Narcissism is found on a continuum. That means that there are those with extensive narcissism and those with little self-interest. Everyone else is found between those extremes. Most of us live in that neighborhood . . . not classified as narcissistic but having a self-interest that is rotten and hurtful.
That self-interest provides many opportunities, maybe even daily, to covet the skills and gifting others have. For the leader who considers his authority questioned whenever another human being in his orbit receives accolades for his or her skills, the temptation to not only covet but attempt control over that gifted one is a problem.
In the Bible book of Numbers there is a story that is a good example of leadership and a bad one as well.
Israel has broken free from Egypt where they were enslaved. Moses, whom God chose to lead the nation out of Egypt, is challenged to squash the gifts of others.
So Moses went out and told the people what the LORD had said. He brought together seventy of their elders and had them stand around the tent. 25 Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke with him, and he took some of the power of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders. When the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied —but did not do so again.
Numbers 11:24-30 (NIV)
This in itself could have been a temptation for Moses. Seeing the LORD bless others with gifting, in essence giving them attention like Moses had received as a leader.
In my world of constant leadership failures, my first thought is I can’t believe Moses would actually shared “the power of the Spirit that was on him” with these other men. That is shocking enough, but the passage goes on:
However, two men, whose names were Eldad and Medad, had remained in the camp. They were listed among the elders, but did not go out to the tent. Yet the Spirit also rested on them, and they prophesied in the camp. 27 A young man ran and told Moses, “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.” 28 Joshua son of Nun, who had been Moses’ aide since youth, spoke up and said, “Moses, my lord, stop them!”
So, what would you do in this situation?
Joshua, whose name you may recognize, showed support and dedication to his leader, Moses. Joshua would go on to lead Israel in the future conquest of the promised land. He was a great leader of Israel.
However, at this point in his discipleship as a leader, he is a toxic follower. And Moses knows it. Joshua, rather than encouraging godly leadership that refuses to bend its knee to the gods of pride and entitlement, seeks to show Moses how devoted he is to Moses as the “big man.”
Moses refuses to follow the temptation of the big man.
But Moses replied, “Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the LORD’s people were prophets and that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!” 30 Then Moses and the elders of Israel returned to the camp.
He recognizes that His LORD is the true giver. And when He gives to his people, we should rejoice in the gifts He gives. Even if it means we are not seen as such a big man anymore.
It is a hard lesson for leaders . . . and every person who seeks to follow Christ in their leadership. It takes heart change. Jealousy of God’s blessing on others is much more common in our hearts than we want to admit—I certainly don’t want to, but it is there.
But that is a deep dive each of us needs to take if we are to be the leaders—and even just people—God wants us to be.
We will continue to fall, but our sanctification is a calling we are given. And leaders owe it to their subordinates.
Anders Örtenblad, Professor of Working Life Science in the Business school of University of Agder, and I have been developing a friendship over the past several months.
In a recent conversation he challenged me with his thoughts regarding the “Golden Rule” especially as it applies to leadership.
The Golden Rule is found in Matthew 7:
“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”
Matthew 7:12 (ESV)
No matter your background, you have likely heard this maxim used. It is simple, to the point, and can be helpful in determining a course of action that is selfless.
However, his suggestion to me was whether it should actually be interpreted to mean “do unto others what they would want done to them.” It certainly piqued my interest.
He shared with me an article that had been written by business management researchers that argued this very thing.
After a bit of introduction, Alyson Van Hooser, wrote,
What I am finding is that many leaders do treat employees the way they themselves want to be treated…they communicate with them the way they themselves would want to be communicated with, they offer employee benefits that they themselves would want, they create products and services they want or would have wanted at their life stage, and so on.1
She suggests that this is the wrong way to approach the Golden Rule. Leaders should be applying the Golden Rule rather to treat those under their leadership the way the employee wants to be treated. So, she writes,
Communicate with them the way they want to be communicated with. Offer them the benefits and perks that they want. Engage and empower them in the way that will inspire them to stay longer and perform better.
Is it Biblical?
Is this a biblical way to look at the Golden Rule?
I am certainly uncomfortable with changing God’s Word to fit my ideas. So, we need to look at it from a biblical view.
First of all, the Golden Rule, though separated by paragraph and even heading in the ESV translation, is part of the paragraph before. It really should not be separated. This is what Jesus says right before giving the Golden Rule:
Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
Matthew 7:9-11 (ESV)
Jesus’ point here is to show that God knows exactly what we want and he uses a father (or mother) as an example. The normal parent would give “good gifts” to their child. So, imagine God, the ultimate good parent, giving bad gifts to His children. That is inconceivable. God can be counted on to always give the best gifts to His children.
Keeping that in mind then, the point of this entire passage is that—applying it to leadership—the leader should consider what is very best for his or her employees. That is not so much determined by what the leader would like as much as what will be most beneficial to the employee.
The Golden Rule is Jesus’ closing argument. It is making clear that since we generally look out for ourselves in this life, a simple solution to determining how to treat others is do to them what we naturally do for ourselves—and that is give good gifts.
That is Jesus’ point.
Applied
Ultimately, a leader should be encouraging the development and use of the employee or church member’s God-given gifts and talents. This is always beneficial to the organization or church, but ultimately it is biblically and morally required (Ephesians 4:11-12).
