Author Archives: pearlsandswinesite

About pearlsandswinesite

I spent 21 years as a college professor and have since spent several years ministering in the church. I experienced swine in a mission organization I served for several years. I loved my ministry, but my family left that mission field beaten and scared by abusive leadership. When I began research for my doctoral dissertation, I determined to synthesize the social sciences, business management, and biblical theology on abuse. I am currently the Director of an overseas mission and work in the church. If you have interest in more information regarding toxic leadership, please use the Contact page.

Making a Difference: Research that is Boots on the Ground in Dracula’s Neighborhood

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

Spending time with researchers on “bad leadership” from around the world this past week was a helpful, eye-opening, and an enjoyable experience.

Anders Örtenblad and Horia Moașa gathered us from nearly 20 countries to discuss and present research findings on bad leadership. The gathering— “The Dracula Conference on Bad Leadership” —was held at the University of Transylvania (yes, there is a real place called that) in Brașov, Romania.

“Dracula” —given that name by Irish novelist Bram Stoker—was actually Vlad the Impaler, a former ruler in the Transylvania region of Romania, a picturesque location in the mountains of Romania.

Count Dracula & Grey Leadership

Vlad was actually a hero to Romanians as a law and order guy who also repelled the Ottoman army from the Romanian homeland. He was also rather ruthless.

This distinction was a model to some researchers who are looking at bad leadership from the subjective eye-of-the-beholder perspective. Some see Vlad as evil (mostly those of us who only know him from Irish novelist Stoker’s vantage point—Dracula the blood-sucking vampire), but others see him as a hero.

Therefore, Dracula (or Vlad) is the perfect model for the “grey” leader (vs. dark) for some researchers.

These researchers see bad leaders as having redeemable qualities.

However, as one well-known researcher who has been at the forefront of bullying in the workplace research for 30 years or more (in Norway), noted to me as we gazed up at Dracula’s castle on an outing, “This is a dangerous perspective.” This perspective can end up giving a free pass to leaders because they do “some good.”

I have watched destructive or toxic leadership consistently end badly.

This runs counter to seeing bad leaders as being both good and bad. Maybe we can see the “good” they have done whether in policies put in place or actions taken, but suggest, “I know he isn’t a good person.” We may be hesitant to classify any leader as truly toxic. We don’t want to stigmatize leaders.

I understand this view and appreciate the optimism.

But truly toxic leadership always ends badly.

This is a type of leadership distinguished by a lack of humility to see and respond to their own failings. Yes, there are “grey” leaders who might be too harsh or somewhere along the line of narcisissm, but they respond to confrontation with thoughtfulness and a willingness to work on their leadership skills. We need the research in this area, because real change can be made.

But “toxic leadership” does not possess this humility and is a different animal. So we need to be able to discern between the two.

Toxic leader’s destruction of relationships, near and far, is too great to ignore. I can (almost) guarantee through empirical evidence, and a large range of research, that leadership that is not humble or responsive to confrontation for mistakes made by them will end in greater destruction than any positive outcomes their compliant followers attribute to them.

Boots on the Ground

This brings me to the “boots on the ground” part of this blog’s title.

It was suggested that we pay attention to the practitioners of toxic leadership—those who are living in the spaces where toxic leadership takes place and are learning from empirical evidence, maybe more so than from written research.

Much of what I have learned about toxic leadership has been in the area of abuse in the home (domestic violence) from engagement with those who have suffered from it.

When I shared with one new friend at the conference that my entry to this field was through a combination of domestic violence and leadership abuse they noted that researcher Bennet Tepper made the same connection nearly 30 years ago. There was pushback at that time, according to this researcher, because Tepper had not made the connection (through research) clear between domestic violence and leadership abuse dynamics. He largely took it for granted supposedly.

In my 10 years of interviews and research, there is no doubt whatsoever that there is a very clear connection between the dynamics and psychology of abuse in the home and workplace. It is for that reason that I nearly always connect the two in my own writing. Much of my early research was specifically in domestic violence as I sought to understand what and why toxic leaders were thinking and acting the way they did.

This connection is not to say that an abuser in the home also abuses in the workplace. That is not the connection I am making. It is that the intent of the leader in the workplace and the abuser in the home is the same: (S)he believes (s)he is entitled to be at the top of the pecking order and controls others in order to maintain that position.

The tactics these abusive individuals use may be different at home and in the workplace, but those tactics have the same goal. Therefore, it is helpful to study domestic violence to understand workplace abuse.

It is Wicked

Getting back to the earlier part of this blog, the abusive partner or leader’s perspective is wicked and evil. It is self-centered, selfish, and oppressive to those under their thumb.

If you spend any time with boots on the ground or have spent any time as the target of an abusive leader, you will at least to some degree understand how truly wicked it is. The stories of illnesses—physical, emotional, and spiritual—created by these leaders should stop anyone from making light of it or suggesting toxic leadership is in any way “grey.”

