Category Archives: Followership

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.

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.

Flesh and Blood and Spiritual Forces

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

Perspective.

How do we view the world around us? And more specifically, how do we view our “enemies”, particularly those who have abused their authority and deeply wounded those who work under their authority?

Perspective makes a significant difference in how we think about and how we act towards these bosses.

I mostly write about how we understand abusive leadership and periodically write about followership. This blog is going with another . . . well, perspective.

Perspective: How Important?

Biblically, how we view—or think of—others is as important as how we treat others; in part because our actions are understood to come out of a heart that is evil or good. Therefore, Jesus continually challenged his followers to look deep inside (as did James and others).

So, I want to take a look at what Paul suggests should be our perspective of toxic leaders with whom we struggle.

Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

Ephesians 6:11-12 (ESV)

In the verses preceding this passage, Paul has been challenging both those in authority and those who are followers. He has sought to exhort followers—of even wicked leadership (specifically slaves)—to take on a particular perspective.

Each follower that Paul mentions is called to serve his/her “master” as he would serve Christ. His/her perspective is to be heavenly rather than on the good or evil of the leader.

His/her service is not from loyalty to the leader. It is a heavenly, God-ward perspective that should mold their work.

In fact, the slave is called to view his work as for the Lord specifically and not for man. Because if it were for man, it would be incredibly difficult for the slave. It would make his/her life all the more unbearable if his perspective was that his work was for the wicked master.

It would likely feel like selling his soul.

Where Evil Originates

And so Paul comes down to the summary statement above from Ephesians 6:11-12. When faced with an abusive leader, what should be our perspective?

Rather than focusing on the evil of the leader’s actions, he directs our attention elsewhere. That elsewhere is where the evil originates. Behind every evil leader are the “cosmic powers” of “spiritual forces” that drive them. “The Devil made me do it” is partially correct. However, the “made me” is off-base.

Man is fully responsible for his own evil actions in this life.

He is culpable for his anger, entitlement, and coercive control. However, that evil goes all the way back to the garden when Satan tempted Adam and Eve. It was there that man said “yes” to those spiritual forces.

The Conflict

At this point you may be in conflict. How do I suggest in blog after blog that toxic leaders must be held accountable and in this blog suggest that we aren’t really wrestling with the toxic leader, but rather some ethereal something or other behind him/her?

It is, however, no conflict. It is not easy. But it is no conflict.

Accountability: Just as Adam was responsible in the Garden for his turning away from God, so too the toxic leaders is responsible for turning away from God. And biblically, he/she will be judged for his arrogance.

Perspective: However, as I go about seeking accountability for the toxic leader’s actions, I can fulfill Paul’s exhortations such as—

And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

2 Timothy 2:24-26 (ESV)

Or . . .

Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.

Galatians 6:1 (ESV)

Or . . .

But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, 16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

1 Peter 3:14-16 (ESV)

We can graciously bring accountability knowing that “they know not what they are doing” in a sense (Luke 23:341). We can have an attitude of winning the brother if he will be won (Mathew 18:152). Let gentleness and kindness rule in our hearts.

Also, know that the likelihood of an abuser changing his approach to leadership is as likely as a leopard changing his spots—there is significant research to prove that. So, if you confront go with your eyes wide-open. And keep in mind, confronting someone as dangerous as your boss can be a fool’s errand.

But, by all means bring accountability because ultimately this is kindness to the erring brother.

NOTES

  1. Luke 23:34 (ESV) And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” ↩︎
  2. Matthew 18:15 (ESV) “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. ↩︎

Followership: Obedience to Toxic Leadership

Posted on by
2

Scripture is full of twists and turns that help us navigate the complexities of our world.

Some would call them inconsistencies. Or in need of complicated justifications. However, I would call it God’s wisdom in speaking to our ever complex circumstances.

One such twist is how Scripture handles “turning the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39). It is not uncommon to hear sermons and Bible studies based on the idea that as Christians we should be doormats. It is part of teaching on submission in the Bible.