Purchase the Bible Study
But note, the motive behind doing for others what you or they would want done is not to get the most out of them. This is where I struggled with the article.
Alyson noted that empathy is key to knowing what your subordinate really wants (needs) and this was a positive ideal. However, she also tended to focus on doing to them to get from them— “more engagement, improved morale, increased loyalty, fewer communication issues, better performance.”
As you give good gifts with the purpose of getting the recipient to do something for you, the disengenuity of it will create cynicism on the part of the subordinate. In the long run it will result in disloyalty, disengagement, and lower morale, the very things the leader is trying to overcome.
The subordinate will see through the leader’s act and recognize his or her selfishness and lack of real love.
Genuine Concern
Therefore, what the leader should really try to do is give good gifts to his subordinates because he desires to treat them the way God wants him to treat them and because he is genuinely concerned for their well-being.
This is the true and good use of empathy and true and good practice of the Golden Rule.
Have you ever seen a leader boast in his weaknesses?
First of all, in his job interview he shared all the amazing leadership qualities he possesses and all the victories on the field of organizational management he attained.
And second, all those followers must be given confidence in his acuity and wisdom.
So, what if a leader boasted in his weaknesses?
The Apostle Paul, one of the greatest leaders of the world-wide Christian church said,
Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me.
2 Cor 12:7-9
Paul filled a significant amount of the New Testament with his writing . . . but he never had a press secretary or agent.
We live in a marketing-rich environment. The purveyors of product hype bludgeon us with their images and words through every form of communication—and there are many forms of communication nowadays.
It is taken for granted that even within Christianity, founded upon the testimonies of people like Paul, to reach a world lost in sin our churches and Christian organizations must boast rather in our strengths; our programs, our giving, our service to our communities; it is church-growth 101.
But what if our leaders boasted in their weakness?
Well, then I guess Christ’s strength would rest on them.
Maybe it would show that we are a broken and needy people and that Christ is our Savior in all ways.
It could possibly show that we depend on the One Who created us in His image.
And maybe, in so doing, our LORD would take care of the rest.
Humility
I have written often about humility (here, here, and here). Humility is a key ingredient to good leadership and noticeably lacking in toxic leadership. Humility is necessary if we are to “boast in our weakness.”
In my years of research, interviews, and experience, it is humility that is the game-changer every time. I hear sufferers of toxic leadership use the term or synonyms all the time. It is the difference between a good leader and a bad leader. It is the difference between a toxic leader and a godly leader.
Quite frankly, it is the difference between a pleasant person and a rotten person.
Christopher Hutchinson wrote,
“I believe humility to be at the very heart of Christian faith and even to be the best paradigm of all proper thought regarding God, oneself, and others.”1
Amy Edmondson argues that humility is not something that comes easily for those who are in high positions.2 When looking down on subordinates, receiving their praise and accolades, even the humblest can begin to believe his own press. Christian leadership requires an attitude and action of a servant on behalf of those who are subordinate. Leaders must go beyond their own comfort and needs, setting aside the world’s motivations of ego, money, and pride, as Maxwell notes.3
But “lording it over” others, as Jesus says, is a basic temptation for Christian leaders (Matt. 20:25) as it is for anyone else. Edmondson says, “It can be hard for people to muster both the humility and the genuine curiosity that is needed to really learn from others.”4 It is humility that makes it possible for us to learn, and this is foundational to the work of a team whether on the sports field, in the rehearsal hall, secular corporation, or Christian ministry.
So, what if a leader boasted in his or her weaknesses? What if they gathered up the humility to proclaim their weakness and their need for Jesus Christ? Rather than continually defending themselves and blaming others, our leaders admitted failure and sought forgiveness and reconciliation?
Maybe, “Christ’s strength would rest on” them.
References
Christopher Hutchinson, Rediscovering Humility: Why the Way Up Is Down (Kindle: New Growth Press, 2018), loc. 280. ↩︎
Amy C. Edmondson, Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy, 1st edition (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2012), 62. ↩︎
John C. Maxwell, “Reflections on Challenge the Process,” pp. 71–84 in Christian Reflections on The Leadership Challenge, edited by James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner, 1st edition (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2006), 72. ↩︎
Amy C. Edmondson, Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy, 1st edition (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2012), 62. ↩︎
Susie had a Master of Divinity and was working on a Doctor of Ministry degrees when I spoke with her. She had served as the Programming and Missions Director in a non-denominational church with a little under 500 members and served under the supervision of the Senior Pastor.
Pastor Pete was, by her description, the primary authority in the church.
Susie worked three years at the large, multi-campus church and was employed to oversee the development of teams that led all aspects of worship. Her background in business management provided organizational skills that were invaluable for these administrative tasks.
In addition, her love for mentoring was utilized as she discipled individuals and lead teams in spiritual development.
Susie explained to me the position of an assistant to a senior pastor provides unique opportunities and challenges. There is real pleasure of “working together with people who believe the same thing you believe,” as Susie noted. Susie enjoyed using her gifts to serve people in the church and it was evident that she was supported and encouraged by most in the congregation.
“You are seeing people’s lives grow and be fulfilled in a way that has never been fulfilled before,” as Susie explained.