We must make a distinction between these types of leadership.

Leadership Wisdom and Humility: God Chose What is Foolish in the World to Shame the Wise

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

1st Corinthians 1 says so many things to leaders as well as subordinates in Christian organizations.

It speaks of calling and of wisdom and of foolishness and of power and of weakness and of arrogance—all of it which are related to leadership and those who follow.

First, 1:26 says that we are all “called” to be something different than what our world around us says we are. And that something is in a place of humility—

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.

Wisdom to the world around is about power and self-satisfaction. But our calling from the God Who rules over the universe is one of humility. Our wisdom is not found in our worldly birth such as place of importance in an important family or corporation or any other worldly place of power.

Rather we are called to wisdom found in recognizing our humble place before God and man.

The Apostle Paul goes on to say that God does not call us because of those worldly standards of importance—strength, position of power, standing in our community. In fact, He shames those who think they are wise by the world’s standards through His “foolish” actions according to those same world’s standards.

But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong.

This is exemplified in particular through Jesus Christ who, despite being the One true Ruler, was willing to place Himself in those “powerful rulers” to be murdered. How foolhardy is that?

But because God has all the wisdom knew what that meant for His creation—a renewal so far reaching we cannot fathom it. He used what was seemingly foolish to bring about the greatest project of wisdom ever: the saving of His people and of His creation.

All of this getting up in the face of an arrogant world is intended to show that no human being might boast in the presence of God.

Leadership?

What does that have to say to your leadership?

Wisdom to lead well must be found in God’s principles. This is why I write this blog. I want to continually challenge all who think leadership is a matter of power and worldly wisdom.

The true wisdom that is found in psychology, business management, or any leadership training text is wisdom that is fundamentally exemplified in the LORD. And there are many, many principles that are indeed found in those areas of study that have their place in Scriptural leadership. In fact, those principles are sometimes more clearly deliniated in those halls of academia than in some churches.

Because, sometimes the church falls hook, line, and sinker for worldly wisdom that has no power.

1 Corinthians 1:26-31 (ESV) For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

How Good Leaders are Chosen: Moses and the Exodus

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

What makes a leader good is not that he simply rejects prevailing political approaches, speaks his mind, displays power, or brings wealth and fortune to an organization.

Though many of us would never base our standards on such things, deep, deep down we probably hold one or more of these standards as “self-evident.”

Some are very attracted to the rebellious; those who reject conventional engagement and “call it like it is.” Or maybe the man—or woman—who expresses particular strength of will.

However, what is fundamental to good leadership is someone who has skills, humility, and cares for the needs of others, particularly the vulnerable. That is biblical leadership.

An example of leadership development and selection can be found in the first three chapters of Exodus. There, we see the story of how Moses is born, miraculously saved, grows in convictions, and is chosen by the Lord to stand up against oppressive leadership.

Part of the Establishment, Yet . . .

The story begins by introducing Pharaoh, the king of Egypt. Pharaoh is oppressing the Israelites, who had been welcomed into Egypt 400 years earlier. They had moved in those 400 years from being given lavish treatment—due to Joseph’s wisdom and service to the Pharaoh at that time—to becoming slaves to the Egyptians. They were treated horribly and at one point Pharaoh orders that male babies be killed by the Hebrew (Israelite) midwives.

Moses was born to an Israelite and hidden. He then was miraculously saved by Pharaoh’s daughter who took him into her family, though asking Moses’ mother (not knowing she was his mother) to nurse the child.

Moses grew up as part of the establishment.

Yet, it seems the Lord had kept him responsive to the needs of those who were oppressed.

As he went out one day he saw an Egyptian treating an Israelite slave horribly. Moses stepped in and killed the Egyptian. Though I believe this should be classified as murder—we don’t know exactly what was happening and if it was justified killing—we do see a man (Moses) who has convictions to care for the oppressed.

Running

Because of his fear of punishment (Pharaoh had heard and wanted to kill Moses), Moses runs away to Midian. And once again, Moses’ care for the oppressed shines as he saves some shepherdesses from some shepherds who were driving them away from their water source.

Moses continually cares for those suffering under those with the power to crush others.

Time passes, Moses marries in Midian, the Pharaoh dies, and the people of Israel cry out to the the Lord because of the mistreatment they are facing at the hands of their slave masters.

The Lord now calls Moses out of his relative comfort in Midian to lead a revolt of sorts in Egypt.

Moses Has Been Prepared

Moses has been prepared for this.

He has proven that he stands by his convictions to care for those under oppression. And Moses becomes one of the most important prophets in Israel, being referred to constantly throughout the Bible as one of the most important men in Israel’s history.

The Lord sends Moses to this new Pharaoh to “request” the release of God’s people (Israel).

