Category Archives: Leadership Abuse

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.

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.

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.

Bowing the Knee to Pharisaism: It Never Goes Well

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

Recently I came across a passage in the history of the early church.

Acts 21 in the Bible presents Luke’s story of his and his companions—including Paul—arrival in Jerusalem.

All along the way, as they stopped off in various communities, there were those in the churches who prophesied that Paul would be put “in chains” if he went to Jerusalem.

And so it goes.

Zealous for the Law

When Paul, Luke, and their other fellow travelers arrive, there is a joyful reunion with the church. As they all shared together what God had been doing through the various ministries of those present, they “glorified God.”

So far so good.

However, something struck me for the first time the other day after many readings of this passage over the last 45 years. Immediately, on the heals of Paul sharing the incredible, earth-shaking news that many of those outside the Jewish religion were turning to Jesus Christ, there is an immediate damper.

I am sure Paul was very excited to share his news. But there is no sense in Scripture that there is any reveling in God’s amazing grace as they heard the news. Instead, there is a bit of a one-ups-man-ship among the other believers there. Hear their response:

You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, 21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. 22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.

Acts 21:20-22

First they note that “many thousands” of Jews had come to believe in Christ. Then they note they are “zealous for the law.”

Zealousness for the law is okay if it means we love the holiness of God and how he has expressed that holiness through His law. However, what seems apparent is that the zealotry is more Pharisaic than the Psalm 119 kind of joy in the law.

Notice that these church leaders follow up the “I can do one better with thousands of Jews” comment with YOU ARE THE MAN who is causing trouble here. Paul’s teaching—which was coming from a reformed Pharisee, mind you—was it was unnecessary to be circumcised to be a follower of Jesus. Paul worked exceptionally hard at teaching the church to not add rules to Scripture. His old way was to hold legalistically to the law and the addition of many interpretations of the law that had become law in themselves—Pharisaism.

Forsaking Moses meant these Jews thought Paul cared nothing for Old Testament Judaism—which is certainly not true. Jesus confirmed the Old Testament law, but also explained how the Pharisees—and other Jewish groups—had taught the law as a means to be saved rather than as a guide to recognizing their need for a Savior. That was never the intent of the law.

So, “What then is to be done?”

Giving In

After reading all that has gone before in the various villages they had visited, you get the sense that these brothers are hoping to keep Paul from being chained—even by fellow believers who were angry about his teaching on the law.

So they suggest:

We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.

Acts 21:23-24

Paul is to fulfill this Pharisaical practice of the law in order to please these folks who continue to think these things are necessary to make God happy.

When in Rome do as the Romans do.

Paul is a big believer in that idea. Whereas it is not breaking God’s law, he was happy to do as others do in order to reach them with the Gospel.

But, what we find here is that Pharisees—whether as members in the group or simply of heart—are never satisfied.

Paul did what they called him to do but it didn’t matter. Paul is reviled and seized by these Jews: “

‘Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place’ . . . Then all the city was stirred up, and the people ran together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple.”

It Cannot be Mollified

Pharisaism cannot be mollified. Paul, nor Jesus, ever makes excuses for it. Though Paul, in this instance, appears to have tried to calm the anxiety created by the Pharisees, he didn’t succeed.

Pharisaic teaching and practice are destructive. Paul continually fought against it (see Galatians 3:1f; Colossians 2:20-23). He called out, by name, those who were leading the fledgling church astray by its legalistic teaching (see the whole book of Galatians).

I believe I can safely say that some form of modern Phariseeism is behind a huge percentage of the church leadership abuse cases of which I have had contact.

In these cases, leaders held unswervingly to a belief or practice that was either outright unbiblical or based on an interpretation that was not clearly biblical. It is that interpretation that is blown up into an absolute that so often gets the leader in trouble.

A leader may take a view of pro-marriage and create a law unto itself without recognizing the principles behind the biblical authors’ writings that provide the heart and soul of marriage: a loving committed covenant between two people. And just as God “divorced” his people, so too those who have been rejected by their spouse through abuse are allowed to divorce—the abuser’s actions are called desertion in biblical terms.