She said, “I was a little bit nervous about going to the church setting because my background is in management and typically churches don’t manage themselves very well.” But her work administratively in organizing the various teams for worship resulted in the development of leaders and helpful procedures for all the teams.
However, her work at the church did not end well. She resigned from her position in large part due to the abusive leadership of Pastor Pete.
The Missions Committee
Not long after joining the staff, Susie was approached by Pastor “Pete” to organize a missions committee at the church and arrange for short-term mission trips to an African country. Pastor Pete wished to begin building relationships with a particular group of African churches in one country through short-term trips.
The pastor gave Susie much authority to build a team and communicate with the African churches and a missions organization through which they would operate.
As they prepared to sign up members of the congregation for the summer mission, one member reneged on his verbal commitment. He had particular gifts of importance to the team, but explained that he had been asked by Pastor Pete to accompany the pastor on a mission trip to a different African country.
Susie and the new committee were quite surprised. Neither Susie, nor her committee, had heard about this new work of the pastor’s. When an elder, who was on her committee, heard about it, he was “infuriated” and set up a meeting with Pastor Pete.
Hoping to work with the pastor to straighten out what had to be a miscommunication, the elder explained gently their difficulty with the pastor’s conflicting mission trip. However, Pastor Pete simply “laughed” at the elder and said that the elder had simply gotten his “feelings hurt.”
The elder, taken aback by the pastor’s callous response, explained the lack of respect shown by the pastor. But the pastor continued to laugh.
The two mission trips went on as planned.
The Financial and Relational Fallout
Following Susie’s trip the team presented an “African worship service” for the congregation and the church gave thousands of dollars and many material items for the African churches with which they worked.
At the close of the service, Pastor Pete stood before the congregation and gave an announcement that all the funds and materials would be sent to the churches he had visited two weeks earlier.
The missions committee and team were astonished. Pastor Pete had personally directed the committee to raise the funds and materials for the churches visited by Susie’s group.
Despite her success, Susie was placed in an awkward position with the senior pastor. Her concern for the authority of the pastor and peace of the church was evident in the interview. She was able, on a day to day basis, to minister to the needs of her little flocks over which she was given authority.
However, seeking to work alongside a pastor that practices autocratic leadership can be emotionally damaging. And draining.
Susie observed multiple times when Pastor Pete was highly authoritative and hurtful to those under his care. The frequency of such events were instrumental in Susie’s resignation from her position. She said she never felt that Pastor Pete “respected” her though he “handed [projects] freely over” to her and never came back to ask how they were progressing.
For Susie, the lack of respect shown by the senior pastor created significant hurt. However, she realized much of the emotional injury only later. Susie explained,
“I didn’t realize at the time but now looking back and going through some spiritual abuse healing, there’s no question that I was deeply hurt. I felt betrayed.”
According to authors Freyd and Birrell,
“Our preliminary findings indicate that shame is indeed associated with exposure to traumas that have a high level of betrayal, but not to traumas with a low degree of betrayal.”
[Blind to Betrayal, location 485]
Limiting the Damage
Susie sought to limit the relational damage of the pastor by speaking with few people in the church about their experiences. In order to cope with the emotional struggle, Susie explained,
“I think more than anything I reached out to some family in the mid-west because I really wanted to respect the church and I didn’t want to create any division.”
Despite having been placed in an uncomfortable position of telling churches in Africa that all commitments made to them were off, Susie recognized that the onus of the failure was the senior pastor’s.
She explained that her concern that her reputation was damaged was limited by her knowledge that others knew her character and integrity. Her self-differentiation was evident in her challenging the pastor during two meetings with him. Self-differentiation [described here], as defined by psychologists and management experts as holding firm to convictions while wading the torrents of anxious, relational environments is a particularly difficult skill for those who are self-described “people-pleasers.”
She suggested to Pastor Pete that she expected the Lord to “get his attention” at some point if he didn’t change his behavior. Susie believed her ultimate authority was God and not the senior pastor and this helped her respond with a significant level of self-differentiation.
There were many emotional challenges for Susie as she interacted with members of the congregation and her autocratic senior pastor. She noted that most of the leadership (Deacons, missions committee and Elders) in the church she served have since left the church primarily due to the authoritarian leadership of the senior pastor.
Because the frustration Susie experienced was not unique to her there was difficulty determining how to respond to the congregation in those times. Susie said she counseled others to “try to understand that even though you are part of a church and you are a part of a Christian organization, sometimes your first answer is to God and to God alone and you need to first and foremost seek Him.”
She also encouraged those who were struggling with Pastor Pete’s decisions to go to him directly as a brother in accordance with Matthew 18. However, as described in other articles, this is not always safe nor biblically necessary.
To complicate matters, Susie explained that Pastor Pete was unlikely to respond to any confrontation by her or congregant members, having seen others seek reconciliation and fail. She considered Matthew 18 to be the model, yet Susie noted that “there’s nothing you are going to do to change this guy.”
The pastor rejected any exhortation he was given, shifted the blame, or said he would try harder to no apparent effect.
In summary, Susie was cognizant that her responses to the pastors and to members of the church could “create a schism” or “division” and so restricted her communication to those either outside the church or directly involved in the conflicts.