Twists and Turns

However, there are also turns in Scripture that throw us off guard. This is because Scripture was written not to give us a specific law for every eventuality in which we find ourselves. As the author of the “Divorce and Domestic Abuse” section in the DASA Report, Shane Waldron, notes,

[I]f we interpret Scripture through the lens of modern law, we will most likely arrive at a very different answer than if we read it as law from the Ancient Near East.

Ad Interim Study Committee on Domestic Abuse and Sexual Assault for the Presbyterian Church in America, Attachment 11

Our American viewpoint on law is just not the same as Scripture’s. They understood laws in a “principled” way. The big picture is given in the Bible in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) and then given hands and feet in principles through case laws that are found throughout. These “case laws” help us understand the complexities of our situations.

For example, the Ten Commandments tell us we cannot murder. But, murder must be defined more carefully. So, the case law notes that killing someone in self-defense is not punishable as murder (Exodus 22:2). There are other defining characteristics as to what “murder” should be considered.

Turning the Other Cheek

So, too we need to be careful in what we expect of people when it comes to submission to evil. What I mean by that is how we determine when we should turn the other cheek to those who do harm.

A curious defining moment for those under toxic leadership comes in Paul’s second letter to the Corinthian church. He says,

Since many boast according to the flesh, I too will boast. 19 For you gladly bear with fools, being wise yourselves! 20 For you bear it if someone makes slaves of you, or devours you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or strikes you in the face. 21 To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that!

2 Corinthians 11:18-21 (ESV)

Paul’s writing reeks of sarcasm here as it does in other places. The Corinthian church had gone far astray since Paul brought the Gospel to Corinth around 50 AD. He wrote the words above around 4-6 years later. There were some pretty serious problems that had popped up in that time.

There were those who were abusing their authority in the church, teaching contrary to Paul’s apostolic authority. In this passage, Paul’s sarcasm is directed at the followers. He is calling them to action.

Submission That is Not God’s Desire

When it comes to those who are abusing their authority, Paul would suggest that submission is not the desire of God. Here submission is to God who overrules wicked authority.

Paul describes it as bearing “with fools, being wise yourselves!” Putting up with wicked authority is no godly. When doing so, followers are allowing the leader(s) to “make slaves of you, or [devour] you, or [take] advantage of you.”

Paul, in his writing, can be harsh. But that harshness is intended to relieve those oppressed by that which God despises. God despises leaders who take advantage and oppress their subjects (Ezekiel 34). Paul, though sarcastic towards these followers in Corinth, is particularly looking out for the flock there.

This is not a call to be overly critical of leaders in Christian organizations.

Scripture still makes it evident that the default position of those under various authorities to recognize and submit to those authorities as God-given.

However, this perspective must also be balanced with Scripture’s continual call to leaders to lead under the direction of their LORD and for followers to hold leaders accountable to that same standard.

Hypocricy: Boasting of Rightness, Living Wrong

Posted on by
Reply

One of the most damaging things to an organization is a leader who is a hypocrite.

The Oxford Dictionary defines hypocrisy as

the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.

This is particularly true for a Christian organization. This is why:

“You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. 24 For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”

Romans 2:23-24

There Goes the Neighborhood

A recent article I read from the days of yore when Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were battling it out for their party’s nominations for President provides some interesting perspective.1

Leaders play a crucial role in establishing their organizations’ social structures, and successful organizations need to function like a neighborhood. Neighbors look out for each other and rally to work on projects, knowing that when they need help, other members of the community will step up to assist them.

When leaders say one thing and do another, they are destroying the “social structures” that make the organization operate effectively.

The article notes that followers pay attention to the leader’s commitment to their long-term well-being. If the leader’s integrity is questioned, then the “long-term” doesn’t look so good. Who can say what the leader says he will do is what he will indeed do?

If the Christian leader speaks adamantly of God’s Word as the fundamental driving force in his life and yet secretly, or not so secretly, ignores the Word in his everyday life, he is but a clanging gong (1 Corinthians 13). He cannot be trusted.

The “Best Practice Institute” puts it this way:

As the neighborhood dissolves, the organization functions more like a collection of strangers. When strangers interact, they have to settle up their debts in the moment. You can’t go to your local supermarket and borrow a dozen eggs because the supermarket can’t be confident that you’d show up later to pay for them. You can go to your neighbor and borrow eggs, though, because you have a trusted relationship.

