can. Drink all I can. Sleep all I can. Stay inside all I can.”

Considering his own difficulties following his firing, Eugene also suffered physically. He explained, “I had a really hard time getting over it. Physically, I got sick…I lost my voice. I couldn’t get a job.” He lost his insurance and so was unable to work with a speech therapist. Casandra pointed out that Ben had hives for a long time after leaving, adding, “Lots of wounds of internal stress from it all.”

Many people have expressed concern and encouragement, but Harris related the analogy,

“You can tell a beautiful woman how beautiful and wonderful she is, but if she feels trashed as a child, she’s like, ‘I don’t care what accomplishments I may have had.’ I was told to get out and stay out and my life has been hard ever since.’”

At this point, Harris does not see an end in sight. He likens the experience to losing a child, “Because something like this was wrongly taken from you…you get past it, you get through it, but I don’t think you get over it.”

Where Now Brown Cow

As a leader of a major Christian organization, Harris had many speaking engagements that were cancelled. He said, “There is a sense in which I don’t have any value. I’m not part of the community. I’m a commodity and the value of this commodity just dropped to zero and I’ve been spit out.”

He said, “There’s a sense of shock, denial,” referring to the stages of grief. Harris does not “feel the passion for world evangelization” he did once and for which he worked so hard. He said, “I have people who want me to mentor them and I have nothing to say. I’m rung out.”

Frances recalls “feeling a bit lost as to what was next.” As she went on unemployment following her firing, “There was a sense of hurt as I’ve tried to ponder it at different times.”

The Buck Just Stops

Eugene was on unemployment for eight months, though all the while seeking a job. Though Frances has an exceptional background and experiences in missions and leadership, getting another job took several months and the new job involved separation from her family for long stretches of time.

She was in her late 50s and she said, “Most organizations are not going to hire someone at that stage of life.” Frances noted the “financial fallout was pretty serious” with a “reduction in income [that] was pretty severe.”

Harris, despite receiving a larger salary than he and his family either needed or wanted, was financially worse off than when he joined the organization. He explained that he “had to hire a lawyer to get out” and spent a great deal of money and received no severance. He said he ended up with credit card debt and bills he could not pay. He went on, “I’ve never ever had financial trouble in my life…I always had good jobs.” Several years later, he is still without a full-time position.

Parting Shots

When Ben and Casandra returned to the United States, they “were very fragile for a time.” They had “hot and cold responses from different churches [that supported them] in terms of understanding and encouragement.” Ben said, “Some churches very coldly listened to what we had to say; ‘Well thank you for your service. God bless you as you go.’”

The effects from the battles with toxic leaders are heart-breaking. Few people understand until they have experienced it and even then, the church is so often more concerned with caring for the toxic one, they fail to care for the downtrodden.

Each of the stories shared above caused real-life trauma for the victims. They suffer many of the symptoms of trauma that have long-lasting effects.

May the God of all comfort, care for and uphold the targets of toxic leadership.