The continuum of abuse provides for both hope and confusion.
Recently, I had the experience of confusion as I waded through the mire of a pastoral leadership and marital failure. I had heard “testimony” of his failures and then watched as a group of elders tried to work through the muck of the mess he had created.
In the end it was determined he was not an “abuser” but the depth of failure in his familiel relationship made it necessary for him to step down as a church leader.
It was confusing as his actions have appeared abusive and controling and yet, he could admit to some of those failings and willingly give up his position. The latter is evidence of “non-abuse” but the earlier evidence of being an “abuser.”
The Continuum of Abuse
Much like Dr. George Simon, psychiatrist and author, notes regarding the continuum of narcissistic trates in all people [Simon], it may be more helpful to understand abuse in on a continuum.
Current psychology suggests that rather than a full-blown disorder, as it was classified in the DSM-4, narcissism is no longer a distinct category of personality disorder. Many psychologists see it as a trait that appears at varying levels of degree in every person. On a continuum.
In other words, we are all rather self-focused, but some more than others.
If we are at all self-aware when we look at abuse characteristis such as lack of empathy, need for control, entitlement, manipulation, and general meanness, we may begin to consider ourselves to be “abusers.” We all strike out in some form when angry and seeking to get our selfish way.
But I would suggest that most people are not “abusers,” but likely are at times “abusive” in their behavior.
The “abuser,” though made in the image of God, is in a sense identified by his behavior as it is fundamental to how he operates in relationships. The “abusive” individual is aware and responsive to his relational flaws. All those traits can be seen on a continuum in real life.
There is a significant difference the abuser and abusive and those differences determines how we engage those who are acting abusively. After considering the distance along the abuse continuum the individual has traveled, our engagement of them can be determined.
The Abuse Handlers
It is well understood by specialists in abuse such as Bancroft, Simon, Crippen, Langberg, et. al. that abusers must be handled in very specific ways. “Abusers” are different, as this blog has noted at various times, than “abusive” people. Abusers do not respond to confrontation. They do not listen to pleading.
All normal means of helping someone become more kind do not work with “abusers.”
But there are those who have abrasive personalities, who lose their tempers more frequently than most, and generally have more difficulty understanding how others are feeling.
You know abrasive individuals and maybe even stay clear of them when you can.
They may not respond right away to a confrontation regarding their behavior, but do in time recognize and desire to change, hopefully even apologizing and making restitution.
But when there is confrontation of one who can be identified as an “abuser” there is no response or if they do it is because it is necessary to control their situation by manipulating the confronter. The Bible character, Saul, can be considered this type.
An example would be a superior calling a subordinate to account for his abusive behavior. Because “abusers” are master manipulaters, they know to submit if it means keeping their job or keeping the individual in their pocket, so to speak.
More often than not, when an abuser is confronted by a subordinate or one lacking power in the situation, they will rarely accept any kind of responsibility for their actions.
Consider carefully the fine line of abuse.
That continuum can mean reconciled relationships or further trauma to those frustrated and beat up by those who practice abusive behaviors.
Jacob simply described his Pastor as a narcissist.
But, it took much longer for him to describe all the destruction wrought by his Senior Pastor while Jacob served the burgeoning church plant.
Jacob had studied for two years in college before he and his wife joined a church that had been a church plant, but was now ruled by an elder board.
Gifted Preacher
The pastor, who was an excellent speaker, had planted the church and he had been effective in ministering to its members through his pulpit ministry. When he and his wife joined, Jacob was determined to be an encouragement to the pastor, knowing that often pastors have no one to go to for help and encouragement.
They struck up a seemingly close relationship and within six months, Jacob was asked to come on staff as the “Executive Ministry Director” and also serve as an elder on the board. He brought much organization to the young church and the growth in the following twelve to eighteen months was stunning.
The school cafeteria, in which they were meeting, was filling up.
However, Jacob was sensing what he interpreted to be an apparent consequence of the rapid growth, a lack of shepherding on the part of the leadership.
Jacob said he “started a conversation about it.”
But the pastor was “increasingly focused on gathering people around himself to hear him preach.” Jacob said, “It was getting to be unhealthy.”
He believed the purpose of church leadership to be the Ephesians 4 model of training the members for the works of ministry, not gathering them to hear one uniquely gifted teacher.
The Confrontations
Jacob determined to discuss the issue with the pastor in a non-judgmental way; something Jacob considers his modus aperandi when confronting. Having grown up in an abusive home, he was particularly sensitive to “being wrong.” He was quick to “take the log out” of his own eye as Jesus, in Matthew 7, instructs.
He was not prepared for the pastor’s manipulation. Jacob described his reactions as “narcissistic.” He immediately shifted the blame to Jacob.
The confrontations came like clockwork. Every three to four months Jacob would sense that he was responsible before God to encourage the pastor to get off his high horse and shepherd the congregation rather than basque in his growing fame.
Never once did the pastor admit fault, according to Jacob. He would ask the pastor to consider what he had said, whether it was valid or not, and the pastor said he would. But the pastor’s response was always half-hearted and he “was never very convincing.”
Shepherding the 1%
Jacob described the church as being in a very wealthy area and had several millionaires in the congregation. It appeard to Jacob that the pastor would drop whatever he was doing and visit a wealthy member when called upon.
However, when someone less afluent or less influential sought counseling from the pastor, he would schedule them two or three weeks out.
Jacob remembers a young couple, who had just married, having marital struggles of a serious nature. They asked for an appointment with the pastor. The pastor scheduled them for two weeks later. However, a woman who was wealthy, attractive, and good friends with an influential pastor in their denomination asked for an appointment to discuss some of the well-known pastor’s teaching. She was immediately given a hearing…at her home…with just the two of them there.
An older couple was having marital difficulties and ended up calling Jacob to come counsel them. Jacob recalls physically shaking on the way to their house, knowing he was much younger than they were and had very little experience in counseling. He was convinced it was not for him to be in this position, but knew the pastor would not meet with them.
It ended well and years later, the couple claimed he saved their marriage. But Jacob was angered by the shepherding failure of the pastor that was not getting any better.
Money Matters
The pastor’s self-centeredness also was apparent in his handling of the church’s money.
He hired a personal assistant, paying him $40,000…without elder approval.
He gave himself a $10,000 raise…without elder approval.
He signed himself up for a medical plan that cost $5,000…without elder approval.
And when the church purchased office space, the pastor spent $20,000 on the remodeling…without elder approval.
According to Jacob, the building had a luxurious office for the pastor and a long countertop along one wall for the five other staff members. The fact that he and the other staff members had a countertop did not bother him. He was happy with his countertop office. But, “It was a glaring representation of [the pastor’s] heart” that drove Jacob to speak with him about it.
The pastor, in response, suggested Jacob take over the kitchen space for his office. Jacob told him that was not the point.
Keeping the Head Down
It was getting to the point where Jacob did not trust the pastor. He said, “It was almost like he was hijacking God’s truth for his gain.” He explained that he would sit under the pastor’s sermon and realize he did not trust him. The pastor did not “have his best interests at heart.”
Jacob tried to keep his head down and do ministry.
But, though he received great encouragment from the elders and congregant members when he would periodically preach or teach, the pastor would “pull him aside and make him feel like he had totally failed was the worst preacher ever.”
Jacob found out later that when people would ask the pastor for Jacob to teach a Sunday School class the pastor would tell them Jacob had “personal problems” and “doctrinal issues.” Jacob believed the pastor was jealous and afraid of anyone else in the church that was gifted. He could not stand to see “anyone else in the congregation celebrated.”
He knew at “some point he would be cut off.“
The Firing
When the pastor told Jacob he was firing him, he said he could remain on as an elder.