The integrity of the leader matters. Hypocrisy, the failure to conform to those beliefs of which the leader espouses, destroys trust, engagement, and even the integrity of followers. Followers follow their leader.

Words and Actions

A consistent part of the Biblical witness and as it turns out, the perspective presented by this article, is that actions really matter; in fact, they show what the leader has purposed in his heart.

We show whether we really believe our beliefs by our actions. And when it is the law of God as Romans says that we are proclaiming as the system of our beliefs, then the breaking of those proclamations destroy our credibility. Leaders are on display nearly everyday of their lives. This becomes incredibly important.

Paul, in his letter to the Romans, goes on to say:

[A]nd if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself?

Romans 2:19-21

What it means to be taught in Scripture is that we take the words down deep and live those words in our actions. Both things. It is not about gaining a boatload of knowledge and ignoring it when putting our hands to the plow.

Education in the Hebrew sense meant to be overcome by the words towards behavior that reflected that knowledge.

What is the Impact?

Paul says to the Romans that the witness of those who ignore their beliefs—behaving hypocritically—destroys the witness they have to the watching world.

Paul uses the “Gentiles” as the intended audience to the hypocrisy because at that time, those who were not Jews were those who were mostly outside the newborn Christian religion. They were only beginning to come in faith in Jesus Christ. Paul was deeply concerned that these people who were an important focus of his ministry would not be turned away from Jesus by His followers acting hypocritically.

How do we apply this to our organizational leaders?

We must hold high standards for our leaders. Mind you, our leaders will always fail. We are sinful people, no matter how high our position is. Each will fail in various ways.

However, along with those failures, humility—a common theme for these pages—will be evident in those same leaders who blow it by espousing one belief and acting in another. These leaders will recognize their failure, confess that failure willingly, turn from those failures (repentance), and finally make restitution happily.

These humble leaders are those who truly have a belief they proclaim, but sometimes fall to the temptation of expediency—or concupiscence—and in turn need to confess and make right.

But, keep in mind, there are failures that disqualify our leaders. Depending on the kind of leadership and authority they have been given, the failure may be such that even their humility cannot prevent long-term distrust.

In these cases, the leader should willingly step down from his position and seek a new “calling” in God’s kingdom.

Leaders need the trust of followers and hypocrisy is one sure way to destroy that.

Note

  1. Staff, B. P. I., and Best Practice Institute (2016), ‘The Unseen Consequences Of Hypocritical Leadership’, Best Practice Institute – Blog (20 June), https://blog.bestpracticeinstitute.org/consequences-of-hypocritical-leadership/, accessed 24 Jan. 2026.
    ↩︎

James and Oppression 2: The Center of Toxic Leadership

Posted on by
Reply

From where does oppressive behavior come?

In this second look at the book of James, we will consider the center of toxic leadership. As was noted in part one of this series, much teaching in leadership circles looks at the outward behavior of the leader as the standard.

I have had the pleasure and privilege of writing alongside academic researchers in the field of toxic leadership—not because I am particularly an academic mind you—and have noticed this particular bent. I understand it and am not opposed to what is being written. Just as the US military takes a decidedly behavioral perspective in its training and discipline (as a friend told me), so too I know in the business world it is more feasible to look at the outward actions of leaders. There is the view that as long as you keep your toxins inside, you are golden as a leader.

However, as a Christian writing mostly to those confronted by toxic leadership in Christian organizations—including the church—I am concerned about leaders who may get a free pass because their toxins are covered up—at least for a time.

And that is a very important point; I believe toxic leadership will [nearly] always raise its ugly head at some point if the leader has a heart that is bent that way.

And so, this blog is looking at what James says about the heart. Because it is getting to the beast within that is going to truly and actually impact the toxic leader’s behavior and help in bringing accountability.

James says in 3:13:

Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom.

Notice the interesting interplay here. James first points to the heart: “wise and understanding”. Those are heart issues—the inner man. What does he think and feel. Is he “wise and understanding?”

Then he goes on to note that behavior should come from wisdom and understanding. His good conduct will show whether he is wise or not. His behavior will show what is in his heart.

