Monthly Archives: June 2018

Experiencing 1st Peter 2 Under a Toxic Boss

Posted on by
1

This is part 3 of a series of articles describing the experiences of Christian organization employees working under abusive bosses. These articles are the fruit of interviews with employees (most of whom were top-level managers) who sought diligently to respond to their foul bosses in biblical and thoughtful ways. This article describes their application of 1 Peter 2. For an analysis of 1 Peter 2 in the context of employment, please see my earlier blog: Submission to Harsh Bosses.

The apostle Peter begins a section on “submission” to various authorities in the second chapter of his first epistle. 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]

When I have interviewed numerous employees – some top-level managers – of Christian organizations, I asked if and how they applied this passage to their interactions with their toxic supervisor. Not surprisingly, most had considered the principals involved and struggled significantly with their application.

Guilt

Adam, who acted as an interim Director of a major mission college, said, “I used it against myself just to guilt myself into submitting to his rule.” He said he related it to the Matthew 7 passage, 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 the faculty and staff, he would recall this passage as he struggled in his own relationship with the CEO and when he spoke with those under his authority. 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.”

However, he went on to say he was not sure it created a genuine repentance on his part “as much as a control to keep things normal so there wouldn’t be any real disruptions.” He noted there were “big consequences when you” challenged the CEO.

He did not want to rock the boat and being the peacemaker provided some stability. Adam 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 explained, sarcastically, “I felt I had an obligation to mediate and so I would use things like that on them and it was amazing how it worked!” He said others would respond, “Oh, you’re right. He’s just human.”

Who’s the Boss

Ben, who served as a chaplain and graduate program director for a mission university, suggested that there were two camps of people at his educational mission 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.”

Ben said he considered the 1st Peter passage the most of several passages I asked him about. He said he “went back to it again and again and again. Sometimes looking for a loophole.”

He argued his position with the organization was “voluntary” and received no funding from the organization. He suggested their accountability was “to those who put us there.” The churches and individuals who supported them financially were his “bosses.”

Ben recounted a sermon given in the organization chapel 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 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.”

Who’s the Target

Rather than applying the verse to himself, Graham, the manager of a international relief organization suggested, “I would say that it was more used against us.” Others said to him, ‘Who were we to be going up against God’s chosen?’” [see blog] He said, “That was thrown at me a lot.”

This is a common argument I have heard when abuse is involved. Instead of calling the sinning brother to account, he receives special treatment and the target of his abuse is called to account for being hurt.

Graham explained how supporters and “leaders of projects from around the country” believed the organization’s founder totally, rather than believing the story of nearly two dozen witnesses to his sexual abuse. He went on to say,

The facts really didn’t matter at all. Anybody you talked to had a way of dismissing those facts whether it was based on [the founder’s] description of the women – one woman was simply too ugly to harass – or you know, those kinds of things. People would say, “I’ve talked to [the founder] about these women, and this is what he said, and that’s the fact and so you need to be under submission.”

Frances, who oversaw a missionary training organization, also experienced this betrayal. She said, “Being submissive to the board was one argument that was brought against me by the [board chairman].” However, she noted the board chairman “had become his own board and was operating against any awareness of the rest of the board.”

Frances believed her “judgment about what was best for the organization” and the lack of accountability the chairman had to the board structure trumped the view that she must submit without confronting the dysfunction of the chairman.

Conclusion

The discomfort my interviewees had with applying the 1st Peter passage in their situations was in part due to their understanding that the whole of scripture must be considered when interpreting one passage.

Leaders are accountable. They do not have absolute power.

As noted in my earlier blog on the theological treatment of the passage, Peter is speaking to slaves. Though it most certainly has application to modern American employment structures, there are fundamental limitations to application of Peter’s teaching to those authority structures.

We run into trouble when we make too broad an application of the passage to abusive leaders.

[1]1 Peter 2:18

Experiencing Psalm 55 Under a Toxic Boss

Posted on by
1
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/kelly-dehnert/episodes/Experiencing-Psalm-55-Under-a-Toxic-Boss-e2bjjmh

This is part 2 of a series of articles describing the experiences of Christian organization employees working under abusive bosses. These articles are the fruit of interviews with employees who sought diligently to respond to their foul bosses in biblical and thoughtful ways. This article describes their application of Psalm 55 – a prayer for the destruction of the wicked. For an analysis of Psalm 55 in the context of employment, please see two of my earlier blogs: Imprecatory Praying & Hatred.

King David wrote Psalm 55, an imprecatory psalm, praying for mercy as he suffered the “oppression of the wicked.” He says, “They drop trouble upon me, and in anger they bear a grudge against me.”