The pastor wrote a letter to the elder board explaining, “Jacob has acknowledged his faults. Jacob was abusive to [me]. He was so oppressive to [me].” It was not at all what had passed between them.
When Jacob met with the elders, they were very encouraging to him and asked what he wanted to say to the congregation. Jacob said he “didn’t want to control it.” Later the elders sent a draft of the letter to Jacob.
Apparently the draft was quite different than what was read to the congregation. Following the congregational meeting, a senior member called him and said Jacob was “trashed” at the meeting. The member was very dissapointed. The elders had said just enough to raise suspicions, but did not raise a single failing of Jacob’s.
They gave him a good severence that Jacob interpreted to be “buying him off,” being they had not actually raised any issues with his work with the church.
The Learning
Jacob explained,
“This felt well beyond circumstantial difficulty. It felt like spiritual warefare against my soul. Like a deliberate attack against the deepest part of who I am. It is hard to describe the level of woundedness I experienced.”
Like others with whom I have spoken, he said, “One of the hardest things to face besides the death of loved one is betrayal.” He said he was ready for the pastor to act in unbecoming ways, but not the elders. He was not prepared to see them “manipulated as weak men” by the pastor.
When it happened, “something snapped.” He said it has taken a long time to overcome.
The Healing
When asked what was most healing to Jacob, he mentioned “time” and “God’s sovereignty.” Of particular interest was his struggle with God’s sovereignty in the situation.
He explained that knowing God is sovereign was “both a barrier and ground for healing.” It was a barrier because “God has brought this upon me so he must be displeased with me and bringing discipline.”
An easy interpretation for any of us, let alone one who has been raised being told he is worthless and always wrong. He says,
“My disposition is to believe others don’t care about me. I know its not true. It is an ever present lie. I was force-fed it as a child.”
On the other hand, the knowledge of God’s sovereignty also meant, “If God wounds me, its because he loves me. And if he heals? Its because he loves me.“
He has popped back and forth between these views, knowing all the while God loves him dearly and the first interpretation is not biblical. He takes great comfort in this self-talk based upon the truth of God’s Word.
Following a year working as a barrista and working towards an undergraduate degree, Jacob moved across country to attend seminary. He had not preached from a pulpit since leaving the church.
Within a week of arriving he was asked by the president of the seminary to fill in for a retreat speaker at a nearby Christian camp. The speaker had become ill and was unable to attend.
Jacob was given the task of preparing a sermon and a devotional each day for the retreat on very short notice. Rather than an overwhelming experience, he said he felt the Lord was saying to him despite his experience, “I trust you to handle my word. I did not discard you.”
It was healing to know the Lord had more for him than what a narcissistic senior pastor had sought to impress upon him.
Moving Forward
Jacob still struggles with the insecurities common in my research to those who have been under abusive leaders. There is a palatable sense of self-doubt that accompanies the trauma from such abuse.
I have yet to meet someone who was “self-differentiated” enough to remain free of the harm. It is what drives me to encourage those under abusive leadership to get out. The long-term impact I have seen is not worth manning up.
Jacob has told his story to others and faced the disapproval of those who do not understand abuse. When I first asked him to share his story, he shared some hesitancy. He explained,
“My wife and I have…learned the hard way to be much more cautious in choosing to share our experience and the insights we have gleaned. On multiple occasions, my willingness to be vulnerable has resulted later in others immaturely attempting to use my vulnerability to their own advantage by assuming that these experiences somehow encumber my abilities in some way…something like making me seem like ‘damaged goods.’ Needless to say, this has been hurtful, but alas, we are broken people who live in a broken world. “
Even as Jacob came before a group of elders to be taken under the care of a denominational conference in preparation for ordination, he was fearful. He struggled to determine if the telling of his story would create backlash.
I hope and I pray that the bride of Christ to which he wishes to minister will in turn minister to him as he continues to experience God’s gracious love in healing.
Do you have a story to tell? We need to tell our stories and others need to hear them for healing to truly take place. Contact PearlsAndSwineSite for a confidential interview.
Do you ever feel like you are going nuts? Like the guys you work for and with in ministry are on a completely different page?
Drs. Bob Burns, Tasha Chapman, and Donald Guthrie have produced an exceedingly helpful work for those who wish to know how to effectively engage in the tumultuous relationships of ministry. That the floods not overwhelm the unsuspecting, they provide helpful guidance to church pastors, lay-leaders, and congregant members in the relational work of ministry.
From the start, the authors define their use of the term “politics” in a positive way unlike how most of us use the term in this polorized political climate.
“politics is the art of getting things done with others.”
Politics can mean “manipulation” to many, but the authors argue throughout the book that politics should be a positive approach to ministry.
Project vs. Relationship
Leadership means “getting things done” with and through others. And, in a broken and tangled world, that can be a difficult task. The failure of relationships create failures in project completion.
And, this in fact can be where the rub is. What is the culture of an organization or ministry? Is it a project-oriented or relationship-oriented culture? Is task completion more important than the daily interactions between people in and out of the organization?
For a toxic organization you can almost bet projects mean more than relationships. For those who are abusive in leadership, relationships mean manipulation. The relationships are a means to an end, not to be nurtured and cared for. As can be expected in God’s economy, organizations are nearly guaranteed to fail if relationships are not at the forefront of the ministry.
Those of us in America would do well to learn from the majority of the cultures in the world where relationships nearly always trump projects.
Back to Square 4
It is in the 9th chaper of the book that the authors begin spending much time speaking to the circumstances that those with relational struggles find themselves: Cell four is where the power between parties is unequal and their interests are opposing. It is the making of the perfect storm.
“Ministry politics is grounded in the way people apply their ethical commitments in daily practice. And nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the negotiation process of cell four, where interests conflict and power is unequal.”
It is in this cell – as opposed to cells 1, 2, or 3 – where relationships can be badly damaged and relational work come to a grinding hault. In cells 2 ad 3 there are conflicts due to unequal power or differing interests, but not both.
Only in cell 4 do you find the clash of power and interests. As the authors note,
“In the other three cells, attitudes and actions at the planning table are more easily optimistic and calm.”
[Loc. 2344]
The authors seek to help those who are having to negotiate their interests in cell 4, not an uncommon experience for the subordinate. The goal is to move that negotiation into one of the other cells where the conflict is not nearly as great and the work can be accomplished in a civil way and God-glorifying way.
Unfortunately, there are toxic leaders and organizations that happily remain in cell 4 and create a living hell for their subordinates. In those cases, the authors recommend, “confronting, seeking justice from those in higher authority, or leaving the organization.”1
Navigating Cell Four as a Subordinate
The authors suggest several ways to navigate in this cell as a subordinate.
Counteract: Counteracting is the most direct way of dealing with the problem at hand. It is confronting the issue head-on. The authors caution that it should be the “issue” that is being confronted however, not the person. This response is usually done by bringing information to the table that is contrary to that of the opposing view.
Subvert: Subversion is the “process by which the values and principles of a system in place are reversed.” There are times when it is right morally to subvert such as when the wise men “redemptively subverted” King Herod’s evil attempt at subverting them. Rather than return by way of the king and let him know where Jesus was staying, they went home another way after having a dream to do so.
Defer: Defering is to “yield to the contrary interests or judgments of another who has more power in the negotiation.” There are times when we are called to, in a sense, compromise for a higher good. Samuel was asked by the people of Israel to give them a king. Though asking for a king was not bad, their motive was. However, God told Samuel to “defer” to their wishes and he gravely warned them what would come of their evil intents. [1 Samuel 8:7]
Surrender: “By surrendering, those with less power choose not to resist but to allow those with more power to have their way.” The early church leader, Polycarp, was hiding from government authorities. However, when he was betrayed by someone in his home, he went to the stake to be burned. He was encouraged by a friend to apostasize, but he refused knowing God had done him no wrong and he said, “How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?” He both suffered and surrendered.
“Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, and they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated . . . wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.”
(Hebrews 11:35-37)
A Broken but to be Redeemed World
The authors have much more to say. Following these various methods of handling cell four politics, they discuss how the one in power should use that power redemptively in cell four.
It is really the leader’s handling of that authority that will determine the culture of the organization.
“Ministry takes place in a broken world with and through broken people. But, by God’s grace, Jesus decided to use broken people for his eternal purposes and glory in redeeming his creation. May our understanding of the politics of ministry allow us to speak the truth in love and to further our growth in every way into Christ, while being kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving each other, as God in Christ has forgiven us (Ephesians 4:15, 32).”
Note:
The authors refer in this section to the dissertation research by the Pearls And Swine Site editor. Burns, Bob, Tasha D. Chapman, Donald C. Guthrie, and Steven Garber. The Politics of Ministry: Navigating Power Dynamics and Negotiating Interests. Westmont: IVP Books, 2019. ↩︎
Can you imagine a family member turning against your leadership? But, let’s up the ante…can you imagine your son seeking not only your failure as a leader, but your death?
In this blog I normally write about leadership failure. But in this article I want to discuss a good leader’s “followership.”
Rebel in the Ranks
It is hard to fathom the depth of sorrow the rebellion of a child is to a father.
God’s anointed King David faced off against just such child. Absalom, King David’s son, determined to wrest David’s kingship from him. The story really begins when Absalom’s sister, Tamar, was raped by another of David’s sons, Amnon. Absalom is of course very angry at Amnon, but rather than seek true justice, he conceived of a plan to murder Amnon.
After he has his servants murder Amnon while his brother is drunk, Absalom flees for his life. David, his father, is heartbroken at the loss of Absalom, though 2nd Samuel notes he is “comforted about Amnon, since he was dead.” [2 Samuel 13:39]
Intertwined in the story of Absalom is that of Ziba, Mephibosheth, and Shimei. Like Absalom, they are caught up in the politics of followership. Each has a story to tell.
Absalom
When Absalom is called and welcomed back to Jerusalem by David, he returns the favor and love of his father by conspiring to take away his crown. When it is found out, King David runs for his life, leaving Jerusalem with his family and servants. He says,
“Arise, and let us flee, or else there will be no escape for us from Absalom. Go quickly, lest he overtake us quickly and bring down ruin on us and strike the city with the edge of the sword.”
[2 Samuel 15:14]
He saves his family and servants and in fact the whole city from Absalom’s invading army. He is thinking not just of his own life, but that of the Jerusalem residents. The city would have suffered from a battle between David and Absalom.
Ziba
This is where Ziba comes in. Ziba is the servant of Mephibosheth, who is the crippled son of Saul. David had shown mercy to Mephibosheth, the former king’s son, after he succeeded Mephibosheth’s father as King of Israel.
This, in itself, was an extraordinary act of kindness in that it was common to kill off all relatives of the overcome king. Yet, David brings Mephibosheth into his home and provides all his needs…even a place at his table.
However, as David is leaving the city, Ziba comes to David explaining,
“Behold, [Mephibosheth] remains in Jerusalem, for he said, ‘Today the house of Israel will give me back the kingdom of my father.’”
[2 Samuel 16:3]
Ziba throws Mephibosheth under the bus and David hands over all that is owned by Mephibosheth to Ziba as he comes along with David.
Shimei
As David is leaving the city, he is cursed and assaulted by Shimei, another relative of Saul. Shimei comes out and throws rocks at David and calls him a “worthless man.”
One of David’s commanders suggests to David that he take the man’s head off. It certainly was no way to treat the King and any king worth his salt would respond decisively to such disrespect.
A Mixed Bag
Each of these followers were good or bad examples of what it means to be a subordinate.
David’s own son, Absolom is a coniving and wicked son. He clearly cannot see beyond his own desires and lust for power. And yet, David loves him. He weaps for him. He longs for him. David deeply mourns the loss of Absalom when he is killed by Joab, David’s military commander.
And the king was deeply moved and went up to the chamber over the gate and wept. And as he went, he said,
“O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Would I had died instead of you, O Absalom, my son, my son!”
[2 Samuel 18:33]
Can you hear the depth of his sorrow in those words?
I remember studying a motet from the Renaissance era [“Absalom, Fili Mi” by Josquin de Prez] that very beautifully captured David’s emotions. It ends with the the singer (David) singing the lowest note written up to that time in music history describing his desire to die in Absalom’s place.
David loved his son.
Ziba, like Absalom seeks his own desires as well. He appears to look to gain position by standing between Mephibosheth and David. David rewards Ziba’s apparent loyalty to him, but when he finds that he has deceived him he does an interesting thing: he allows him to keep half of what he had promised him. A rather gracious response to one who deserved to be put in jail!
Shimei, another example of rebellion, is treated with extraordinary kindness by David originally. As David flees, is cursed by Shimei, and encouraged to do him in, David instead suggests that God is speaking through Shimei. It is an amazing act of humility on David’s part. Rather than kill Shimei at that time, David trusts the Lord to vindicate him. He says,
“Leave him alone, and let him curse, for the Lord has told him to. It may be that the Lord will look on the wrong done to me, and that the Lord will repay me with good for his cursing today.”
[2 Samuel 16:11-12]
And then there is Mephibosheth.
Mephibosheth
Finally, Mephibosheth, who spends David’s exile under the bus, welcomes David back to Jerusalem following the putting down of Absalom’s rebellion. David clearly questions Mephibosheth with suspicion, but finds out that Mephibosheth had not joined the rebellion but in fact had been deceived by the servant.
Mephibosheth expresses genuine gratitude and love for David and David receives his explanation and returns half of that which he promised to Ziba when he was fleeing. Mephibosheth even expresses his humility and love by saying,
“Oh, let him take it all, since my lord the king has come safely home.”
[2 Samuel 19:30]
Gratitude
It is the example of Mephibosheth that should drive our understanding of following Christ: Gratitude.
There will never be a leader like Jesus Christ [as noted in an earlier blog]. He has given us everything we have without anything required of us.
David, as a quality leader, did similarily for Mephibosheth.
And Mephibosheth sits at his feet in gratitude. He recognizes the prized position he has is one of extraordinary privilege. He does not deserve it. He cannot work for it. It is pure grace.
May we, as leaders, be those who our subordinates look to with gratitude and point them to the ultimate leadership in Christ. And may we, as followers, recognize our God-given leaders as those to be followed with gratitude to the Lord.
The most exemplary leader of all time was Jesus Christ. Why? He was a leader and he was in all ways perfect. For what more can you ask?
Who, in the history of mankind, has had a greater following than Jesus Christ?
So, when we look to leadership development we would be remiss to overlook Jesus’ example and His teaching; his example because he called on his followers to follow his example and his teaching because he was perfect and knows better than we do.
When Jesus washed the disciples feet [John 13], he specifically told them to follow his lead. But as we watch the Son of God be the Son of God, we recognize there are things we cannot be or do.
One such thing being a perfect leader.
And yet, he left us, empowered by the Holy Spirit, to lead in this world despite the number of times we really mess it up. I guess that is why they call it Good News!
Following His Example
Dependency: A primary example and teaching Jesus gives us is dependency.
This is so contrary to what we are told is true leadership quality in an independent culture. It is fundamental to a fallen creature to depend upon self, to be independent of others. To see oneself as god. To believe that dependence is weakness and must be rooted out.