Moses’ response is typical of a humble leader—one who knows his own abilities are not adequate:

“Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the children of Israel out of Egypt?”

Exodus 3:11 (ESV)

The Lord answers that He will be with Moses.

Take Away

There are many lessons in Exodus 1 through 3, but I want to simply point out that leaders should be chosen out of humility, and yet we must remember that they can still become drunk with power as Moses did on one occasion (striking the rock in Numbers 20) —which is a whole ‘nother story.

But the starting place is humility and care. Has the person shown a real care for others? A real interest in their well-being? Is he/she giving and gracious?

Then, does s/he have the skills to do the job? In a sense, I suggest this comes last. Skills can be developed . . . humility and care are attitudes that have been developing probably since childhood as the Lord has sanctified. And being placed in leadership does nothing to help humility and care when those deep-seated attitudes are not already present.

Some people seem to be made for leadership as they take the reigns of control naturally and easily.

However, if they lack humility and care for those under their power, pass them by and keep looking.

Oxford Handbook of Bad Leadership

Featured

Posted on by
1

Nearly a year and a half ago, Anders Örtenblad (Professor of Working Life Sciences at Agdar University in Norway) reached out to me because he was interested in the doctoral research I had completed back in 2017 on toxic leadership in Christian organizations. Anders was in the process of gathering researchers to write chapters in the forthcoming “Oxford Handbook of Bad Leadership” published by Oxford University Press.

We had a enjoyable first Zoom discussion and it was determined that I would write a chapter specifically on the problems experienced by Christians who suffer under toxic leadership in their organizations. Anders had recognized that there were unique challenges faced by Christians and I was thrilled to be able to research this more in depth for a broader audience.

The “Oxford Handbook of Bad Leadership” is written by researchers from around the world. South Africa, India, Poland, Britain, Norway, US, Chile, Australia, Kenya, Turkey, Romania, UAE, Germany, and several other countries are represented by the authors. Most come from universities where they are regularly researching the problems of bad leadership of all sorts.

My focus in my blogs has been consistently on very bad leadership, leadership that rejects accountability and humility. However, this work also delves into leadership that can be described as “grey” which basically means it is not “evil” per se but inefective.

The Toxic Triangle

My chapter engages with a very helpful bit of research by scholars Art Padilla, Robert Hogan, and Robert B. Kaiser called, “The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments.” Their research focuses on three—thus a triangle—aspects of toxic leadership: the leader, follower, and environment.

In my chapter I discuss the “environmnet” that makes it difficult for Christians to determine from a biblical perspective whether to submit, confront, or leave organizations led by toxic leaders. Just as we had struggled with these questions biblically when under toxic leadership, so do many Christians. (These questions will also be considered in my own book coming out later in the year)

The research and writing of it was a roller-coaster ride as I spent five months working with Anders to very carefully craft it to be helpful not just to Christians but to others of different religious—or even non-religious—beliefs. His guidance through it all was invaluable.

In addition, after finishing my chapter, Anders asked me to co-author a chapter on auto-ethnographic writing. This means using your own story for the basis of your research. Both of us have an interest in this as both of us have faced toxic leadership ourselves. We discuss ethical questions of using our own story for empirical evidence. It was good research for me as I have not been doing academic research for several years.

The Handbook

The book is really a research work that, because of its price tag (150 GBP), is more intended for researchers who are seeking indepth analysis in this area of study.

The description on the website says:

The Oxford Handbook of Bad Leadership defines bad leadership as unethical or ineffective, or both. Broad in scope, the volume provides an overview of the study of bad leadership and recommendations for future research. Some chapters help establish a mainstream perspective on bad leadership, while others problematize and suggest alternatives to the standard research approach. The Handbook classifies common ways of studying bad leadership as the preparation approach, the personality approach, the follower-centered approach, and the role-expectancy approach. Additionally, the volume proposes the circumstantial approach and the systemic approach. Altogether, this framework helps researchers to develop their studies of bad leadership.

The Handbook offers insights into how bad leadership manifests and can be handled in a variety of contexts, such as higher education, Christian organizations, and remote work. The Handbook also critically examines commonly suggested remedies. To prevent and mitigate bad leadership, stakeholders cannot assume that the actors around the leader—such as the leaders’ leaders, human resources, and the organization at large—are benign. Providing both an overview of this dynamic research area and a host of nuanced perspectives, this Handbook serves as a key resource especially for readers interested in understanding and studying bad leadership, but also for identifying, addressing, and preventing bad leadership in the future.

Örtenblad, Anders, and Anders Örtenblad (2026), The Oxford Handbook of Bad Leadership (Oxford, New York).

The Handbook will be in print early (hopefully) this fall.