In the middle of the psalm, David explains the enemy he has been describing is “my companion, my familiar friend.” David cries for God’s judgment saying, “Let death steal over them; let them go down to Sheol alive; for evil is in their dwelling place and in their heart.”[1]

My interviewees were asked if this psalm, or the principles contained in the psalm, were considered applicable to their experience. Most the participants expressed discomfort with praying in the way David prayed – for the destruction of the oppressor.

However, they each shared the pain of working with, what they thought was, a brotherhood only to find betrayal.

A Friend

Adam, an educational mission director said, “I thought we were colleagues, respected professionals, fellow missionaries and Christians.” Adam had worked with the founders of the mission for several years and took holidays and meals with them. He enjoyed “the ear” of the CEO / Founder and he seemed to be a trusted friend.

Graham, a mission manager said, “We really, really thought we were a Christian family, and that God’s will would be made crystal clear that [the founder] would seek the help that was available, he would be restored, and life would go on just lovely.” Graham had a great deal of respect for the founder and believed they were all on the same page as a mission.

Isaac, a director of a mission graduate school program added, “You think you have family, you think you have brothers, and then its ‘whoop,’ what just happened?” Isaac worked for two toxic leaders in two different organizations and in each case seemed to be welcomed into the family of ministry.

Isaac’s orphan ministry founder and CEO was very welcoming and encouraging in what Isaac’s family sought to do while with the mission. The CEO told them to “continue to do all the ministry you feel like God is calling you to…just help keep an eye on the kids and help do things.” Isaac and his family developed the publicity for the mission and worked on medical, agricultural, and educational programs for the children. He said, “It was good for our family. We had grand plans…just being there.”

Over time, the founder expected more and more of them and made them feel guilty for living there. A local villager shared Psalm 55 with Isaac after they were asked to leave the ministry. He said, “It really hit home.” He said,

In the ministry, you kind of feel like you have a common goal or vision or end goal. You are brothers and family and you also, I guess automatically expect some of the fruit of the spirit, some of the qualities of Christ in some of the people in the workplace, because some of your expectation is that you are in a relational setting. You are in a friendly, family setting, that maybe there is a common thread that binds you and goes beyond what you have to deal with…there’s a level of trust and faith in one another, then you realize it’s not there.

Eugene considered himself a friend of the CEO. He said, “We were close enough, I had never done anything to provoke him. We’d known each other for ten years.” When he was fired, he said, “It was really hard emotionally, because of the friendship.” As he noted, he had worked with the CEO prior to joining the mission and believed he also, like Adam, had the ear of the CEO.

Though Frances’ relationship with the board chairman was not considered very close, it was “collegial.” She was hired as the CEO by a missionary leadership training organization. She worked for four years before being strangely cut off from the board and fired. 

Frances came the closest to praying David’s prayer. She was “asking for the Lord to bring judgment and thwart the purposes of this person.” Frances said there were others as well, when they “learned about the situation,” who were praying, seeking resolution to the toxicity of the leadership.

Going to Bat

When there is relationship that is perceived as familial, there often is a willingness to go to bat for the leader…even when their sins are egregious and deeply destructive to relationships within the organization.

As Adam worked under the CEO, he believed he “could be used by [the CEO] to make the campus healthy.” Several students and other missionaries came to Adam for advice as they suffered at the hands of the CEO. Adam believed he had developed a friendship with the CEO and could see him “in a different way,” making it possible for him to call “people down from pure hate or misunderstandings.”

However, in the end, Adam believed he “was playing for the wrong team and didn’t know it.” He realized he had simply been making excuses for the toxicity and prolonging the suffering of others (and himself). He felt that he had been duped by the toxic leader.

Graham said the team that confronted the founder on sexual harassment and abuse charges “worked really hard to not think in terms of adversary and enemy.” Even while in meetings with a Christian reconciliation team, he “didn’t allow [himself] and those who were part of [the team] to think of him as an adversary or an enemy.” They were hoping for a response from the founder like “David’s contrite psalm…’Oh my goodness, against Thee and Thee only have I sinned and I am going to do whatever I can to have a clean and contrite heart.’”

Unfortunately, according to Graham, “That never happened.” Graham does not regret the attempts they made at seeking the leader’s repentance, but in the end the CEO continued in his sin for ten more years with the organization before finally being fired.

Our family had enjoyed vacations, dinners, and a seemingly respectful relationship with our leaders. I was given leeway to develop a degree program in the mission college we served. I had the sense that, since the leaders (CEO and founders) knew little of my area of expertise, they would trust me and others involved with the task of developing the degree.

However, as was often the experience of those in “middle management,” the narcissistic tendencies of the CEO got in the way of truth telling and seeking the good of the students. Rather than working like a family, we were treated as expendable and with suspicion.