Consider how Adam and Eve, our first parents, engaged their world. They said to the wiley snake, “We want to be just like God.” We want to be all-knowing and independent.
But, God’s intention, even before Adam and Eve sinned, was that they be dependent upon Him. God created them. God provided everything for them. And He wants us dependent.
It is not only our sin that makes us dependent on God, but it is for what we were made. Dependence on the Lord.
Multiple times Mark describes Jesus as going off in a private place to be with his Father [Mark 6:30, 14:32]. Even as Son of God, the Creator of all things [Colossians 1:16], Jesus Christ needed time with his Father to recharge and rest in God.
A true leader is first of all dependent on the Lord.
And he recognizes his inter-dependency on those with whom he works. He is not too busy to have time engaging with his Father Who is in Heaven. Any more than Jesus, the Son of God, was too busy to take time away. But he also recognizes his interdependency on the others in his team.
Trust Our Team: As Moses learned in the wilderness, we must have the help of others who bear the image of God. Moses was challenged by his father-in-law, Jethro, to bring others alongside to help him in the extensive work of judging Israel [Exodus 18]. Moses followed his advice and chose good men to judge the people.
He brought up others who were qualified to work alongside him, giving them opportunity and responsibility to use their gifts.
One of the most common pictures of a strong leader is one who controls. He controls all that is happening. He is the one making it all happen in the organization. He is making all the important decisions. And, therefore, he gets all the credit for success.
But, that is not the picture of biblical leadership.
The writer of Proverbs 11 wisely says,
Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety.
Proverbs 11:14
Leaders must have the help and guidance of other people…people who have skills, wisdom, and vision and are right there on the leader’s team.
Recently, I was in a position of leadership and assumed control of the service being provided by a volunteer church member. Following the worship service, John (the volunteer) made the comment, “You don’t really need me.”
I was cursing myself as I left the church realizing that the guy who writes and researches bad leadership should know better than to pull such a shenanigan. I appologized profusely later for assuming control and giving the impression I did not need him…I most certainly do.
We all need others to use their gifts.
Jesus, in Matthew 10, appoints the twelve Apostles. These men would be under Jesus’ watchful care and discipleship for his three years of earthly ministry. But, just as the term “apostle” implies, they were sent out.
In fact, Jesus sent them out apparently within a very short time of calling them into his organization…certainly within the first half of his ministry. Can you imagine sending out an untried employee to represent your organization? Do you fear the damage an employee can do to your organization?
Rather than fearing their failure, Jesus sent them out two-by-two as sheep among wolves. He dropped them into the pool with some instructions and told them to swim to the other side.
The Apostles returned from their mission having preached the Gospel, healed many, and cast out demons. It was clearly a ministry shaping opportunity for the disciples.
It is imperative that we give authority to those under our leadership and give them opportunity to take responsibility. If they cannot handle that responsibility or opportunity, we have either failed in training them or they are not the right ones for the job.
It is the very act of being sent out that so effectively shapes our subordinates. They need those opportunities to be shaped and the support and encouragement to actually gain confidence and excitement to represent Christ through our organizations.
Following His Teaching
Humility: As noted in the introduction, Jesus is humble. And he teaches about it along the way.
There was a time when the disciples were arguing as they traveled with Jesus. Jesus asked them what they were discussing, but they were apparently too embarrassed to talk about it. Jesus, being God, knew it and took the teaching moment to describe true leadership.
They had been puffing themselves up trying to convince one another that they were the “greatest.” Jesus put it in a nutshell:
“You want to be the greatest…be the least.”
Mark 9:33-37
We are called to be servants. It is the “servant of all” who is qualified to be a leader. Having the humility to see yourself this way andact on it forms true leadership.
What is “servanthood?” It means to:
Consider others as more important than yourself. [Philippians 2] So, when determining pay, benefits, and schedules you consider what you would like and give it to them!
It means doing the hard work. I remember speaking with an employee of a service organization who explained that when someone became “management” it was understood that they no longer had to do any of the grunt work. They could sit at their computers (and did) playing video games and watching YouTube videos.
It does not mean:
Allowing laziness in subordinates.
Giving in to unreasonable expectations.
Jesus was humble, and yet was the God of the Universe. It is an extraordinary thing that we can probably never come to understand. Yet, he acted on it and told us to be it.
Humility does more for an organization and witness to God’s kingdom than probably anything else. It is so thoroughly contrary to the human experience.
Bring ’em up
Leadership in the world normally means arrogance and control. Leadership normally means putting others down. Leadership normally means the “good life” (for the big man that is).
But, the Jesus-leader is none of those things.
Jesus, by his dependency, trust, and humility brought others up. Despite it being very clear who the leader was, his followers were not put down, but brought up to join him in the heavenly places as Paul puts it in Ephesians.
The dignity Jesus emparted to his followers through his example and teaching of dependency, trust, and humility is a shining example of leadership.
A number of years ago, the “prayer of Jabez” became the in thing. This short prayer recorded in 1st Chronicles 4 became the subject of books and articles globally.
The chronicler tells of Jabez, a man more “honorable than his brothers.” Jabez prays that God would bless him and “enlarge [his] border.” In addition, he asked that God’s hand would be with him and he would be kept from harm “so that it might not bring [him] pain.” [1 Chronicles 4:9-10]
Scripture says Jabez’ name means pain. His mother gave him the name, she said, “Because I bore him in pain.“
1st Chronicles says, “God granted what he asked.”
Before the Story Begins
But, before this story even begins, we understand that Jabez was truly a God-follower. He was “honorable.” And he was seeking God’s help through prayer, not his own ability, to get more wealth—in essence what enlarging his border would do. He was dependent on the Lord.
So, how did Jabez get to that point?
I would suggest that it came from an “enlarged heart.” The psalmist in Psalm 119 says,
I have chosen the way of faithfulness; I set your rules before me. I cling to your testimonies, O Lord; let me not be put to shame! I will run in the way of your commandments when you enlarge my heart!
[Psalm 119:30-32 (ESV)]
Notice, the psalmist says he had chosen “the way of faithfulness” and was clinging to the Word of God. But, note that he ends this paragraph saying he will follow God whenHe enlarges his heart. What an interesting way to put it, don’t you think?
It is important firstly to note that the word, “heart” [לֵב] in Hebrew means “feelings, will, and even intellect.” The scripture writers do not really distinguish between thinking and feeling.
The enlightened West, and even the Greeks, have done much to separate emotion and thinking, but this comes more from experience than scripture or even neurological studies. Though they come from two different parts of the brain, their interaction is almost as if they are one.
The psalmist is suggesting he follows the Lord becausehis whole inner man, in the language of scripture, is enlarged by God.
Returning to Jabez, he prays from an enlarged heart for an enlarged territory.
If we love the Lord and therefore, have enlarged hearts, we may wish to seek to have enlarged territories. As leaders, there is much to be seen in the model of Jabez.
Enlarged Influence
Enlarged territory means enlarged influence. Some leaders seek that influence thatthey may be enlarged. They will be powerful. They will rule with authority. They will control. They will gain fame or fortune. They will be important. [see article]
But, that is not how Jabez’s prayer should be applied. He apparently had an “enlarged heart” to follow the Lord before he ever asked for territory.
Because the Lord answered his prayer and there is no more spoken of Jabez, we can assume that Jabez had motives that were coming from that enlarged heart – from an honorable man who had godly motives.
Though no man is sinless in his motives, and Jabez most likely had some desire to spend it on himself [as James says], he apparently had good motives as well.
And I would imagine those motives were to enlarge his ability to minister to others:
His family
His servants
His world
Do you, as a leader, wish to expand your influence?