NOTES

Go here for the Table of Contents

REVIEWS

“This remarkable book is a landmark in the field of the study and practice of leadership. If, like me you have been puzzled by the abundance of sunny-side up leadership texts in airport bookshops or the disembodied austerity and faux objectivity of many ‘scientific’ contributions to the field, whilst every day we witness more and more examples of amoral, corrupt, incompetent, and dishonest leaders, this is the book you have been waiting for. The chapters within are fastidiously researched and stylishly communicated, making a complex and often contradictory phenomenon fresh and accessible. An essential resource for any serious leadership researcher, it will also prove a very useful one for many managers and professionals who are appalled by current leadership failures.” – Stephen A. Linstead, Emeritus Professor of Management Humanities, School for Business and Society, University of York

“In an era of declining institutional trust and increasingly visible abuses of power, this book is timely and essential. Spanning industries, cultures, and theoretical traditions, the chapters move beyond simplistic notions of incompetence to examine how destructive leadership is constructed, sustained, and rationalized within complex systems. Particularly compelling is its treatment of higher education at a moment when academic institutions face mounting political, financial, and cultural pressures. By confronting the dark side of academic leadership alongside other sectors, the volume underscores how urgently this conversation is needed across our most trusted institutions. It will shape conversations about power, accountability, and ethical responsibility for years to come.” – Michelle C. Bligh, PhD, President, Claremont Graduate University

Facing a Terrifying Leader: Choosing When to Leave and When to Stay

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

To some this is just old news.

But to a significant number of Christians, the choice of whether to stay under a toxic leader in the home, workplace, or organization is not a question.

These folks might consider leaving, but the go-to is a belief that God has called them to suffer for Christ’s sake. And it is not because they have no good reason to believe this.

The Example of Paul

Early in the church’s history, the Apostle Paul was traveling on his third missionary journey. He was traveling through Macedonia and Greece visiting churches he and others had founded seeking to strengthen them. Paul was on his way to Jerusalem to share in the annual Feast of the Passover. It was an important festival in the life of any Jew with any historical, biblical, or cultural perspective.

However, Paul was headed head-long into a trap you might say.

In Acts 21, the story is narrated by Luke:

On the next day we departed and came to Caesarea, and we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. 9 He had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied. 10 While we were staying for many days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’” 12 When we heard this, we and the people there urged him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul answered, “What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be imprisoned but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” 14 And since he would not be persuaded, we ceased and said, “Let the will of the Lord be done.”

[Acts 21:7-14 (ESV)]

It is a poignant moment in the early church. It was a warning apparently from the Lord in the form of a prophecy—acted out as was common in that time—and then heartily rejected by Paul.

Notice it is not a rejection of the content—Paul did not suggest it was a “false prophecy” —but rather a rejection of fear based on it.

Paul, in rejecting what those who were present wanted him to do, was readying himself to face some of the most toxic leaders of his time—the Jewish religious leaders. These leaders would seek his death, as the story goes, at the hands of the non-Jews.

Paul told the crowd that he was prepared “even to die” for a very high purpose—the “name of the Lord Jesus.”

Even to Die

Paul’s response has caused no small amount of guilt in the hearts of those who have faced off against toxic people. These feel that they are refusing God’s command to hang in there, even when the going gets tough.

However, I want to lay those fears to rest while not giving anyone too much ease of mind. My reason is simply that Scripture gives us several directions in these cases and Paul chose an honorable one of those directions.

But not the only honorable one.

It might help to show you how Paul responded to a somewhat similar situation:

When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, 24 but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to kill him, 25 but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket.

Acts 9:23-25

Those who understand that narratives in Scripture do not necessarily provide imperatives to be lived by may suggest that Acts 9:25 is not necessarily “normative” for the church. I would agree, just as I would suggest that Acts 21 is as a narrative not normative as well.

Evasion or Courage?

As such, it is important to note that neither passage suggests Paul was commanded to take the action—evasive in one case and courageous in the other.

There is however, one distinction in that Paul says in Acts 20 he is “constrained by the Spirit” to go while not knowing fully what would be the result. But then again, there is conflict found in the passage in that the disciples are said to be telling him not to go “through the Spirit.”

Who was right?

I believe both were right. Paul believed that, in the persecution from toxic leaders awaiting him in Jerusalem, was an opportunity to be an extraordinary witness to Jesus. Whereas the disciples saw it as an end to his ministry to the churches if he was dead.

And both likely happened. Paul’s ministry was both expansive and cut short by likely martyrdom.

Binding the Conscience

What we need to see is that Scripture does not bind our consciences when it comes to staying or leaving toxic leadership.

There are many considerations in determining what is best for each individual person:

  • By staying in a toxic organization, will I be able to use the gifts God has given me for the expansion of His kingdom through good work for a good end?
  • Will mine or my family’s mental, spiritual, or physical health be affected negatively making it impossible to do that work? Toxic leaders do cause traumatic reactions.
  • Will my staying show agreement with an evil leader? And in turn be a negative witness to others?
  • Will my leaving leave others—fellow employees—lacking the support that is needed in their personal or work lives?
  • Am I giving up too soon? I hesitate to put this in as most hang in too long and are horribly traumatized by it. But there are those who can have an important impact on the organization by staying.