Then James goes on to explain more:

But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. 15 This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. 16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.

When toxic leaders are described, it is usually with terms like arrogance, liar, entitled, controlling, harsh, and overly demanding.

James goes so far as to say that these heart attitudes—jealousy, selfish ambition—are demonic. That is strong stuff. And not only that, these attitudes give rise to “disorder and every vile practice.”

It comes from the inner man.

If the thinking, emotions, and will are evil then the behavior will be. It may be controlled sometimes out of necessity to keep the job or wife or the respect of others. But the evil will in the end get the best of the most self-controlled of leaders and there will be disorder and vile practices.

Where does oppressive behavior come from? It comes from the heart of man.

Therefore all attempts at coaching or counseling must be directed to the heart of man. It is not enough to give him a nicer suit or less angry words. You can’t dress him up from the outside.

Get to his heart.

Jealousy and Leadership: A Toxic Mix

Posted on by
Reply

Narcissism is found on a continuum. That means that there are those with extensive narcissism and those with little self-interest. Everyone else is found between those extremes. Most of us live in that neighborhood . . . not classified as narcissistic but having a self-interest that is rotten and hurtful.

That self-interest provides many opportunities, maybe even daily, to covet the skills and gifting others have. For the leader who considers his authority questioned whenever another human being in his orbit receives accolades for his or her skills, the temptation to not only covet but attempt control over that gifted one is a problem.

In the Bible book of Numbers there is a story that is a good example of leadership and a bad one as well.

Israel has broken free from Egypt where they were enslaved. Moses, whom God chose to lead the nation out of Egypt, is challenged to squash the gifts of others.

So Moses went out and told the people what the LORD had said. He brought together seventy of their elders and had them stand around the tent. 25 Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke with him, and he took some of the power of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders. When the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied —but did not do so again.

Numbers 11:24-30 (NIV)

This in itself could have been a temptation for Moses. Seeing the LORD bless others with gifting, in essence giving them attention like Moses had received as a leader.

In my world of constant leadership failures, my first thought is I can’t believe Moses would actually shared “the power of the Spirit that was on him” with these other men. That is shocking enough, but the passage goes on:

However, two men, whose names were Eldad and Medad, had remained in the camp. They were listed among the elders, but did not go out to the tent. Yet the Spirit also rested on them, and they prophesied in the camp. 27 A young man ran and told Moses, “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.” 28 Joshua son of Nun, who had been Moses’ aide since youth, spoke up and said, “Moses, my lord, stop them!”

So, what would you do in this situation?

Joshua, whose name you may recognize, showed support and dedication to his leader, Moses. Joshua would go on to lead Israel in the future conquest of the promised land. He was a great leader of Israel.

However, at this point in his discipleship as a leader, he is a toxic follower. And Moses knows it. Joshua, rather than encouraging godly leadership that refuses to bend its knee to the gods of pride and entitlement, seeks to show Moses how devoted he is to Moses as the “big man.”

Moses refuses to follow the temptation of the big man.


But Moses replied, “Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the LORD’s people were prophets and that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!” 30 Then Moses and the elders of Israel returned to the camp.

He recognizes that His LORD is the true giver. And when He gives to his people, we should rejoice in the gifts He gives. Even if it means we are not seen as such a big man anymore.

It is a hard lesson for leaders . . . and every person who seeks to follow Christ in their leadership. It takes heart change. Jealousy of God’s blessing on others is much more common in our hearts than we want to admit—I certainly don’t want to, but it is there.

But that is a deep dive each of us needs to take if we are to be the leaders—and even just people—God wants us to be.

We will continue to fall, but our sanctification is a calling we are given. And leaders owe it to their subordinates.

The Gold Standard: When Unacceptable is Better than Those Others

Posted on by
Reply

In this little missive I am going to try to relate an interesting, but understandable, phenomenon in domestic abuse experience to the workaday world.

I have heard more than once from friends of survivors that the abuser is “not as bad as my husband . . . so he’s golden!”

We can’t help but contrast and compare our experiences with other’s. We either do so to build ourselves up or show how rough we have it. Either way, one comes out smelling better than another.