Hands Tied
A pastor that leads autocratically may leave little room for those under their authority to use their gifts and practice effective ministry. Susie expressed frustration with having had her “hands tied.”
Susie was subjected to frustrating decisions made by Pastor Pete who had little interest in discussion or consideration of his assistant’s opinions.
When other mission team members sought Susie out to encourage her to talk to Pastor Pete, Susie told them,
“He knows the situation we are in and he has clearly told me ‘this is the decision I’ve made…this is where it’s going, and this is what’s going to happen.’ And so I have no control.”
Pastor Pete had given Susie a substantial amount of freedom to use her gifts in her position, however she had seen enough imposition of his will with church leaders that she was “not surprised,” but rather felt “bamboozled” by his decision.
However, upon her advice several mission team members continued to work with the African churches and mission agency, making other arrangements to continue in their commitment to the churches despite their own pastor having removed the church’s support of that particular mission.
As noted above, Susie also did extensive work to leave a legacy of organizational structure, fulfilling the purpose for which she was employed. Following her final worship service, she said, “I left my keys right in the middle of my desk and I walked out and I never heard a word from him.”
According to her account, ministry happened that has had long term effects on the congregations she served. Yet, the frustrations encountered dulled her hopes that she had effective ministry during those years of service.
What Can Be Learned
In the end, Susie finally considered the ministry “vision” of the senior pastor to be in conflict with her own and resigned her position, leaving with damaged emotions that would take years to heal.
Susie was employed by a church that, in policy, the elder board had the authority to hire or fire the senior pastor. However, the perceived or real power of the pastor overcame that authority and the board adopted a “herding mentality” – “an appeasement strategy toward” the pastor that allowed an environment of control and poor decision-making.[1]
It was very apparent that the practice of leadership by a pastor who considers his vision of primary and unquestioned importance to the congregation creates an environment where there is no psychological safety for the purpose of building a team ministry.
Because strong, authoritative leaders can often be seen as God’s “anointed,” gathering around them disciples attracted to their power, it becomes more and more difficult for a leadership team to reject the autocrat. Autocratic pastors may provide skills and gifts in many areas, but the overwhelming effect of their leadership appears to be destructive to important relationships and the witness of the body of Christ.
As Susie pressed on towards her goal of ministering to her congregations, her convictions regarding the Matthew 18 principles presented both difficulty in confronting the problem pastor and in coping with her emotional responses to the senior pastor’s leadership.
As was noted earlier, her coping strategies were focused on sharing her difficulties with family members outside the church. This common strategy in “workplace bullying” environments is helpful as they receive encouragement and possibly biblical advice.[2] However, the focus of the problem – the pastor – is left unchecked. The assistant is left alone and isolated because those who truly understand and know what they are facing, the church members, are not consulted and the processing of the emotions is limited.
The Matthew 18 principles, taught by Jesus in verses 15 through 18, are given in the context of brothers in the faith with the oversight of a plurality of elders. In Susie’s context, the “brother” had authority to fire them and was under no real authority of elders. And Susie was convinced she had nowhere to turn in her church family to express and process her emotions for fear that it would be gossip. This leaves a gap in the healing process.
Of great concern for those who minister under the authority of autocratic leaders is the view that it “takes two to tango.” This perspective is evident in the writings of Friedman, Herrington, Creech and Taylor. This simplistic view does not take into consideration either the power structure inherent in the senior-assistant relationship, nor the dynamics of relating to the “ravenous wolves” that Jesus describes in Matthew 7:15-25. Friedman focuses on changing self, however there are times when it is evident that the primary problem lies in the other person and there is just no way to get around it.
It was clear in the interview that Pastor Pete could not be expected to change nor be confronted with any expectation of success. Therefore, how an assistant copes with the daily interactions with this type of pastor is of the greatest importance, particularly if the assistant feels trapped in the job with little recourse financially or vocationally.
Susie took submissive postures with her senior pastor, limiting her criticism and always recognizing that his word was the “final word.” Susie’s ability to hold firmly to her own convictions, minister to others as God gives opportunity, and recognize that ultimately God is sovereign over the future of her ministry whether remaining in that particular church, under that particular pastor, or somewhere else, is of absolute importance and a lesson into which she gained valuable insight.
Recommendations for Churches and Organizations
Elders: It is advisable that the church consider seriously the Apostle Paul’s instruction that a plurality of elders be established to guide and shepherd the church.
Accountability: In addition, immediate response should be given to pastors that exhibit authoritarian practices. The church on the whole operates with no category for autocratic leaders. In my experience, it is only the leaders who have a moral failure such as sexual abuse or financial fraud that are held accountable by church boards. Leadership failure is much broader than these select moral faults. Though harder to distinguish, authoritarian leaders are just as damaging to the body of Christ and His witness.
Examinations: There should be much attention given for the identification of autocratic personalities when ordaining and calling pastors. We must understand the destruction caused by broken relationships with both assistants and members.
Seminary Training: In addition, seminaries should consider ways of providing graduates with the tools, emotionally and biblically, to confront autocratic leaders.
Summary
It is my hope that Susie’s story has provided a glimpse into the personal struggle that those under authority have when faced with autocratic leadership. Her story is not uncommon. Her story is an example of a church work environment that is destructive and extraordinarily complex because highly authoritarian leadership is destructive and extraordinarily complex.