We had a number of other missionaries share their stories of frustration with us. We would go to bat for the leader, suggesting the missionary give grace as God had given them grace. We suggested it was the founder’s mission to do with as they pleased. “Keep your head down and do ministry.” We, like Adam, felt duped in the end by our manipulative and authoritarian leaders.

Brotherhood

It is often suggested by those with whom I speak about toxic leadership in Christian organizations that the hurt is greater in these organizations due to the expectations of familial relationships in ministry. There is an expectation that our brotherhood in the grace of God will limit the hierarchical structure of these organizations and make it possible to pursue the same basic goals with joy in that brotherhood.

We expect grace from others as we give grace.

We go to bat and expect some loyalty in return.

However, it is to this very thing that David speaks in Psalm 55. The pain is unimaginable for these ministers of the Gospel as they face off with leaders who seek to take advantage of their sheep for their own ends rather than work together for the Kingdom of Christ.

Where Scripture defines us as brothers and sisters in Christ, the reality can at times be very different.

[1]Psalm 55:15.

Stories of Matthew 18 Under a Toxic Boss

Posted on by
5

This is part 2 of a series of articles describing the experiences of Christian organization employees working under abusive bosses. These articles are the fruit of interviews with employees who sought diligently to respond to their foul bosses in biblical and thoughtful ways. This article describes their application of Matthew 18 – the confrontation of a sinning brother – to their unpleasant circumstances. For an analysis of Matthew 18 in the context of employment, please see my earlier blog.

In Matthew 18:15-20 Jesus outlines the process for confronting a brother who has sinned against you.[1] The passage goes through three steps of confrontation: 1) Go to the brother one-on-one. If he does not respond in repentance, 2) take one or two other witnesses along to confront him. Again, if he does not respond to the grace of confrontation, 3) take it to the church. If after these steps he does not respond in repentance, the church is to treat him as an unbeliever – he is clearly not interested in what Jesus calls him to be.

As I research toxic leadership in Christian organizations, this passage can create much unnecessary angst as missionaries and employees misapply it to their situations.

In a couple of cases I researched, my interviewees did not believe Matthew 18 was applicable to their situation. Several of my interviewees observed others who approached (one-on-one) the leadership of their ministry and experienced difficulty. They said they did not think one-on-one confrontations would be of any value or was dangerous.

Adam said he “had seen a pattern of other people attempting to bring concerns directly to leadership and they were excused or dismissed.” He noted he was conscious of the Matthew 18 passage, but “was too cynical about the success of it to even try to go through that.”

Going One On One and Upping the Ante

Below are five stories of applying Matthew 18. These five interviewees’ approaches took different forms. They sought to keep the problems as contained as possible, but each sought help from the board of directors, considering that an application of bringing “one or two others” or “the church,” as Jesus suggests in Matthew 18 when the one-on-one did not work.

Frances

Though not considering Matthew 18 necessarily applicable, Frances said a pastor friend exhorted her to “not neglect…the noble role of a whistleblower,” referring to Ephesians where it says, “don’t walk in the deeds of the darkness, even expose them.”[2] She was encouraged to confront the chairman of her organization one-on-one as Matthew 18 teaches.

Frances, the CEO of a mission training organization, sought to communicate privately with her toxic board chairman several times, but the chairman “just would not respond.” She explained that communications the chairman had with others in the organization had been “critical” of her and she “had been left . . . out of important processes in which the CEO always, in the organization’s history, had been involved.”

Though Frances did not consider the Matthew 18 principle to be necessarily applicable to a non-church setting, Frances did try to communicate directly with the chair. However, she said, “I tried to knock on that door several times and that door was slammed shut.” At others’ advice, she “sought to lay out to the entire board in great detail interactions with this person over the preceding months.”

Unfortunately, the chairman “was able to manipulate the board somehow in ways I was never privy to,” she said.

She did not survive the experience, being fired from the organization.

Harris

Harris, a CEO of a large and well-known Christian organization, considered it a matter of integrity that he speak directly to the Board Chairman, his toxic boss. He believed, “this all could have been solved in one face to face conversation,” a step the Board Chairman never took with him.

While separated by several states and recovering from a serious surgery, Harris wrote several emails to the board chairman. He added, “I didn’t go complain to someone else.” Harris wanted to confront the chairman privately. In addition, he noted that he “wasn’t insulting” or “making accusations” as he wanted to be gracious in his handling of the conflict.

After exchanging three letters, the chairman began his third saying, “I appreciate your note, particularly the spirit of it.” However, when the board voted to fire him, one of the members “stood up and pled with them and said, ‘We cannot do this . . . We have a biblical principle; we must talk to [Harris].’”  However, the board chairman and board members would not speak with Harris prior to his termination.