Well at least he doesn’t hit her

In the domestic violence world it is common to hear, “Well at least he doesn’t hit her.” But survivors of emotional abuse will come back with, “I wish he would hit me so I would have a bruise to show for it. Then maybe others would take my suffering seriously.”

Many people fail to recognize or make clear that any form of abuse is wrong. It is hurtful to the emotional, physical, and spiritual health of the victim. The pain of bruises and the agony of broken brain circuitry are simply different . . . but all of it is destructive and evil and can create long-term trauma.

So, that brings us to another problem: the isolating of victims because people don’t understand these truths. These comparisons are used to control the victims, particularly in Christian settings where divorce is rejected on abuse grounds.

I have heard things like, “When they don’t destroy things they must be gold . . . though they yell at and demean their partner.” Friends of one woman repeatedly attacked her because her husband isn’t “as bad as their own.” They will not admit that their own husbands are abusive. That would be too hard. So the victim is pushed outside the camp because she isn’t tough enough like her detractors are.

But, as my wife has said, “You don’t have to be strangling someone to choke the life out of them.” Though he may not yell as often or demean in the same way, it is evil.

Workplace Abuse?

How does this relate to leadership in the workplace?

We see the same dynamic in the organization when fellow leaders, boards, or even co-workers suggest that the boss—

  • Isn’t as bad as the last guy.
  • The boss is supposed to be a strong leader.
  • He may be a little rough around the edges.
  • He is the founder. He can do what he wants.
  • Corporate bosses are notoriously narcissistic.

All these excuses simply suggest that evil is good.

But Scripture does not take that view.

Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!

Isaiah 5:20 (ESV)

Notice how that verse starts: “Woe”. That is a scary word that has a sense of “curse”. You do not want to be “woed”. But when you start suggesting that someone is not abusive in the home or workplace because he isn’t as bad as Hitler, you need to rethink your comparisons. You are asking for woes.

Particularly if you are being called on to give aid and comfort to a victim. And instead, you suggest their pain means nothing.

How Toxic Leaders Respond to Strength: Toxic Leadership Goes from Bad to Worse

Posted on by
1

Threatened.

The toxic leader will be threatened by the slightest show of strength from subordinates. This was the story of the new king of Egypt in the time following the death of Joseph.

As a little background, Joseph, the son of Jacob, had been taken as a slave from his family to Egypt—that is a whole story in itself. Through a variety of amazing circumstances directed by the Lord, Joseph’s ability to read the dreams of others came to the attention of the king.

Having read the king’s troubling dreams, the king appointed Joseph to oversee the nation’s food supply. The king had dreamed (symbolically) of seven years of abundance followed by a seven-year drought. God gave Joseph incredible wisdom that saved the Egyptian nation and many surrounding nations through his wise management of their agriculture.

Joseph’s family—God’s people—moved to Egypt during this time and were given good land to farm by the king. The “Israelites” grew in numbers and after Joseph died, Exodus 1:8-11 picks up the story:

Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. 9 And he said to his people, “Behold, the people of Israel are too many and too mighty for us. 10 Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and, if war breaks out, they join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land.” 11 Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with heavy burdens. They built for Pharaoh store cities, Pithom and Raamses.

Exodus 1:8-11 (ESV)

You have to the ask the question, “Why would the king think the Israelites would join Egypt’s enemies and fight against them?” Egypt had proven to be a good place to work and raise their families. The Israelites were prospering because of the former Pharoah’s (king) kindness to them.

Why, Why, Why

However, it appears that the Israelites were already in the grips of the Egyptians. They did not appear to be equals in their citizenry. The king (and the other Egyptians) appeared to have power over these foreign people. This is evidenced by the fact the king could set “taskmasters over them to afflict them with heavy burdens.”

This new Pharaoh would prove in the story to be a toxic leader.

The Egyptian king had the ability to rule over them in a toxic way and chose to do so. So, he chose to take toxic control. An average leader might consider how to woo his subordinates. Not the Egyptian king. . . nor a toxic leader of any sort.