There are other questions that need to be asked. But then it comes down to your own conscience.

But do not let it be bound by an ill-conceived perspective on Paul’s actions in Acts 21.

The Prevalence of Toxic Leadership: Are They Under Every Rock?

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

Recently, a fellow author and researcher shared an article with me written critically of his work in the area of toxic leadership.

There was one paragraph that was fundamental to the journalist’s criticism:

In Sweden, trust in the immediate manager is at a record high. Almost seven out of ten professionals between the ages of 21 and 65 have a great deal of trust in their immediate manager. 58 percent also agree that they have a great deal of trust in their company’s management team. This is shown by Kantar Sifo’s ORVESTO Business 2020 survey, in which almost 15,000 people participated.

https://www.chefsblogg.se/alla-har-en-dalig-chef/

This is good and bad news. The writer’s view is that my friend was much too critical of leadership. In essence, the criticism was based on the journalist’s view that the researcher found a toxic leader under every rock.

When my friend and I talked about it, we shared a laugh—and this is why:

Maybe Not Every Rock

Clearly, according to the survey/study done in Europe—where my friend is Professor of Working Life Science at the University of Agder and editor of multiple important international works on leadership—bad leadership is not under every rock.

Only 42% of those surveyed don’t trust their company’s management team.

The way you frame that statistic makes all the difference. Will you allow me to interpret that statistic as saying bad leadership is not under every rock—but nearly every other one?

This reminds me of the criticism leveled at the many bloggers and researchers who are bringing to light toxic leadership in Christian organizations by a seminary professor several years ago—see this blog I wrote about his arguments.

I would like to share some further statistics that might help frame this important debate.

The Statistics are Overwhelming

  • According to the Toxic Workplace, 64% of those who responded to a survey were working with a toxic personality and 94% had experienced a toxic boss.
  • According to Balda, approximately one third of workers in the US have been bullied at work and three quarters of those were bosses.
  • “The Star-Telegram conducted an investigation that uncovered at least 412 allegations of sexual misconduct in 187 independent fundamental Baptist churches and other affiliated institutions spanning 40 states and Canada” (Christianity Today, December 2018).
  • “Nearly one in five workers—the study calls “disturbingly high” —say they face a hostile or threatening environment at work, which can include sexual harassment and bullying” (LA Times).
  • Depending on the estimation method, between 33.5% and 61% of all respondents [of a Gallup survey] report their immediate superiors as showing some kind of consistent and frequent destructive leadership during the last six months…” (Aasland et al. 2010, p. 446 in Debating Bad Leadership – Anders Ortenblad).
  • It is estimated that approximately the same percentage of psychopaths run corporations as are incarerated in our prisons.

Costly financially, spiritually, and personally.

  • A book called Mean Men took a poll of 800 managers and employees in 17 industries and found:
    • 48% intentionally decreased their work effort.
    • 47% intentionally decreased the time spent at work.
    • 38% intentionally decreased the quality of their work.
    • 80% lost work time worrying about the incident.
    • 63% lost work time avoiding the offender.
    • 78% said that their commitment to the organization declined.
    • 12% said that they left their job because of the uncivil treatment.
  • The book also noted that toxic managers turn away talented potential employees.
  • The annual cost of toxic leadership in the Department of Defense (US) is $4.7 billion.
  • One of my interviewees years ago explained the impact her toxic pastor had on her as an employee. She described migraines and sleepless nights. It took years for her to heal from the experience.
  • Others of my interviewees have either left the church or are inhabiting the margins due to their distrust after having faced such horribly abusive church leaders.

So, these toxic leaders may not be under every rock . . .

but there sure are a lot of them.

The Ad Interim Study Committee on Domestic Abuse and Sexual Assault of the Presbyterian Church in America noted in one of the Myths of Abuse,

“Abuse is not rare. Over half of murdered women were killed by a current or former partner. Approximately one in four women and one in seven men have been victims of intimate partner abuse. In 2019, the Department for Health and Human Services reported that 656,000 children were confirmed by state agencies as victims of abuse, a national rate of 8.9 per 1,000 children. Another study estimates that 37% of children will have a visit from local child protective services by the time they turn 18. By extrapolating these data, we estimate that between 6% and 10% of children will be state-confirmed victims of child abuse by the time they turn 18. Since many instances of abuse go unreported, the actual rate of child abuse is likely far higher.”
http://www.DASACommittee.org

Insolent Opponents: Can Toxic Leaders Change?

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

Like in domestic abuse research, there is debate as to the malleability of abusive people in leadership.

I would guess that in most people’s experience, there is little hope for such change.