The prophet Ezekiel, calling the religious leaders of Israel to repent of their wicked leadership said, rather than shepherding God’s sheep, healing their diseases and seeking after the lost, “you have ruled them with harshness and cruelty.”[3]
As Christian leaders, ministry is marked by both comfortable, life-giving relationships and relationships that are a battleground. Rardin says Christian leadership is to be “motivated by love for the Lord.”[4] This love gives strength in the difficulties pastors face in a job that is largely about relationships.
It is love that gives pastor’s assistants the motivation and roadmap for interacting with and supporting an autocratic senior pastor’s ministry. However, it is also love that knows when to stand firm, grasping deeply held convictions with integrity, when a senior pastor oversteps his biblical authority. This self-differentiation is of primary importance for assistants to authoritative pastors as they cope with the emotions that rise out of the brokenness of sinful man that is both their own and their employer’s.
God, in His grace, has prepared many excellent works for each Christian to accomplish.[5] May the church provide the environment and love necessary that every part of the body does its part for the body.
[1] Friedman, A Failure of Nerve, 1285–1287, 1306-1308.
[2] Ciby and Raya, “Exploring Victims’ Experiences of Workplace Bullying: A Grounded Theory Approach,” 76.
[3]ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. Ezekiel 34:4.
[4] Rardin, The Servant’s Guide to Leadership, 36.
[5]ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. Ephesians 2:10.
We are all dependent. We long for satisfaction. We long for respect and love and relationship.
The “Sons of Korah” wrote Psalm 42 expressing the deep longing so many of us have. As a deer pants for flowing streams, so pants my soul for you, O God. The entire Psalm is an expression of dependency.
A good kind of dependency.
Not a dependency that results in suffering, pain, or rejection. But a dependency that will result in satisfaction and ultimate salvation. Where we might so often depend on a business leader, political leader, husband, wife, or friend, Psalm 42 points to a reliance on God we have and should have.
Real dependence on God results in salvation and praise. Its outcome is joy. Not sorrow or fear.
But dependence on self or other men result in broken promises and greater distrust. Though I depend upon my wife as my best friend, there are times when I drive her crazy with my clinging. That is as it should be. Only God can handle my dependency. In fact, He made me that way and from my very first parents in the Garden of Eden, He expected his created beings to depend on Him alone.
And He never wearies of it.
Dependence on God = Humility
Dependency on Christ has a real fringe benefit.
When our dependency is on Christ and not other people, we can also then be humble and responsive to critique. If we are dependent on their approval we become overly sensitive and either maddened by criticism or deeply hurt.
The humble man is likely to be saddened but changed. The arrogant is likely to be maddened and strike back.
Psalm 141:5 says,
Let a righteous man strike me—it is a kindness; let him rebuke me—it is oil for my head; let my head not refuse it.
David was a humble man. You can almost see his heart saying, “I hate this rebuke,” but he is working very hard to recognize it as the gift it is.
Leaders need this kind of heart. They need to see the criticism they receive as “kindness.” It is like “oil” for their head. Barnes Notes on the Bible says the rebuke “should be received as readily as that which contributed most to comely adorning and comfort.” This is how those of David’s time would understand oil being poured out on the head of an important person in a festival celebration.
Oil was healing. It was to be received with joy and as a gift.
Do You Hear Criticism?
How often do leaders hear and receive criticism? This is the hallmark of godly leadership because it is based on godly humility.
Collaboration is a way of working with colleagues that is characterized by cooperation, mutual respect, and shared goals. It involves sharing information, coordinating actions, discussing what’s working and what’s not, and perpetually seeking input and feedback.1
Amy Edmondson
Notice what Edmondson says? A team (collaboration) is always “discussing what’s working and what’s not.” They are always seeking “input and feedback.”
An autocratic, arrogant leader may be effective for a time. But he will fail in time because more heads are better than one. The leader that is dependent on his subordinates to make him feel good, smart, clever, and powerful is never a team player and will not build a ministry or product that seeks God’s glory.
But a leader who looks for and receives differing views as oil on his head will build a lasting legacy.
Do you serve under an autocrat or abusive leader? This lack of humility is a common sign that they are. And, it is unlikely they will ever provide a good and godly workplace.
It may be time to move on.
Are you unable to hear criticism? Do you find that you consistently say they are wrong or project the wrong on those who criticize. Do you seek ways to discredit your critic?
It’s time you get help.
Stories in African Mission
“My family of six arrived in Malawi, Africa in August of 2003 to a wonderfully hospitable group of fellow missionaries. I was not really prepared for what awaited us. Our family had not done any significant homework on Malawian life but were nonetheless excited to get started with it.“
What a wonderful book! You have beautifully combined storytelling of your and your family’s journey and experiences with scripture, spiritual experiences, music, and observations of Malawian and Western cultures. It is a great reference for anyone working and living in Malawi or those who support programs in Malawi.