First, seek that the Lord would enlarge your heart to follow Him. That you would, with the Psalmist, choose the “way of faithfulness,” cling to God’s Word, and run in the way of His commands.
Secondly, seek greater influence for the good. The good of your neighbor not your own greatness. Make it your motive not to spend your enlarged territory on your pleasures, but on the edification of those around you.
Those who work for toxic bosses are often a bit blind to and fail to understand abuse. There are toxic bosses and there are “garden-variety bad” bosses.
There is a difference. And it makes a big difference.
Do you want some tactics for “navigating the wilderness at work?” Chappelow, Ronayne, and Adams have written an enjoyable little book that can help point the way through your suffering under a toxic boss. Most people who are under toxic leadership do not have the time or energy to read a scholarly work on toxic leadership.
The Toxic Boss Survival Guide is just the ticket. Over the next three articles [Blog 2, Blog 3], I will be reviewing the book summarizing some of their helpful advice.
What is Toxic?
I maintain that it is much safer to be feared than loved, if you have to do without one of the two. [Niccolo Machiavelli]
The “Toxic Boss Survival Guide” begins by defining what is a truly toxic boss and the “garden-variety” type.
Some of the distinguishing characteristics Chappelow, et. al. give for a toxic boss are abusive, micro-manager, Narcissistic, demanding, tyrannical, verbally abusive, belittling, and arrogant, among others. On the other hand, if your boss is simply rude, impersonal, indecisive, wimpy, critical, and annoying, he is likely just bad.
The authors’ simple description is:
Toxic bosses are ones who use destructive, often intentional, behaviors to serve themselves and their own agenda, causing excessive harm to their subordinates and other coworkers. [page 8]
If you are working under one of these, consider their advice worth taking: “There is no feedback diplomatic enough to get through to them…Your goal at this point is not to help the toxic boss make the necessary behavioral changes so that everyone can be happier and more productive.”
The Impact
“Rotten bosses don’t get better. Any strategy that assumes they can is doomed.” [Scott Adams, Creator of Dilbert]
Unfortunately, toxic bosses are common in businesses, Christian organizations, and churches. And often they go on unhindered destroying the lives of those who work for them.
The authors note these bosses frequently brown-nose and manipulate their supervisors or boards and therefore go undetected. The employees sometimes are completely “cowed” into silence and so those who have the power to make changes are oblivious to the need.
In our own case, the board was told the missionaries working under the CEO and complaining of his toxic behavior needed psychological help. The reason so many left the organization “just couldn’t handle living in Africa.”
The turnover rate in organizations is costly. Many organizations lose their best and most talented workers because they will refuse to live in those circumstances. The impact of these abusers is deeply felt.
Even if the employees stick around, the amount of sick leave, emotional breakdowns, and relational damage is so great, it is difficult to get any work done. Sleeplessness, headaches, the inability to leave work at work, and other maladies create a living hell for employees.
In addition, the authors note the damage done to each generation in a fast-paced world where creativity is the name of the game. When a toxic boss ridicules, steals ideas, and crushes those who take risks, the ability of the organization to mold and adapt to their context for further ministry is weakened.
From a Christian perspective, this is not about making more money, but about the development of people as image-bearers of God. They are given talent and skills that God desires to be used for His glory and when a toxic boss shuts them down, he is strangling the work of God.
The Types
“People leave managers, not companies.” [Victor Lipman]
According to the “Guide,” toxic bosses are not difficult to spot. The authors group them into six primary categories:
Egomaniac: “Arrogant, selfish, and quick to claim credit for everything everyone else accomplished.” He is a “shameless self-promoter.” Unlike the Narcissist, he is not influenced by the approval of others.
Tyrant: They “control by oppression, often using whatever power they have in cruel and unfair ways.” He is the consummate “bully.”
Two-Face: The two-faced boss will say one thing to one group and say another thing to another…always to make the toxic boss look good. He may also say one thing and do another.
Control-Freak: These bosses are extraordinary micromanagers. They are over the top in controlling every move of every person in the office. They are “unable to delegate,” “domineering,” and “oppressive.”
Slimeball: They have a “total lack of integrity.” “They break the rules to get out of bad situations or simply use dishonest means for their personal gains.”
Narcissist: Narcissists are normally horrible listeners, very sensitive to criticism, and have little or no empathy. They are different from Egomaniacs in that they are over-the-top interested in the approval others. They may ask for feedback, but only want it if it is flattering to them.
The authors observed in their research that “insecurity” plays a major role in all the above categories. Their study subjects often placed their boss in one of the above categories, but then added “insecure” to their description no matter the category.
Summary
It seems another common trait is that the insecurity of toxic leaders drives them to be “much safer feared than loved.” Ruling by greater force often becomes necessary when those you lead badly become disenchanted. Keeping people in line and under control is the ultimate goal.
Those leaders who fall into the categories listed in the Guide are not the normal, sinful, failures though there are many. As you can see in the descriptives above, they have real problems. How do we deal with those problematic leaders?
I would suggest yes, but it takes removing our blinders to see the broadness of the biblical witness to brokenness.
There is an Evil Norm…but there is also a Radical Evil that is apparent in scripture. There is an Evil
As I speak and write about the abuse of power and authority both in the home and office, I am finding that I have to spend much breath and ink on the question of badness.
The Evangelical church has worked very hard to witness to the grace found in the gospel. We make clear at every opportunity that sin is sin – it all carries the same punishment: death to our relationship with the Creator of heaven and earth.
People are on a level playing field – we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and therefore are deserving of death and punishment. Amen.
We are in this problem together.
So, are we not called to have mercy on all sinners because we ourselves are sinful? Matthew 7 begins with this admonition. As one counselor has shared, we need to turn our pointing fingers in on ourselves. We need to take the log out of our own eye.
“Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” [Matthew 7:3-5]
Jesus is telling us to approach those who sin against us in humility, knowing we ourselves have sinned and continue to sin. There is a level playing field before God.
As Joseph dealt with his brothers after their evil of selling him into slavery, so we should consider carefully the kindness of God in working in our lives even through the wickedness of others. Joseph went through hell it seems and yet, became a powerful and helpful leader in Egypt, in the end saving his family from starvation. All because God had plans for him through the evil intent of his brothers. [see Genesis 37 to the end of the book]
But, is there a biblical difference in badness…are some people badder than others and should be treated differently?
Pharaoh
Pharaoh is frequently used as an example of evil. In his wickedness, he placed the Israelites in bondage, treating them horrifically, including ordering the deaths of newborn boys. When God began to bring down judgments upon his nation, he refused to repent and instead watched as his countrymen, those he was responsible to care for as a leader, suffered and die at God’s hand.
His oppressive behavior was most certainly of a grander scale in its affects on other people than my next door neighbor’s.
God called Moses, one who had left his home in Egypt and was free from the Egyptian oppression, to stand before Pharaoh and seek the release of the Israelite slaves. Through multiple confrontations, Pharaoh is judged through the miraculous power of God in various plagues. In the end, Moses takes the people and runs and God brings judgment upon Pharaoh through the destruction of his army in the Sea. [see Exodus 1-15]
Nabal
In 1 Samuel 25, David and his men were living among the shepherds who worked for a “worthless fellow” in his wife, Abigail’s words. David’s men protected the shepherds and never took anything from them, the text says.
When David sought Nabal’s help in providing some food for his men, Nabal refused help to the sojourners, rejecting both a cultural and biblical norm. David was just about to respond in his anger by wiping out Nabal’s family and servants when Abigail comes pleading for David’s mercy. David changes his mind and withdraws his hand of destruction.