In my own experience and stories that I have heard, there is little expectation for transformation in abusive leadership. In fact, I am presently in the midst of a book research project that focuses on those cases where the leader is fully entrenched in his toxic leadership.

However, in leadership research, there is article after article describing remedies to “bad” leaders. There have indeed been leaders who were toxic and yet were transformed apparently by these various remedies.

Malleability

It leaves us with a question: What does it take for an entitled, self-centered, abusive individual to transform from the ugly duckling into a prince—sorry, those are probably two different stories.

Scripture describes some of these leaders:

Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest you be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own eyes.
Proverbs 26:4-5 (ESV)

“Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.”
Matthew 7:6 (ESV)

Whoever corrects a scoffer gets himself abuse,
and he who reproves a wicked man incurs injury.
Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you;
reprove a wise man, and he will love you.
Proverbs 9:7-8 (ESV)

Drive out a scoffer, and strife will go out,
and quarreling and abuse will cease.
Proverbs 22:10 (ESV)

These passages present hopeless situations and if you listen to the stories of those who have suffered under toxic leadership—you can find many of those stories on this site—you will hear that hurt and anquish of hopelessness. It is frustrating, infuriating, and crushing to face such deeply entitled and arrogant people.

There really is no hope . . .

but for the grace of God.

God’s Grace

What follows is not a call to just give these leaders a break—live with their injustices—but in fact a recognition that our holding them accountable may be an important part of their change, not just our safety.

The Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy around 65 AD. Timothy was pastoring a church in Ephesus and Paul was his mentor.

Near the beginning of his first letter to Timothy, Paul describes his own background. It is for the purpose of encouraging Timothy that the Lord of heaven and earth is working in people to transform them—even the worst of sinners as Paul describes himself (1 Timothy 1:15).

I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, 13 though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, 14 and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. 15 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.
1 Timothy 1:12-15 (ESV)

Paul was a mean guy. He was driven by a toxic form of religion to destroy rather than to build. He took Phariseeism to a new height of noxiousness. Whereas many Pharisees saw themselves as above everyone else—more knowledgeable, wise, and powerful—Paul took it on the road to destroy those who were lesser . . . specifically those who named the name of Christ.

Insolent Opponent

Paul uses a particular term in this passage that sets him apart from other people— “insolent opponent.”

This term (ὑβριστής) means, an “insulter, maltreater, despiteful, injurious, uplifted with pride, either heaps insulting language upon others or does them some shameful act of wrong” (Strongs Dictionary).

Pretty harsh words. And yet, they are not spoken of someone else. They are Paul’s words for Paul. He was that man.

Clearly, he is a changed man. Of course, he is still sinful and describes that experience in depth in Romans 7. Despite having been an arrogant, driven, noxious individual, he is now humble and recognizes his sinfulness and is driven to follow Christ fully.

How did that come about?

Easter for Paul

Easter came for Paul on the road to Damascus. In Acts 9, Paul comes face to face with the Lord whom he is persecuting.

It is an amazing story both for its miraculous content, but for the beauty of its results.

The Bible says that Paul was blinded by a light from heaved and fell down. He then heard, “Saul, Saul [his name was changed later to Paul], why are you persecuting me?”

Paul, in his incredulity, asked, “Who are you, Lord?” And so the Lord introduced Himself to Paul. The same Paul that spoke a good line about following God—may that in itself be a lesson to us.

Though Paul had his eyes open, he was unable to see anything, so he was led into Damascus and told by the Lord to go to see a certain follower of Jesus.

There is so much more to the story, but the results of this amazing encounter is that Paul, a toxic leader of the first century, was transformed by the Lord.

I am sorry that the statistics do not give a lot of hope for us as we pray and pray that our abusive leader be changed. However, we should always hold out hope that while man cannot be changed, the Lord can change man. The resurrection makes that possible and most who are reading this have likely had that same experience—though maybe not being blinded and spoken to from the clouds.

So, as we face off with our toxic leaders, we call upon the Lord and we seek accountability. The Lord brought accountability to Paul—He knocked Paul on his rear, if I may be so crass. So, the Lord calls us to knock these leaders on their rears that maybe they will face a reckoning with Jesus.

As a Brother: Respecting Subordinates

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

Often the focus of Bible teaching—when it comes to leadership and followership—is on the follower.

In particular, the focus is on being submissive more often than not.

I understand that. There are several Scripture passages that call on subordinates in various contexts to submit to the authority under which God has place us (Romans 13; 1 Peter 2:13f).

However, Scripture also speaks to those in authority. In fact, because of the power differential, I would suggest the greater responsibility is on the authority to use that authority in a God-glorifying and respectful way. The frequency with which the Lord speaks to those who oppress—actions that crush those who have less power—is striking (Exodus 3:9; Isaiah 58:6).

Job of an Older Man

The Apostle Paul makes an interesting statement that has some bearing on this in his letter to Timothy.

Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers, 2 older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, in all purity.