Jeanine Jackson Former United States Ambassador to Malawi State Department Leadership Consultant
As I read at times, I felt I was reading the travel log of a missionary tourist, the insights of a musical theorist, the confessions of a cultural imperialist, the wisdom of a cross-cultural missiologist, and the reflections of journalist investigating a mystery cult. [Dehnert] presents a childlike wonder as he speaks about strange and stranger things in a strange and beautiful land. It was great how he expressed his fears, weaknesses, and misconceptions as part of the path to a gradual awakening. Dehnert didn’t go to Malawi with an agenda and he loves people; I think that enabled him to learn so much. In the end the book comes across like a fun travel documentary with some sage-like wisdom thrown in.
Rev. Jay Stoms Missionary with National Christian Foundation Stellenbosch, South Africa
NOTES:
1Edmondson, Amy C. (2012-03-16). Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy (Kindle Locations 1078-1080). Wiley. Kindle Edition.
My first degrees were in music performance. Unfortunately, I soon discovered I was a nervous performer. In my early years, my nerves would nearly ruin my playing. Very frustrating for a performance major.
During that time, a pastor directed me to a passage in Proverbs that says,
The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is safe.
Proverbs 29:25 (ESV)
I was deeply affected by this verse. I realized that my nervousness about performing was welling up from a fundamental fear of what others thought of me.
Some time ago I wrote a blog on the need for vindication by those who share in the suffering of those under abuse. I related a story of how friends of mine had praised a toxic leader, I served under, when he died. Following that blog, these friends contacted me to apologize. I was deeply grateful for their care.
This blog is going to take another tack.
Recently, I have received abusive messages from an individual in a group text. I realized that when I had received those kinds of messages from this abuser privately, it did not bother me nearly as much. When it was more public, I found that I wanted vindication from the others in the group.
But I also realized, that is no way to live my life.
To Vindicate or Not to Vindicate
I stand by my belief that we need to “vindicate” those who are suffering under abuse. They need to know others understand, love, and will stand with them. Abusive leaders (at home or workplace) will often seek to isolate their targets. They will try to bring co-workers along their side and demonize the target of their abuse. Abusive husbands will “pocket” their wive’s friends.
So, it is very important for bystanders who the abuser seeks to manipulate this way do not fall for his or her evil maneuvers. They need to vindicate the target.
However, as I speak to targets of abuse, I believe it is important to point out that seeking that vindication can kill your soul. It is ultimately a desire to please man…to get them on your side. And, that only adds to the trauma created by the abuse, because it is very rare that you will receive vindication as studies suggest.
“Research in the United Kingdom found that more than one third of witnessses wanted to intervene to help victims but were afraid to do so. Bullies drive witness and bystanders out of their jobs, just as they do to ‘firsthand’ victims.”1
It is likely you will not receive those encouraging, understanding words from others.
Where does your vindication lie?
Cast your burden on the LORD, and he will sustain you; he will never permit the righteous to be moved. But you, O God, will cast them down into the pit of destruction; men of blood and treachery shall not live out half their days. But I will trust in you.
Psalm 55:22-23 (ESV)
The Lord is our vindication and in a world that is racked with sin, we can only truly trust in His provision. In his sustenance. In his vindication.
It will come. It may not be in the timing we want. But ultimately, God is just and He provides for the oppressed. His goodness is sure.
If you see someone abused, support them. If you are abused, cast your burden on the LORD. He knows your suffering more than any co-worker or family member.
Stories of Africa
“My family of six arrived in Malawi, Africa in August of 2003 to a wonderfully hospitable group of fellow missionaries. I was not really prepared for what awaited us. Our family had not done any significant homework on Malawian life but were nonetheless excited to get started with it.“
What a wonderful book! You have beautifully combined storytelling of your and your family’s journey and experiences with scripture, spiritual experiences, music, and observations of Malawian and Western cultures. It is a great reference for anyone working and living in Malawi or those who support programs in Malawi.
Jeanine Jackson Former United States Ambassador to Malawi State Department Leadership Consultant
As I read at times, I felt I was reading the travel log of a missionary tourist, the insights of a musical theorist, the confessions of a cultural imperialist, the wisdom of a cross-cultural missiologist, and the reflections of journalist investigating a mystery cult. [Dehnert] presents a childlike wonder as he speaks about strange and stranger things in a strange and beautiful land. It was great how he expressed his fears, weaknesses, and misconceptions as part of the path to a gradual awakening. Dehnert didn’t go to Malawi with an agenda and he loves people; I think that enabled him to learn so much. In the end the book comes across like a fun travel documentary with some sage-like wisdom thrown in.
Rev. Jay Stoms Missionary with National Christian Foundation Stellenbosch, South Africa
NOTES:
Sutton, Robert I. The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t. 1st ed. New York: Business Plus, 2007.
Mind you, we knew we were called to our life there. But, how we got there was nearly miraculous.
It was on our early, cool morning walk in September of 2002 when my wife cut through the maze of all my struggles and fears and prayed, “God, show us what you want us to do.” A mission work to Austria we founded been started and was floundering. I was frustrated with God’s planning. What was God doing in a work that I believed to be valuable to Him?
My wife wanted the Lord to show us whereHe wanted us to be.
I wanted Him to get us to Austria.
I thought I had a great idea for the use of my gifts in short-term missions and I wanted the Lord to go along with it. I wanted the Lord to fix the Austria mission and my wife sought God’s guidance in a much bigger way.