Abigail told her husband of his near miss with death. The text says, The Lord struck Nabal and he died.
Jezebel and Ahab
They were a real pair. Of Ahab, King of Israel, and his wife, Jezebel, it was said,
In fact, the writers of scripture continued to use Ahab as the plumb line for evil as other evil leaders rose up and others determined not to commit the sins of Ahab.
There was none who sold himself to do what was evil in the sight of the Lord like Ahab, whom Jezebel his wife incited.
[1 Kings 21:25 (ESV)]
Ahab, 1st Kings says, wanted a garden next to his palace and asked the owner for it. When the family rejected his offer, he fussed like a baby. Jezebel, however came to his aid. She said Ahab was king and could do anything he wanted and went to work stealing the garden from Naboth.
Jezebel had Naboth falsely accused of wrongdoing and stoned to death. Elijah, the prophet, was then sent to Ahab to prophecy judgment on him and his family. But, Ahab seems to repent and God foregoes his judgment.
It doesn’t last long. Ahab is soon rejecting God’s true prophet, Micaiah and listening to false prophets.
God sovereignly called for Ahab’s false prophets to prophecy that he would win in battle. Micaiah informs Ahab of their false prophecies, but Ahab in his arrogance puts God’s true prophet in prison. God uses Ahab’s arrogance and rejection of the one true Lord to bring him to an untimely death, using a “random” arrow to kill him despite being disguised.
Jezebel died an ugly death at the hand of King Jehu in 2nd Kings 9 just as was prophesied by Elijah.
God Brings Justice
In each of these cases, including Joseph, we see ultimately how God brings justice to those who are oppressed by evil people. He does not speak the same way of those who are your average failures.
These evil leaders had opportunities to repent (as Ahab did), but as they continue in their rebellion that is especially destructive of others, God brings about their destruction.
These evildoers are not treated like those who fail (even radically like King David) but who recognize their sins and repent of them. Though all people die at some point, the deaths of these evil people listed above are clear judgments by God…not the normal result of the brokenness of our world seen in aging, disease, and accidents.
There is an Evil Norm…but there is also a Radical Evil that is apparent in scripture.
God in the end will destroy the radicals just as David seeks in Psalm 55. God despises the oppressor [Jeremiah 21:11-12].
And though we are all guilty of great evil, there is a difference in our badnesses.
The following is a study of personality disorders and other behavioral problems toxic leaders commonly have. A full diagnosis of an individual should be made by a trained professional, but these descriptions can help those unfortunate enough to be a subordinate to a toxic leader.
Alpha Males & Queen Bees
Alpha males are described as leaders “who aren’t happy unless they’re the top dogs.” Ludeman and Erlandson, who study and consult with “alpha males” in business management, argue that “70 percent of all top executives” can be classified as alpha.[1] Chamorro-Premuzic suggests one reason for both the large numbers of leaders with these personality traits and the frequent support they receive is the traits may appear positive such as “extraversion, openness to new experience, curiosity, and self-esteem.” Ludeman says, these leaders are “highly intelligent, confident, and successful.” But, the authors say they are “typically stubborn and resistant to feedback.”
According to Peggy Drexler, the term “queen bee” was coined forty years ago in a University of Michigan study of promotion rates among women in the workplace. These women leaders were “obsessed with maintaining their authority.”[2]
Drexler’s article, discussing the queen bee, argues they create unique dysfunctions in the workplace.
“What makes these queen bees so effective and aggravating is that they are able to exploit female vulnerabilities that men may not see, using tactics that their male counterparts might never even notice.”[3]
She says queen bees do not seek the development of their subordinates’ talents, but rather undermine “their professional standing.”[4]
Authoritarianism
Bonam, author of Leading from the Second Chair, says, “If you have the misfortune of working for a first chair who is a true autocrat, then you may find that any disagreement is seen as insubordination.”[3] Jean Lipman-Blumen says authoritarianism is “a hallmark of toxic leaders.”[4] The prevalence of authoritarian leaders within the Christian ministry is extensive according to Ronald Enroth.[5]
The literature suggests authoritarian leaders are unwilling to receive criticism from their followers. Allender notes that the arrogance of the autocrat “creates a mood of ‘follow me or get lost.’”[6] De Vries and Miller, describing the paranoid organization, explain the leader has a “tendency to centralize power,” and leaders “who feel threatened generally like to have a good deal of control over their subordinates.”[7]
Greenfield and Faulkner agree, saying, “An authoritarian pastor perceives himself as boss of the staff and gives orders that are never to be questioned.” Where there are disagreements, “there is no room for any input from staff members.”[8] Herrington, et. al., say authoritarian leaders are emotionally dependent on others. As a result, “Others are there to serve the leader’s purpose.”[9]
Why do authoritarian leaders lack willingness to hear other ideas? Lipman-Blumen argues, “Some leaders fall into the trap of believing in their own wisdom” as their followers become more and more dependent on them.[4] Within the Christian church setting, some suggest followers “can’t criticize leaders without being critical of God.”[10] Therefore, Enroth adds, an authoritarian “leader is beyond confrontation.”[5]
A leader may have “exclusionary proclivities,” according to Lipman-Blumen and “they are unlikely to take counsel or correction from those outside the charmed circle,” the secondary leadership of the organization.[4]
Autocrats have an unwillingness to hear counsel from subordinates and they seek to control followers. Edmondson argues authoritarian leaders use fear to control. And she says, “Control reinforces certainty and predictability.”[11] This form of management style was common in the past according to Frank Barrett who explains, “We have grown up with a variety of models of organizations, most of which have relied to some degree on a mechanistic view of top-down approaches to change.” This “top-down” approach emphasizes “routines and rules” for organizational control.[12]
However, Rob Hay suggests that the “authoritarian command and control approach of the old style business has given way to self-managing teams . . . and general autonomy.”[13] The authors of “Resilient Ministry” suggest authority, developed through relationships, is more important than the formal authority practiced by autocrats.
“While we don’t disregard the importance of formal authority and the role it plays in accomplishing God’s purposes, we suggest that relational authority trumps formal authority much of the time,” according to Burns, et. al.[14]
Narcissism
“The authoritarian religious leader is predominantly narcissistic,” according to Oates.[15] Langberg explains the name, “Narcissist” comes from the Greek mythological story of a young, handsome youth who had a “heart that was inaccessible to love.”[16]
One of Narcissist’s “rejected lovers” prayed that he be punished for his “lack of empathy.” Nemesis, the god of retribution to whom she prayed, “caused Narcissist to see his reflection in the water and fall completely in love with himself.” As he was unable to access his reflection, he “died of unrequited love.”
It is common for narcissists to occupy leadership positions. According to Chamorro-Premuzic, “An impressive 15-year longitudinal study found that individuals with psychopathic and narcissistic characteristics gravitated towards the top of the organizational hierarchy.”[17] Chandler and Fields explain, “Narcissistic leaders may pass selection screening because they possess strengths such as the ability to present a vision in a charismatic fashion, inspire others with rhetoric, and thereby persuade others to follow.”[18]
There have been many studies on the Narcissistic Personality Disorder according to George Simon, author of the article, “Narcissism: Pathological Self-Love,” despite the American Psychiatric Association removing the disorder from the DSM-5.[19]
He says, “Too many folks who know all too well how painful it is to live or deal with a narcissist” are seeking information on narcissism. He goes on to say, “Because ours is the age of permissiveness and especially ‘entitlement,’ narcissism has flourished, and just about everyone has a story to tell about dealing with a narcissist.”