1 Timothy 5:1-2 (ESV)

Timothy was a young man by all accounts and given the job of an older man. He was leading a new church in a time when elders—those who are older in age—were expected to be leaders, particularly wise religious leaders.

Paul found it necessary to instruct Timothy in how to handle his position as a spiritual leader to those who were younger and of older age. It is in his instruction to Timothy in what his attitude should be towards younger folks in his congregation that I am most interested in.

It is in this instruction to younger people that Paul uses, what I would consider, a unique and surprising terminology. He says, don’t rebuke them, but rather treat them as “brothers” and “sisters.”

Timothy is older (even though young). Timothy is probably more knowledgeable. He was “appointed” by an apostle for his position. He was a “big man.”

Yet, Paul says treat those younger like equals. That is what a brother or sister is. He/she is of equal stature. And this is the attitude Timothy needs to have.

We would not expect that.

And many leaders in the church wouldn’t expect that and probably would be put out by Paul’s instruction if they took the time to consider the words Paul is using. Rather, we see often those who lead in the church treat others as if they are children. I have heard that over and over from those with toxic leaders.

It is how I was treated by a mission leader; not as a colleague, but as a child.

Encourage or Rebuke?

Notice also that Timothy is called to take a clearly softer stance with those he leads and instructs. Paul says, “encourage” them rather than “rebuke” them.

To “rebuke” is defined as “to chastise with words, to chide, upbraid.”1 On the other hand, “encourage” means in Greek “to address, speak to, (call to, call upon), which may be done in the way of exhortation, entreaty, comfort, instruction, etc.”2

Timothy had the authority of an elder in the church, yet he should not use that authority to “lord it over” those under that authority, but rather “encourage” them in their walk with Christ.

One interviewee of mine in the northeast was treated as if she was of lesser intelligence by her pastor, though she had been an integral part of the church ministry for years. A friend of mine had developed an exceptional ministry to women who were in abusive marriages and she had a doctorate in theology and yet was simply ignored. Another interviewee developed much the same kind of ministry in the southwest and was ignored, treated with disrespect, and finally run out of the church.

These are not the attitudes and actions of the kind of pastor Paul was calling Timothy to be.

Despite the difference in age, in a culture that held to the authority of others older than oneself, Paul was counter-culture in suggesting Timothy treat the younger as equals—those who had less authority than himself.

Calling all leaders: This takes humility, patience, and a self-awareness. We have to dig deep into our hidden motives and attitudes and seek the Holy Spirit’s help in transforming likely arrogant and defensive and domineering attitudes.

Treat your subordinates as brothers and sisters, not as children.

Notes:

  1. Strong, James (2010), The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Expanded edition, n.p.).
    ↩︎
  2. Strong, James (2010), The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Expanded edition, n.p.). ↩︎

The Hope of New Creation for Leadership

Featured

Posted on by
1

It is rare that I speak of good leaders.

That is because I am passionate about helping those under bad (toxic) leadership. Though a portion of my seminary training was looking at good leadership in the church, it was my own experience of bad leadership that formed my work for these past 13 years.

Today, however I am looking forward to Easter—which comes tomorrow. I have rarely written about this particular calendar day for the church.

But this year is different. I have been in a study of the New Heavens and New Earth of late and, though I have focused on this theological concept before, it has been a wonderful reminder of our place in this world.

And it has great implications for leadership.

I am neck deep in four writing projects that have developed especially over the past year and a half. Some of these have been focusing on the hopelessness of truly toxic leadership. These are leaders that absolutely will not respond to any kind of normal remedies: education, confrontation, counseling, etc.

What do we do with them?

Easter.

New Creation

Because Easter means New Creation.

And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.”

Revelation 21:5 (ESV)

This is found almost at the very end of Scriptures as Jesus encourages the church through the Apostle John that there is something so great, marvelous, and extraordinary on the horizon that no amount of man’s rage against the machine can alter it.

When Jesus comes again, there will be justice, righteousness, and mercy. The words prior to verse five give us a beautiful picture:

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

Revelation 21:1-4 (ESV)

What beauty. It brings peace and joy to my soul.

But, lest we become so enthralled by this future event described for us, we need to realize that when Jesus came and walked this earth the first time 2000 years ago, He ushered in this new creation in the form of His Kingdom for now.

In Matthew 6:10 Jesus tells his disciples to pray for God’s Kingdom to come to earth just as it is in heaven now! Jesus said the Kingdom of God was at hand. It is here and now as Jesus walked about as its King. As Jesus roamed about, healing the sick, raising the dead, and proclaiming Good News to the captives, the Kingdom was and is here.

This is extraordinary news. It gives meaning to everything we do so that the Apostle may say, “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31).

All Things New

In essence what Scripture says is that all things are new. Because Jesus came and was raised from the dead, all things are new.