Neither of us had any idea God’s answer would be sending us to the continent of Africa.
Thus begins the story of To Africa On a Lark. The book was written to be a readable primer for those preparing to cross-cultures on the mission field. It is not a text but a story of God’s gradual unfolding of his purposes for the Dehnert family. Through their life in Malawi, Africa the Dehnert family learned what it meant to bring a razor to open the presents that their Malawian hosts offered them.
Book by the Editor of The Pearls and Swine Site
Kelly Dehnert, Editor of Pearls and Swine, has written a book about his family’s life in Africa as missionaries. The book provides helpful insights to engaging other cultures.
What others say about the book:
[To Africa On a Lark] is extremely readable, with an easy to follow flow. The stories are quite engaging…The overall theme of cross-cultural adjustment, with the “razor” image, comes through clearly. I hope that many will read, enjoy, and benefit from your engaging string of accounts.
J. Nelson Jennings, PhD – Editor, Global Missiology – English
What a wonderful book! You have beautifully combined storytelling of your and your family’s journey and experiences with scripture, spiritual experiences, music, and observations of Malawian and Western cultures. It is a great reference for anyone working and living in Malawi or those who support programs in Malawi.
Jeanine Jackson – Former United States Ambassador to Malawi, State Department Leadership Consultant
Historians study something called ‘movement’ — how one people group becomes a different people group simply by moving into another people group. The Dehnert tribe is a perfect microcosm of ‘movement’ – and we are all better for it. This book would be helpful for anyone considering cross-cultural service. For everyone else, especially we ‘experts,’ this book is a helpful lesson in humility – learning again the limits of our learning!
Rev. Sam McDonald – Pastor, Faith Presbyterian – Brookhaven, Mississippi and Former Missionary to Malawi
Any time we minister and work in a cross-cultural context —in our churches, communities, or overseas — we have to be aware of the biases and prejudices we bring with us. Very often, almost always, we are blind to them and they keep us from sensing, learning, growing and serving because of our own pride and arrogance that we do not even know are there.
I think [To Africa On a Lark] would be helpful to anyone considering any type of meaningful engagement in a cross-cultural setting. Missions committees would benefit by the “insider perspective” it offers and could help them be more wise and thoughtful in the works they support and encourage. Also, anyone thinking about being called to missions would benefit by reading this.
Brian Carlisle – Former Headmaster and Missionary, ABCCA – Malawi, Africa
What should be second nature to Christian organizations has, in some ways, been purloined by business leadership.
Teamwork.
In the course of studying toxic leadership, I have read numerous books on business leadership that helpfully describe a positive and productive work environment. I have also interviewed many Christian organization employees and leaders who have suffered under leaders who have no interest in teamwork.
Business gurus identify various means of creating a respectful and engaging office that gets the best out of the employees. Amy Edmondson, in her excellent work, Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy, has many valuable things to say. I would like to take her extensive research and knowledge and place it in a biblical context.
Because that is where it belongs.
Command-and-Control
Edmondson notes near the beginning of her book, “Many organizations still rely on the top-down, command-and-control approaches that fueled growth and profitability in the industrial era.” [Edmondson: Kindle 267-268] Henry Ford’s “command-and-control” leadership worked at the time only because employees were treated as cogs in the machinery of industry. They repeated activities over and over and ran as fast as possible on a mindless wheel of production.
However, business leadership writers are seeking a brighter future for the workforce.
Teaming blends relating to people, listening to other points of view, coordinating actions, and making shared decisions.
[pages 278-279]
Edmondson’s list of teaming characteristics can give hope to Christian organizations wishing to lead their organizations to a place of flourishing. In a toxic organization or one ruled by a toxic leader, these four elements of a positive work environment are often non-existent.
When the IT director and I proposed a digital solution to the problem of printer use in my Christian mission college’s computer lab, the President of the college called me into his office. His wife, the lab’s director, had already explained to me that I was to “keep my nose out of her typing lab.” The President reiterated his wife’s nastiness and proceeded to make clear I had nothing of value to be considered.
Relationships in these organizations are usually deeply fractured. The autocrat has no interest in listening to other points of view. “Coordination” means an employee is told what to do and when to do it. And, there is no discussion or attempted agreement on decisions.
Fear and Control
To be fair, some leaders just haven’t gotten the memo and have little experience in developing these leadership skills. What they have experienced, their personality traits, and what they learned from others are more Henry Ford than a team leader.
On the other hand, some leaders “believe (most of the time, erroneously) that fear increases control. Control reinforces certainty and predictability.” [Edmondson, 508-509] An autocratic, toxic leader knows exactly what he is doing and will use fear to control all things organizational. Unfortunately, “When leaders fall into a default ‘do it my way’ management style, it silences nearly everyone except the person with the loudest voice or the largest office. [Edmondson, 1217-1219] And, a toxic leader always has the loudest voice and largest office.
If you are a leader who wants the most out of her employees, the Bible and Edmondson have much to say.
Gleaning from the Image-Bearer
Edmondson says, “When leaders explicitly communicate that they respect employees, it makes it easier for employees to volunteer their knowledge.” [Edmondson, 1233-1234] Christian organizations should want the knowledge present in their employees. God has created every man (and woman) as an image-bearer. That means they represent God and take after Him in various ways.