Narcissistic individuals are described as “conceited, boastful or pretentious,” according to the Mayo Clinic.[20] Chamorro-Premuzic says narcissists have “unrealistic feelings of grandiosity, an inflated – though often unstable and insecure – sense of self-worth, and a selfish sense of entitlement coupled with little consideration for others.[17]
Oates defines empathy as “putting oneself in another person’s place and experiencing that person’s needs as primary,” and lacking this other-centeredness is a common characteristic of narcissism.[15] Narcissists often “belittle or look down on people” they “perceive as inferior.”[20] “As a result…they naturally conclude they should come first: their needs (often lavish), their image, their success,” argue Chapman, White, and Myra.[21]
According to Chandler and Fields, “Narcissistic leaders…blame others for their failures.”[18] They “usually have no interest in self-insight or change.”[22] Oates agrees, saying, “The capacity for self-evaluation and self-criticism is absent.”[15] Subordinates are simply “expected to provide blind support.”[18]
If employees do not act in support of the narcissist, they become “increasingly expendable,” according to Oates.
Abuse and Bullying
Literature covering a broad range of relational abuse or bullying from domestic to workplace is extensive. However, most work done in this area of study is secular according to Jeff Crippen. He argues, “The secular world has more wisdom by far about abuse than does the Christian church.”[23] He explains, in A Cry for Justice: How the Evil of Domestic Abuse Hides in Your Church! that his own journey of understanding abuse was through books by secular social scientists.
According to a study of workplace bullying by the Ventura County California Grand Jury, bullying is defined as “an abuse or misuse of power that manifests itself in ‘behavior that intimidates, degrades, offends, or humiliates a worker.’”[24]
The authors of “An Individual Psychology Approach to Underlying Factors of Workplace Bullying” define bullying as “having unequal power and about being exposed to negative acts over and over again without being able to defend oneself in the actual situation.”[25] A Workplace Bullying Institute publication describes a variety of behaviors that are classified as bullying such as “being shouted at or sworn at, being excessively monitored, being isolated or excluded from activities, being threatened, [or] being physically intimidated.”
WBI says a large percentage (38%) of co-workers do nothing to help the target of bullying in the workplace, effectively isolating the victim.[26] Other bullying behaviors noted in “Exploring Victims’ Experiences of Workplace Bullying: A Grounded Theory Approach” were “forcing to work overtime,” “overruling decisions, removing responsibility,” attacking their “professional status,” giving “persistent criticism,” using “manipulation,” and “undermining, and false accusations.”[27]
Lundy Bancroft, a former codirector of the United State’s first program for abusive men, contrasts abuse with love saying,
“Genuine love means respecting the humanity of the other person, wanting what is best for him or her…this kind of love is incompatible with abuse and coercion.”[28]
Bancroft lists a variety of characteristic behaviors and thinking patterns of the abuser, saying they are “controlling,” “entitled,” “possessive,” and “manipulative;” abusers twist the truth, think of themselves as “superior,” confuse “love and abuse,” seek to present a “good public image,” feel “justified” in their thoughts and action, and commonly “deny and minimize” their behavior. He suggests, much the same as Namie, that abusers isolate their victim to retain control.
According to Einarsen, et. al., abuse is identified as “behaviors such as intimidating followers, belittling, or humiliating them in public.”[18] Robert Sutton agrees, noting the victims of abusers in the workplace “feel oppressed, humiliated, de-energized, or belittled.”[29] He also suggests the abuser normally aims “his or her venom at people who are less powerful rather than at those people who are more powerful.”
Many of these characteristics are found in descriptions of personality disorders. According to Clive Boddy, author of the article, “Corporate Psychopaths, Bullying and Unfair Supervision in the Workplace,” there is significant “cross-over” between psychopaths and bullies in the workplace. He says, “The traits of narcissism, lack of self-regulation, lack of remorse, and lack of conscience have been identified as those displayed by bullies. These traits are shared with psychopathy.”[30]
Robert Hare, author of This Charming Psychopath, says psychopaths have a “remarkable ability to rationalize their behavior.”[31] He also notes they are “deceitful and manipulative.” In addition, Narcissists are described as having a sense of “entitlement” and “superiority,” characteristics of an abuser or bully.[32]
However, Bancroft argues, though abusive individuals may have personality disorders, an abuser’s “value system is unhealthy, not their psychology.”[28] He notes recent research shows mental illness occurrence even in “violent abusers is not high.” Bancroft concludes, “Mental illness doesn’t cause abusiveness any more than alcohol does.” Though he provides a chapter in Why Does He Do That called the “Process of Change,” discussing counseling techniques and encouragement for treating abusers, he also notes, “It is more common for abusers to stay the same or get worse.”
Psychopathic Personality Disorder
A recent study in Australia “found that about one in five corporate executives are psychopaths – roughly the same rate as among prisoners.”[33] Some estimate there are “three times” the number of corporate board members in these categories than among the general population.
Unfortunately, it is estimated the cost of psychopathy to American taxpayers is approximately “$460 billion a year.”[34]
Psychopathy is “characterized by high levels of aggression in response to frustration,” according to Zeigler-Hill and Vonk in their article, “Dark Personality Features and Emotion Dysregulation.”[35] Ross, Benning, and Adams described those with the disorder as “callous, calculating, manipulative, and deceitful.”[36] Robert Hare suggests, “Psychopaths seem proud of their ability to lie.”[31] Hare also says,
Their lack of remorse or guilt is associated with a remarkable ability to rationalize their behavior, to shrug off personal responsibility for actions that cause family, friends, and others to reel with shock and disappointment. They usually have handy excuses for their behavior, and in some cases, deny that it happened at all.
In addition, Psychopaths have a lack of compassion for others and are unable to show concerns for the needs of others, according to Jonason, Kaufman, Webster, and Geher.[37] Boddy agrees, saying they “have no conscience, few emotions, and an inability to have any feelings or empathy for other people.”[38] Simon adds, “Most researchers and theorists…view psychopaths as individuals devoid of conscience.”[19]
Machiavellianism
According to Chamorro-Premuzic, “Machiavellian individuals are politically savvy and good at networking and managing upwards,” making them, like those with narcissistic and psychopathic traits, often part of upper management of organizations. He suggests they have “superficial charm.” [17]
However, “Individuals who scored high on the Machiavellian scale were found to manipulate more, win more, were persuaded less, and persuaded others more in face-to-face interactions,” according to Jacob Siegel, author of “Machiavellianism, MBA’s and Managers: Leadership Correlates and Socialization Effects.”[39]
Chamorro-Premuzic agrees, stating they are deceitful and “ruthless.”[17] Siegler and Vonk argue Machiavellianistic individuals have little consideration for the emotional impact of their decisions, saying they “do whatever is necessary to achieve one’s goals without a great deal of concern for the emotional consequences of their behaviors.”[39] According to these researchers, this does not mean they are unable to identify the emotional states of others, but “they do not experience emotional discomfort when exposed to the suffering of others,” making them lacking in empathy.
REFERENCES
[1] Ludeman, Kate, and Eddie Erlandson. Alpha Male Syndrome. 1st ed. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2006. 58.
[2] Drexler, Peggy. “The Tyranny of the Queen Bee.” The Wall Street Journal. March 2, 2013, United States edition, sec. C1.
[3] Bonem, Mike, and Roger Patterson. Leading from the Second Chair: Serving Your Church, Fulfilling Your Role, and Realizing Your Dreams. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005.
[4] Lipman-Blumen, Jean. The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians–and How We Can Survive Them. Oxford University Press, 2004.
[5] Enroth, Ronald M. Churches That Abuse. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993.
[6] Allender, Dan B., and Tremper Longman III. Bold Love. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2014.
[7] Kets de Vries, Manfred, and Danny Miller. The Neurotic Organization: Diagnosing and Changing Counterproductive Styles of Management. 1st ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1984.