Robert Hare wrote,

There is a class of individuals who have been around forever and who are found in every race, culture, society and walk of life. Everybody has met these people, been deceived and manipulated by them, and forced to live with or repair the damage they have wrought.1

If you know the story, you know that Exodus goes on to describe the destruction wrought by the king in the lives of the Egyptians and the subsequent judgments God brought upon the nation of Egypt because of the king’s horrific toxicity. As Hare notes, the Egyptians were “forced to live with or repair the damage [the king had] wrought.”

This is the way of toxic leadership. The destruction a narcissistic or abusive leader causes can be far-reaching and long-lasting. But generally, it is people in the organization, nation, business, or church that have to, in the end, live with it or try to repair it.

And it gets worse

Barbara Kellerman, the Founding Executive Director of the Harvard Kennedy School’s Center for Public Leadership, wrote of the common direction these toxic leaders go; down. It only gets worse. There is example after example. It is extremely rare that a bad leader becomes good. Rather their slippery slope is all downhill.

Kellerman tells the story of Volkswagen’s former CEO, Martin Winterkorn.

The effect of Winterkorn’s bad leadership was cumulative. The longer it lasted, the higher the cost to everyone adversely affected. Volkswagen’s cheating was not a single, quickly aborted instance of wrongdoing, never to be repeated. It was the opposite. It went on for eight years, the price paid by the victims of Volkswagen’s wrongdoing escalating with each passing day.2

But this should not surprise us as Christians. Sin is crouching at the door (Gen. 4:7) and without the intervention of Christ, it goes generally from bad to worse.

There are people who are truly driven by evil as Dan Allender describes (and it only gets worse):

All of us are capable of doing evil things, but evil people are driven by a self-interest that is so heartless, conscious, and cruel that it delights in stealing from others the lifeblood of their soul. Often the one who delights in evil is an ordinary, unassuming person who hides behind a facade of normalcy. Few people who are evil ever appear evil, even after the evidence of their deceit, destructiveness, and hardness is exposed.3

Keeping Clean of Defilement

It is difficult to watch the masses follow after narcissistic and abusive leaders in any organizational setting. They might think the leader holds some values they hold or promote some policies they promote. So, they think those positive traits will keep the followers clean of defilement. But, that is not how it works.

The followers of the Egyptian king suffered much the same from God’s judgment as did the king. The plagues that devastated Egypt crushed its people. In fact, it is likely that the only plague that fully affected the king was the death of his firstborn. As the king, he was likely above many of the affects of the other plagues.

Let this story be a challenge to leaders who are tempted to gain control through strength or manipulation. And let is be a challenge to followers who think they are somehow exempt from the damage such leaders bring.

Notes

  1. ‘This Charming Psychopath’, Psychology Today, http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199401/charming-psychopath, accessed 18 March 2016.
    ↩︎
  2. Kellerman, Barbara, Leadership from Bad to Worse: What Happens When Bad Festers, Oxford University Press (2024)
    (pp. 82-83). ↩︎
  3. Allender, Dan B., and Longman III, Tremper, Bold Love (Colorado Springs, CO, 2014) 233.
    ↩︎

Questions to Ask: Getting to the Heart of the Organization

Posted on by
3

Jack and I served the same Christian organization. When he left the mission field, he vowed that he would never work for another Christian organization again. He had developed a distrust for those who name the Name of Christ, but treat their employees (and other stakeholders) like dirt.

Now, after several years of healing and vocational development, Jack has begun looking at job possibilities in Christian organizations once again. His love for what the church of Christ can do for the building of God’s Kingdom is pulling him back. As we talked, his concern was how to determine if an organization is toxic before signing on the dotted line.

What questions can you ask when the typical interviewer says, “Are there questions you have for us?” What steps should you take to identify an organization that is toxic? This is what I found in my research to identify questions you can ask and steps you can take to make wise organizational choices.

If being interviewed by the boss:

Because you are primarily looking for toxic leaders, you may be speaking directly to one in your interview. If that is the case, these questions are hopefully non-intimidating and you might get honest answers that will point to problems if there are any.

  • What is the average length of employment at the organization?

Does the organization have a seemingly high resignation (or firing) rate? Is it due to the pay or because they are particularly hard to work for? Many Christian organizations pay less, but have high loyalty rates. If they have neither, there may be red flags flying.