The implications for leadership is that it is new. All that was taught by Jesus and his Apostles to His disciples 2000 years ago about leadership—about not lording it over, treating subordinates harshly, or welcoming even a slave back as if he is no longer owned—is a picture of this newness.

We aren’t born with this newness, I am afraid. It comes from a radical alteration of our very being as Jesus explains to Nicodemus—You must be born again!

So too, a toxic leader can become new. Despite the seeming hopelessness, a deeply damaged leader can become a new leader—just as Jesus’ body was altered dramatically through resurrection, so too leaders may be transformed through resurrection.

Those of us who have suffered under these leaders need to pray for this alteration in these leaders. We need to ask that the Lord will transform them radically—for that is the only way it will happen. And though I have heard of few instances, I have heard of those who came to the foot of the cross and were changed in the blinding of Jesus’ light.

If you are a toxic leader, use this time of commemoration to bow at the foot of the cross, receiving the new creation, and turning from your destruction.

The Darkness of Good Friday

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

This is Good Friday.

It is called “good” for a good reason.

Because it led to one of the greatest events in all of human history. The resurrection of Jesus for the rescue of mankind.

But have you ever considered what brought on the darkness of this day that leads to that day?

Toxic Leadership.

It is actually quite simple, but it wasn’t until my friend Anders Örtenblad pointed it out to me this week.

Our focus over the Easter weekend, of course, is on what Jesus Christ, who walked the earth about 2000 years ago, did in going willingly to a tortuous death—one that is unparalleled in history. But what happened to bring that about?

Jesus entered Jerusalem the Sunday before His arrest by the Jewish and then Roman authorities to shouts of praise and the waving of tree branches—the sign of a conquering hero returning from battle. This image is also played out in that Jesus heads to the Temple (Mark 11:13) which the hero would do to give sacrifice to the people’s gods. Of course, He would sacrifice Himself for the sins of the people at the end of the week.

But what brought about His death and sacrifice was the interaction of multiple kinds of toxic leadership: Pilate (the Roman authority), Judas (an Apostle), and the Jewish Sanhedrin. Religious leaders and civic leaders.

Each of these leaders practiced a different kind of leadership that is ultimately destructive.

The Apostle:

Judas was one of the original Apostles, chosen by Jesus Christ as a messenger to the world of the Good News of God’s redemption of his World. In essence he could be compared to a “middle-manager,” having an authority higher than himself and at the will of that authority (Jesus).

It appears in Scripture that he particularly focused on wealth (John 12:4). Money drove his toxic leadership (Matthew 26:14).

In this passage in Matthew, Judas went to the Jewish ruling council (Sanhedrin) and asked them, “What will you give me if I deliver him over to you?” They gave him 30 pieces of silver for his task of turning on his boss, One who happened to be absolutely righteous and holy, and the best boss one could ever hope for.

Incredible?

Yes, but the evil in man can drive those who seek wealth or comfort or fame to do some incredible things. And when in leadership, their destruction can be overwhelming to others.

Jewish Sanhedrin:

The Jewish council paid Judas to inform on Jesus and they went to arrest Him in the garden where He was praying. According to scholars, the council broke a long list of their own rules to arrest Jesus and try Him on false charges, demanding that the Roman authorities execute Him.

Why would they go to such extreme measures? Competition.

They were jealous of the competition that Jesus was giving them. Jesus had continually challenged their holier-than-thou attitudes and actions, many of their teachings that were unbiblical, and in turn their authority among the people (Matthew 23:1-12, 23; Mark 5:7-13).

They wanted to wipe out the competition. The competition was taking away their authority before the people that they had lorded over them and enjoyed.

So they brought trumped up charges just like leaders we see now in religious, civic, and organizational/business environments. They sought any way possible to destroy their competition.

Pilate, the Roman Authority:

Finally, we see Pilate, who at one point recognizes the innocence of Jesus though the Sanhedrin had argued vehemently for Jesus’ conviction. Pilate seems to waver and suggests to the crowds that Jesus be traded out for a truly guilty prisoner. But the crowd, stirred up by the Jewish leaders, makes their wishes known all the more.

In the end, Pilate is a victim of his people-pleasing attitude and simply goes for the easy rather than right decision.

There may be more leaders like Pilate than are like the others. However, those who refuse to be under Jesus’ rule and would rather do what makes others under their authority happy, even if wrong and destructive, create chaos and suffering for those same people in the end.

At the End of the Day

All of this toxic leadership brings about the conviction and execution of a completely innocent man—the God of the universe.

That should be shocking and confusing and angering to all. There should not be a dry eye in the house.

However, at the end of the day, or should I say weekend, Jesus Christ, who was dead and buried, rose from the dead in glory.

He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

That judgment will mean life and wholeness and peace to all who call upon his name, rejecting the toxic leadership of Judas, the Sanhedrin, and Roman authority, and turning to Him in faith.