[8] Greenfield, Guy, and Brooks Faulkner. The Wounded Minister: Healing from and Preventing Personal Attacks. Baker Books, 2001.
[9] Herrington, Jim. The Leader’s Journey: Accepting the Call to Personal and Congregational Transformation. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003.
[10] Chrnalogar, Mary Alice. Twisted Scriptures: Breaking Free from Churches That Abuse. Revised. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010.
[11] Edmondson, Amy C. Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy. 1st ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2012.
[12] Barrett, Frank J. Yes to the Mess: Surprising Leadership Lessons from Jazz. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 2012.
[13] Hay, Rob. “The Toxic Mission Organisation: Fiction or Fact?” Encounters Mission Ezine, no. 2 (October 2004): 8.
[14] Burns, Bob, Tasha D. Chapman, and Donald C. Guthrie. Resilient Ministry: What Pastors Told Us About Surviving and Thriving. IVP Books, 2013.
[15] Oates, Wayne E. Behind the Masks: Personality Disorders in Religious Behavior. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1987.
[18] Schyns, Birgit, and Tiffany Hansbrough, eds. When Leadership Goes Wrong: Destructive Leadership, Mistakes, and Ethical Failures. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2010.
[21] Gary Chapman, Paul E. White, and Harold Myra, Rising Above a Toxic Workplace: Taking Care of Yourself in an Unhealthy Environment (Chicago: Northfield Publishing, 2014).
[25] Astrauskaite, Milda, Roy M. Kern, and Guy Notelaers. “An Individual Psychology Approach to Underlying Factors of Workplace Bullying.” The Journal of Individual Psychology 70, no. 3 (Fall 2014): 220–44.
[26] Namie, Gary. “2014 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey.” Workplace Bullying Institute. Accessed November 1, 2016. http://www.workplacebullying.org.
[27] Ciby, Mariam, and R.P. Raya. “Exploring Victims’ Experiences of Workplace Bullying: A Grounded Theory Approach.” Vikalpa: The Journal of Decision Makers 39, no. 2 (June 2014): 69–81.
[28] Bancroft, Lundy. Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men. Berkley Books, 2002.
[29] Sutton, Robert I. The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t. 1st ed. New York: Business Plus, 2007.
[36] Scott R. Ross, Stephen D. Benning, and Zachary Adams, “Symptoms of Executive Dysfunction Are Endemic to Secondary Psychopathy: An Examination in Criminal Offenders and Noninstitutionalized Young Adults,” Journal of Personality Disorders 21, no. 4 (August 2007).
[37] Peter K. Jonason, Scott Barry Kaufman, Gergory D. Webster, and Glenn Geher. “What Lies Beneath the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen: Varied Relations with the Big Five.” Individual Differences Research 11, no. 2 (June 1, 2013): 81–90.
[39] Siegel, Jacob P. “Machiavellianism, MBA’s and Managers: Leadership Correlates and Socialization Effect.” Academy of Management Journal 16, no. 3 (1973): 404–11.
As my wife and I began to experience a particularly toxic boss, we had little understanding of how someone could be incredibly malicious in one moment and act like our best friend soon after. One moment Betty was yelling at my wife and that evening she was all charm and sweetness. The interplay of kindness and cruelty is a common experience of those who face off with toxic leaders.
These confusing behaviors make it difficult at times to identify abusive individuals. Are they toxic or my best friend? The American Psychiatric Association publication, DSM-IV-TR describes various personality disorders, one of the possible problems a toxic boss may have. The Association maintains that a personality disorder is “an enduring pattern of inner experience that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture.”[1] The literature I have read agrees that a personality disorder is a consistent attitude, not simply a one-time failure to act nicely.[2]
Heartless Evil
Most writers would not use the term, “evil” to describe these people, but Christian psychologist, Dan Allender does. He says, “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.”[3] He goes on to say,
“One awful, abusive event does not make a person evil, but when it represents a repetitive pattern of excessive disregard for others (mockery) and wanton, vicious refusal to look at the damage done (arrogance), then one can ascertain a significant inclination to evil.”[4]
Guy Greenfield and Brooks Faulkner further define evil people, saying, “The central defect of evil persons is not their sin but their refusal to acknowledge it.”[5] The research is clear that these dysfunctional people are deeply unbalanced. As Christians we know the world is fallen. Every person is sinful and will say or do mean things at times. But, Allender and others make it clear those who truly have personality disorders are consistently “driven” by their self-interest.
Whether the toxic leader has a personality disorder, or is better diagnosed as an “abuser,” which is not the same thing according to some psychologists, they are exceptional manipulators and refuse to humbly admit their failures [see this blog].[6]
Though the bosses of each of my study participants had their own characteristic weaknesses and most did not all readily describe their supervisor as “evil,” none of the leaders acknowledged their sins that were destroying relationships with their subordinates. None were described as “self-evaluating” or “humble.” It was a rarity that the leader changed his behavior for any extended length of time after being confronted.
A Layman’s Diagnosis
Psychologists assure us that diagnosing psychological dysfunction is not for the layperson. Alan Goldman warned, true diagnosis usually can only be made by a sufficiently trained individual.[7] However, multiple texts provide useful descriptions of the characteristics found in various toxic personalities. This makes it evident that the layman can at least try to understand the toxic personality of his boss and then be better prepared to interact or disengage with the boss.
Alpha males, queen bees, abusers, bullies, autocrats, narcissists, psychopaths, and Machiavellians are among the many descriptives of toxic leaders found in leadership positions. Some of these are considered “disorders” by the AMA and some are not. However, each creates havoc in the Christian organization. Each is incredibly destructive.
For a more extensive discussion on personality disorders and other such rot, click on this link.
Much of the research agrees; these leaders can be very charming and gregarious. They can be friendly and driven. Machiavellian individuals can sell their vision and convince others quite readily.[8] It is no wonder that they are often leaders of organizations. They can be very impressive individuals.
When I began to interview Eugene, a manager in an international mission organization, I was surprised to hear him describe the CEO as friendly, easy to get along with, visionary, and gregarious. I asked him how a toxic leader could be described this way.
Over the course of the interview, it became apparent Eugene received affable treatment for most of his ten years in relationship with the leader much as we had in our organization. However, other employees did not. In the end, Eugene had the unfortunate experience of tasting of the bitterness others had experienced all along.
It is common that toxic leaders are very specific in their abusive strategies, just as psychologists describe abusers.[9] Were they continually rude, abusive, manipulative, divisive, deceptive, and isolating, it would be rare that they would retain their positions of power.
However, the leaders of my interviewees wielded extraordinary emotional control over their subjects by showing charm and concern for their subordinates, continually creating a fog of confusion, called by some psychologists “gaslighting.”[10] And usually, boards were dazzled by their skills and unwilling to bring help to those under their destructive leadership.
Responsible?
Some interpret the diagnosis of personality disorder as meaning the individual has no responsibility for his actions. He is just wired that way. He can’t help it. However, biblically these badly broken people have just as much responsibility for how they interact with others as anyone else. Though they may be broken by the sin at the fall of man in the garden, or by parental abuse been turned into monsters, they are still broken by the sin for which all men are responsible. They are in need of faith and repentance just as all of us are in need. And, organizations have a responsibility before God to stop them in their destruction.
Notes
[1] American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR, 689.
[8] Siegel, Jacob P. “Machiavellianism, MBA’s and Managers: Leadership Correlates and Socialization Effect.” Academy of Management Journal 16, no. 3 (1973): 405.
[9] Bancroft, Lundy. Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men. Berkley Books, 2002. 68–69.