  • If an employee has difficulty with a manager or other employee, is there a policy / process for complaints in the organization?

This commonly overlooked area of ministry development can go a long ways in making the organization toxin-proof. Is there a clear policy that shows respect for individuals and gives the employee a safe way to complain of mistreatment? Of course, the organization may have a policy in place but fail to implement it well.

  • How do managers in the organization seek to develop and use the God-given gifts of their subordinates?

Ultimately, a Christian organization (or any other for that matter) should be seeking to “take dominion” in the use of employee God-given gifts and talents used for His glory. Leaders in a Christian ministry ought to have considered how they are fulfilling the dominion mandate or they may be seeking to develop their own image and seek their own glory through the work of others.

Ask these questions of Employees:

Discussing the organization with employees is probably the most important step you should take. But, as you begin to gain insight to the organization from the grass-roots level, there is one very important thing to keep in mind: Often employees do not agree on whether a leader is toxic or not. As Kusy and Holloway, in a very helpful book called “Toxic Workplace,” say,

“A tip in recognizing toxicity is that there may be (and likely are) different perspectives about the toxic person; there may even be some people who do not experience the person’s toxicity at all. This is especially true for those who are in a position of power or control access to powerful others, perks, or any number of resources the toxic individual wants.” [1]

There are some big-picture ideas that you need to understand as you interview employees of the organization. Kusy and Holloway say, “When we examined the behavioral items statistically, we arrived at three primary types of behaviors that put a frame around how to identify [toxic leaders] in a simple and straightforward fashion: shaming, passive hostility, and team sabotage.” [2]

Here are some ideas:

  • Do you consistently feel valued by your bosses?

Is the leader demeaning or derogatory? Do they act like a parent disciplining a child when criticizing their subordinates or other managers? Do they intentionally embarrass others?

  • Are your ideas asked for and considered in decision-making?

Are the leaders team-oriented? Do they see a win by a subordinate as a win for the team? In Biblical language: Do they believe their subordinates are creative image-bearers of God so they actually believe they can learn from them?

  • Have you, or someone you know, questioned an idea of the boss / team leader? How did that go?

This could be either a matter of a leader’s sin or simply a leader’s idea that others disagreed with. Usually, toxic individuals will either blow a fuse or shift blame for any implied shortcomings…oftentimes no matter how small an issue it is. In Biblical language: They are unrepentant – unwilling to admit wrong. Be attentive to answers that suggests the managers have little or no humility.

  • Is there respect shown among leaders and followers for other organizations than their own?

Are the leaders very territorial? Do they suggest, “Our organization does it the very best way.” “If you aren’t for us, you are against us.” Even if you get this sense from the employees, it is possible brainwashing has come from the leadership.

  • Do the leaders change decisions “and claim no knowledge of the initial conversation and decision.” [3]

This is common to those toxic leaders who are “passive-aggressive.” The employee may think the leader is very busy, has a lot on their plate, and “probably just forgets things.” They may also go behind a co-worker’s back without discussing issues directly with them. These are particularly manipulative people.

  • Do the leaders trust you to follow through with the details of your job? Do they trust their teams to fulfill the organization’s mission?

Micromanaging is a destructive and toxic approach to management. If the subordinates cannot do their job and will not deal with details, the manager may feel the need to do this. This kind of environment may be or is possibly in process of becoming toxic systemically. This may not mean there is toxic leadership, but by talking to several employees you should be able to get an idea of whether it is employee or leadership induced micromanagement.

There are many other questions that can be asked, keeping in mind the bigger issues and forming questions that get to the heart of those issues. I have found that most people do not really understand when they are in a toxic environment. Often they have drunk deeply from the Kool-aid and refuse to see their organization as toxic. Therefore, you must get the answers by means of non-threatening questions and listen closely for what may be underlying their responses.

Do you have additional ideas born from experience? Please share them with us.

Notes

1  Kusy, Mitchell. Toxic Workplace!: Managing Toxic Personalities and Their Systems of Power (Kindle Locations 378-380). Wiley. Kindle Edition.

2  Ibid. (Kindle Locations 421-423).

3  Ibid. (Kindle Locations 471-472).