A leader may consider those who question his wisdom as being unsubmissive to authority. But he is only looking at the parts of the verses that call on those under man’s authority to submit (Romans 13:1). He does not pay any attention to the meaning of “for he is God’s servant for your good” (Romans 13:4) or the verses calling him to account for his leadership failures (1 Peter 3:7).

So, these leaders run with their incomplete interpretations of Scripture and make a ruin of lives.

One look at the Gospels and you will recognize the abuse heaped upon God’s people by the Pharisees. The church must reject the modern-day Pharisees wherever they find them.

NOTE:

As a closing note, it is helpful to see that Paul’s end goal in walking towards the toxic leaders resulted in accomplishing the goal he had. Paul, writing to the Philippians church from prison:

I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel, so that it has become known throughout the whole imperial guard and to all the rest that my imprisonment is for Christ. And most of the brothers, having become confident in the Lord by my imprisonment, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.

Philippians 1:12-14 (ESV)

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.

James and Oppression 1: Murderous Words

Posted on by
1

The book of James in the Bible is full of teaching on the abusive heart.

Though it speaks generally to all people, it also has specific value for leaders—those with formal or informal power over others.

After providing a beautiful and life-changing discussion on how to persevere under trials, James begins to delve into the heart of oppressive behavior. The warning shot comes in verse 19 of the first chapter:

Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; 20 for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.

“Angry” is often a descriptive term for those who are abusive of others. Though anger is not normally at the heart of the abusive leader’s problem—rather entitlement and control—it is a means and method for achieving these desires of the abuser.

This one sentence written by James, the brother of Jesus Christ, is antithetical to anger.

Listen.

Wait.

Be right.

A leader who fails to listen to others is not producing “the righteousness of God.” He has his own views, rights, and privileges in mind, not the good of others or the organization he serves. Listening to others implies truly hearing what they have to say and giving them the respect they deserve as God’s image bearers.

This can be applied as well to the leader who seemingly listens to and yet ignores his subordinates. The term “hear” means “to attend to, consider what is or has been said.” Again, is he giving honor to those who serve at his behest? Hearing means truly listening . . . no just acting like it.

Hypocrisy

James goes on in this same passage to challenge those who are wrapped up in a “Christiany” image but are in fact hypocrites. They put on an act of being Christian by spouting biblical sounding speeches, but in fact do not actually live those same words in their daily lives and leadership:

But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. 24 For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. [James 1:22-24]

These “Christian” leaders appear to hear the words of God but immediately turn away from them in their daily life. They are surrounded by the Word of God—in the organization masthead, organization chapels, staff meetings, church partnering—but it is all just window-dressing. Often the leader is more concerned about funding the organization than he is about following Christ “whether he eats or drinks, or whatever he does.”

So, he speaks a good line that sounds Christian for all the donors and likely the staff, but his heart is really far from it.

Out of the Mouth

In verse 26, James brings the tongue back into the discussion:

If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

James takes a hard stance against the evil that comes out of the mouth. It comes back over and over again.

Much of our “behavior” —outward actions—is how we speak to and about others. Just as James says, our tongues are fires (James 3:5), ready to accomplish our scorched earth policies.

Does the leader think of himself, and even defend himself as a good Christian? Does he see himself as religious—after all, he runs a Christian organization or goes to church regularly, maybe even is a Sunday school teacher, or fills the pulpit periodically.

James says, if he “does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless.“

In chapter three James goes on with further criticism of those who use the tongue abusively:

For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, 8 but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. 10 From the same mouth come blessing and cursing.

Deadly Poison

“Deadly poison.” Strong words. James shows the incomprehensibility of those who claim to love Christ and yet “curse” others. The Greek term καταράομαι (curse) means to “curse, doom, imprecate evil upon” someone else.

As poison it hurts and kills. Though sticks and stones can break our bones, cursing others is murderous. It destroys the emotional and spiritual health of others. It often destroys other’s relationship with the Lord having come from a “Christian” leader.

James, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gets the harm abusive words cause.

The hypocrisy of those who lead a Christian organizations—or any other organization for that matter—claiming to be a follower of Christ and yet behaving with a pattern of abusive language is beyond comprehension.

Appropriately, James has the strongest words for those who tear down others with their words—words that should give life and hope to others.

Do you take seriously the words that come from your mouth. Do you stop. Listen. And then respectfully hear the words of those under your formal or informal authority? If you continually justify yourself, you need to delve deeper into your heart.

Abusive leadership is a pattern of behavior that tears down others and it is so often with words—even words that sound Christian.

The Heart of [Abusive] Leadership: Becoming leaders with a desire for the good and the capacity to carry it out

Posted on by
Reply

The abuse of leadership does not just appear out of the blue.

It has roots and a heart.

When we talk about abuse, we talk about patterns of behavior—coercive, controlling, and punishing behaviors. But we do not stop there.

The Difficulty of Transformation

It is rooted deeply in the heart. Behaviors are simple outward manifestations of something much deeper.

Therefore, the way to transformation is through the heart; not a five-, ten-, or fifteen-step program of changed behavior.

When seeking change in an abusive leader, it must be kept in mind that he or she is deeply deceived.

The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it?

Jeremiah 17:9 (ESV)

And this is why abuse advocates have so little confidence in the abusive leader to change.

Have you ever confronted an abuser? Did you see a humble recognition of their wicked heart? Did you see the dawning light in their eyes as they recognized their controlling heart and mean spirit? Did they even two days later come back to you and confess their thoughts of control and domination and ask forgiveness?

I know the answer to those rhetorical questions. At least 99% of the time.

Moral Concern for Others

So, how can transformation take place? How can an abusive leader be changed?

In a recent article by Kevin Brown in “The Dispatch“, the writer hit the nail on the head. Change is not through “thinly constituted reasoning”, as Brown puts it, but through “a story that shapes our moral imagination and directs our lives toward others.”

Brown says,

The Christian tradition has a word for this: discipleship. A call not merely to know what is right, but to become the kind of people who do the right thing. That is, both a desire for the good and the capacity to carry it out.

Real Virtue Has Roots by Kevin Brown

He noted that change in mankind—for good—comes through “discipleship”.

Brown says,

It is our day-to-day roots, not abstract reason, that will cultivate the virtuous life and our moral concern for others.

But discipleship means there is a “follower” who desires to learn from the one discipling him. And this again can be a nail in the coffin of transformation—most abusers don’t see it and so don’t think they need transformation. Why would they seek out discipleship?

The Ultimate Transformer

This is where Christ comes in . . . though He has been there all the time, mind you.

If Christ resurrected, this changes everything. All the maps have been redrawn. The world is upside down. Things are not as they seem. The truth of this story demands, says the hymnist, “my soul, my life, my all.”

Real Virtue Has Roots by Kevin Brown

It is only through Christ that a leader can even develop the desire to seek to know oneself; to know the sin that lies deeply hidden in his soul. To become a disciple.

This is the ultimate way that a leader will change his spots.

Yes, there are ways of seeking accountability: bringing pressure from boards; confrontations; firings; required batterer intervention programs. We have seen leaders seek heart change as a result of these accountability measures.

But ultimately, these only work when Christ chooses to bring pressure, confront, and bring consequences in order to discipline the toxic leader.

For if, because of [Adam’s] trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Romans 5:17 (ESV)

We must rely upon Christ. Ultimately, transformation is His gift from Jesus Christ to the leader and organization and even the world around the leader.

Blessed is the man whom you discipline, O LORD,
and whom you teach out of your law.

Psalms 94:12 (ESV)

REFERENCE

Brown, Kevin, and Michael Reneau. “Real Virtue Has Roots.” The Dispatch, August 11, 2025. https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/dispatch-faith/virtue-morality-peter-singer-jemel-dunn/.