Several months after his firing, the new board chairman, new president, and the former (toxic) board chairman came to speak with him. He said it “was a pitiful meeting.” The plan of the new chairman and new president was for the former chairman to seek forgiveness from Harris for his failure to respond to Harris’ confrontation.

However, when the meeting had concluded, the former chairman had not asked for forgiveness.

Eugene

Eugene, a middle-manager of a global mission organization, who considered the CEO a friend, would discuss issues privately with the CEO. He had several discussions with him regarding the amount of work the CEO was expecting him to accomplish.

When Eugene wrote the 25-page document to the CEO with suggestions for improving the use of both the CEO’s gifts and his own in the organizational structure, he explained he had no intention of going to anyone else with his recommendations. He said, “I am not going to share this with anybody . . . If someone is going to take the brunt of repercussions, it is going to have to be me.”

Rather than humbly and respectfully hearing the recommendations and discussing them with Eugene, the CEO asked Eugene to resign. Immediately following his forced resignation, Eugene asked for a meeting with the board chairman seeking to bring accountability to the CEO, but he “wouldn’t talk to me.”

He remembered being surprised that the board chairman would not respond to him. Eugene said, “I’m a senior vice president. If that level person is resigning, or fired, it seems like you would want to talk to them! Hear his side of the story. But, no. That was it!” Eugene “stayed around, waiting for the next board meeting” hoping they would call him in, but they did not.

Approximately, three years later, Eugene received a message from the board chairman asking to talk. The board had fired the CEO and the chairman asked forgiveness from Eugene. The chairman said he “kept sustaining [the CEO] despite all the negative feedback he was getting about the financial state and from the staff.” He told Eugene, “You were right. I should have listened to you.”

The board chairman resigned from the board, disappointed in his failures to protect the employees from the CEO.

Graham

Graham, the Director of a global mercy ministry, said he sought to follow the biblical principle of “going to someone privately, one on one, and if necessary bring in a couple of the church elders, and if necessary” go further. However, he said his small group of Christian leaders that confronted the founder and CEO of the organization for sexual harassment and abuse, were “trying to avoid going further.”

He considered the “three of us as going to him as the ‘private one,’ [described in Matthew 18] and then, later with the full board of going with the ‘elders.’” In seeking the help of the board as his “church elders” Graham was very disappointed. The board ended up supporting the founder due to pressure from a long-time, big money donor’s pressure.

Graham and forty others were fired. After ten more years of complaints of sexual misconduct, the board finally fired the founder.

Graham said, “It [will be] a long time before I [will] join another Christian board. As far as I am concerned, I am swearing off Christian boards.”

Another Approach

Ben had a very different approach to the application of the passage. He explained, “I just felt like the Matthew 18 principle was something that I needed to own in where I had leadership.” Like Adam, he had also seen a “hurting group of people who had really been shot down in their attempts to try to apply that to fix breaks however small, however gradual.”

Ben said there was a group of missionaries he called the “Matthew 18 group . . . that were constantly butting heads, constantly trying to bring about change.” He said, woefully, “Many of them were in my office a great deal for counsel, encouragement – for prayer – because they were getting really worn out through that process.”

Ben did meet with his toxic CEO to present his resignation, but expected no resolution. Ben and Casandra signed a letter to the board that included “the major concerns we [had] with the organization.” The letter expressed the missionaries’ belief “it could be an amazing organization” if the board would hear the missionaries’ stories.

However, the board never spoke with the missionaries.

Concluding Thoughts

Isaac, a missionary in a developing country, did not go to his board. He said,

I think they are completely disconnected with what [the founder] would be doing. They’re his board…probably just a few pastors somewhere in [the United States] and they know [the founder] and they all go way back and so I would be nothing more than some guy that was upset because he was asked to leave. 

It is apparent that toxic leaders are difficult and often dangerous to approach one-on-one. There is no apparent consideration of this given in Matthew 18, and as explained in my other blog on the subject, Matthew 18 seems to take for granted the brothers involved in the dispute are on equal footing. The possibility of retaliation is not mentioned.

In addition, the board of each of my interviewees’ organization took little or no responsibility for oversight of the toxic leader under their charge. None of them took responsibility to bring accountability to the leader until the damage of abuse and firing was already done.

Boards rarely listen. This is proven out in survey after survey of both Christian and non-Christian organizations.

As one individual told me in our organization,

“I am tired of seeing missionaries sent home in body bags.”

REFERENCES:

[1]Matthew 18:15.

[2]Ephesians 5:11.