We are fools if we do not want to glean all we can from the database of skills and knowledge stored in our employees. The Lord said as much to Moses:
Then the Lord said to Moses, “Gather for me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and officers over them, and bring them to the tent of meeting, and let them take their stand there with you. And I will come down and talk with you there. And I will take some of the Spirit that is on you and put it on them, and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, so that you may not bear it yourself alone.
Numbers 11:16-17 (ESV)
God provided for his image-bearing servants the Holy Spirit that they were of help to Moses. They were to judge the people. Moses was going to be worn out trying to deal with all his office, as the head-honcho prophet of Israel, was throwing at him. God said, “I will come down and supply other men to help.”
We need to trust that the Lord does that with our employees as well.
Similarly, the Apostle Paul exhorted the Corinthian church to recognize the value of every member of the church. This lesson can easily be transferred to a Christian organization.
“For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,’ that would not make it any less a part of the body.”
1 Corinthians 12:14-15 (ESV)
The Lord has, in His purposeful way, provided subordinates for the good of the organization. They need to be treated as gifts rather than objects of control and abjection. The various members of our team should be treated as of equal value to our ministry.
So, how do we use employees of our organization as gifts?
Psychological Safety
We create psychological safety. This kind of environment is safe for relationships to flourish. In this kind of environment employees and bosses listen to other points of view. In this kind of environment, there is a cooperative effort to reach a goal and there is a sharing of decision making.
“When a leader of a team is supportive, coaching oriented, and nondefensive in response to questions and challenges, team members are likely to feel that the team constitutes a safe environment.”
[Edmondson, 2473-2475]
Leaders and fellow workers must respond to one another without jealousy or arrogance. They cannot act in a way that shuts down the free flow of ideas and suggestions. Trust has to be developed that ideas are welcomed and considered without harsh judgment. And, if that environment of trust is built then more challenging conversations can take place.
“Simply put, psychological safety makes it possible to give tough feedback and have difficult conversations without the need to tiptoe around the truth.” [Edmondson, 2151-2152]
When employees are psychologically safe, they do not fear broken relationships or getting fired when they disagree or present difficult ideas. There is respect and trust between members of the team. There is no jealousy.
“This belief comes about when people both trust and respect each other, and it produces a sense of confidence that the group won’t embarrass, reject, or punish someone for speaking up.”
[Edmondson, 2153-2155]
Jealousy and Gifts
One day the Lord spoke to Moses and He put His Spirit on seventy elders of Israel. The seventy prophesied, giving evidence of the blessing God had given them. They did not prophesy long. However, two men who had not gone to the tent of meeting continued prophesying in the camp. A young man, knowing the normal response of leaders to be jealousy of the successes of their subordinates, came running to Moses. He breathlessly explained to Moses the two men were prophesying.
Joshua, overhearing this exchange, was perturbed and told Moses to stop the men. He feared for Moses’ authority.
“But Moses said to him, ‘Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets, that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!’”
Numbers 11:24-30 (ESV)
Moses saw the great value in the grace of God being shared with other leaders besides himself. Joshua, one of the greatest leaders of Israel, likely learned an important lesson from Moses.
Subordinates must have the freedom to share their skills and knowledge.
Not Just Allowing Gifts
It is not enough, though to simply allow others to use their abilities. It is the leader’s responsibility to help those under their care to develop their abilities. Paul commands church leaders “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ…” [Ephesians 4:11-12 (ESV)] Help them grow their ministry skills, not by criticism but by encouragement. Fan their gifts to a flame.
As if taking her cue from Paul, Edmondson finishes saying, “The most successful leaders in the future will be those who have the ability to develop the talents of others.” [5043-5044]
All of this could just be a lot of law-keeping for organization heads who have no love for others.
Gospel Heart
So, having said all that has been said about building a team, I must hasten to add that real teamwork will come from the heart of man. If the leader simply follows some nice guidelines, such as the ones given by Edmondson, but miss the heart of the Gospel, it will all just be a fake.
Jesus always gets to the heart. If a leader doesn’t respect his subordinates. If the employees despise the boss. It will just be a whole lot of acting as a team but not truly functioning that way. It is imperative that the team develop an inner attitude of sharing, caring, and respect. If I put on a facade of respect for my subordinates or co-workers, they will know. It must go to my heart.
Unfortunately, the inner man is desperately foul. It takes a supernatural work of God to help us see our blind spots and respect the image of God in others. So, humbly ask for it. Realize you need it and plead with God for the mercy to see your employees as a gift.
And build a team for God’s glory.
Book by Editor of P&S
Kelly Dehnert, Editor of Pearls and Swine, has written a book about his family’s life in Africa as missionaries. The book provides helpful insights to engaging other cultures.
What others say about the book:
[To Africa On a Lark] is extremely readable, with an easy to follow flow. The stories are quite engaging…The overall theme of cross-cultural adjustment, with the “razor” image, comes through clearly. I hope that many will read, enjoy, and benefit from your engaging string of accounts.
J. Nelson Jennings, PhD – Editor, Global Missiology – English
References
Edmondson, Amy C. Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy. 1st ed. Kindle Version. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2012.
ESV New Classic Reference Bible. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2011.
