Let’s say a group of 40 current and former missionaries sent a letter to you as a member of the Board of Directors for a Christian organization. In that letter, the missionaries complained that the leadership of the organization treated employees and nationals harshly and lacked integrity and accountability.  Not only did these particular missionaries complain, but there had been a history of complaints against the founders and directors of the mission.

What would you do?

In our mission organization, nothing.

Though the board was asked to contact those who had signed the letter for their own personal stories of abuse, the board contacted only one individual and asked him to meet with the board and the leadership. Together, in one, happy room. He respectfully declined.

Board Accountability

The extent of board dysfunction and lack of accountability is shocking. Boards of organizations are normally given authority and responsibility for keeping their CEOs and chairmen accountable. Yet, among the Christian organization employees who were under abusive leadership with whom I have spoken, only one board did something about the toxic leader.

Other boards with oversight of the participants in my study either did little or took steps to remove the leader when it was long overdue. By then, many subordinates were already deeply injured and traumatized. One interviewee, Eugene, said his board took more than two years to remove the CEO. Graham’s took approximately ten years. One of the toxic leaders, a board chairman, has not been removed from his board and one toxic chairman continues in his position.

Following my resignation from a Christian mission organization, one stakeholder told me the organization did more harm than good. Yet, when confronted by an employee, one of the directors under the toxic CEO suggested the leadership had done so much good, they should not be challenged.

What clouds the vision of boards or others in authority such that they refuse their responsibility to remove leaders who create so much damage?

What stops them from taking a stand against, what many victims would call, oppression? There are a number of reasons I have found in my research.

Unity

One reason for the failure of boards to practice good oversight indicated by my research is members are often hand-picked by the leaders, particularly if those leaders are the founders of the organization. Having worked on choosing board members for my own organization, I would suggest the pull to find board members who understand, agree with, and buy into the vision of the organization is strong. Leaders want unity. Sometimes at any cost.

However, when the prospective board member’s agreement on all issues is expected by the founder or leader, there is likely to be trouble. For growth and effective ministry, a board of directors should not be expected to agree with the founder on all issues and should have the freedom to challenge ideas they consider unhelpful to ministry. And they should truly have a say in implementing their decisions.

I would suggest that prospective board members should be chosen that buy into the vision, but are those who can graciously challenge ideas.

Loyalty

Board members may feel beholden to the leader for their position.[1] Sometimes, the leader is a member of the board and, as Mulvey and Padilla suggest, it is more difficult for the board to remove one of their own.[2]

In my experience with toxic leadership, three of the eight board members in my organization were the founders of the ministry. Those board members who disagreed with how the organization was being directed resigned from the board rather than go to battle with old friends. Jean Lipman-Blumen quite accurately described these kinds of boards, saying they have a “clubby composition.”[3]

A truly active board and the humility of the director can do much to encourage honest disagreement. Active in that the board makes decisions for the direction of the ministry…they are not spoon-fed decisions already made by the director. But, for this to be practiced, the director must, in humility, give over power and control, something most who abuse their power have little interest in doing.

Greater Good

The question is often asked: Is the leader doing more for the greater good than harm?

As noted in research and our own experience, abusive leaders are often very talented and gifted at manipulation. Those, the leader needs to impress, like the board, are usually impressed. Boards often do not listen to the subordinates because they have seen many good things come from the leader’s bag of tricks.

To answer the above question, they will often say, “Absolutely! Look at the many programs he has developed and the wonderful fundraising.”

But, there is a stream of employees leaving the organization and instead of listening to the voices of those leaving, they are falling back on a belief there is greater good. Effective and safe exit interviews are very helpful in battling board biases.

Safe Boards [Not]

Boards are often not a safe place to seek relief in toxic organizations. When a board member traveled to visit the organization with which I worked, a friend of mine sought the board member out to explain the dysfunction of the leadership. After listening to the employee’s story, he went directly to the leader and recommended the employee be fired.

One of my interviewees, Eugene sent a document outlining a plan for the CEO to use his gifts more effectively and rely on his subordinates for areas in which he was not gifted. The CEO sent Eugene’s letter on to the board chairman who recommended Eugene’s firing.

Oftentimes, boards are not safe places for employees to seek help. And in this world of sin, there will always be difficulties. There will never be the perfect board of directors. But, there are ways of preempting toxic strikes by leaders and the board can do much in building an organization that does not allow toxic leadership.

Notes:

[1] Chapman, White, and Myra, Rising Above a Toxic Workplace, 111.

[2] Schyns and Hansbrough, When Leadership Goes Wrong, 59.

[3] Lipman-Blumen, The Allure of Toxic Leaders, 174, Kindle.

I recently heard John’s story, a long-time Christian whose leadership in his church was scuttled by the others on the leadership team. It was a difficult story to hear.

My friend, John*, is “self-differentiated.”  This was a new term to me just a few years ago. I was working on a doctorate and studying abusive leadership when I was introduced to this psychological term. I was challenged to make it a goal for my own character development.

As Herrington, Creech, and Taylor define it,

“Differentiation is the ability to remain connected in relationship to significant people in our lives and yet not have our reactions and behavior determined by them.”1

Psychologist, Edwin Friedman popularized the concept many years ago. He described individuals who might actually come across as “cruel, cold, unfeeling, uncooperative, insensitive, selfish, strong -willed, or hard-headed.”2 However, he was quick to explain:

“I do not mean an autocrat who tells others what to do or orders them around… Rather, I mean someone who has clarity about his or her own life goals, and, therefore, someone who is less likely to become lost in the anxious emotional processes swirling about.“3

Being self-differentiated means not being a people-pleaser. But, it also does not mean (in the biblical form) being arrogant or lacking empathy. It really means being above the fray…being able to determine the correct course of action based on your standards rather than by testing the anxious waters of those around you.

I would describe John as self-differentiated, and would quickly add, his fellow leaders (elders) apparently were not. John is the go-to guy when you need someone to wade into confrontational waters. He is the one asking questions. He is the one who challenges ideas. He is the one whose reactions are not determined by those who surround him.

When he was on the leadership team of the church, the decisions were always unanimous despite his questioning and challenges to ideas presented. It was evident that he did not simply hold to a position with an inability to humbly recognize other views. He asks questions. He helps others think through the issues. Then holds his position or changes according to what he believes to be true.

John described how his election to the board of the church was stopped due to allegations that he was not qualified according to 1 Timothy 3. The accuser was never made known to John and neither were specifics of those allegations.

The reason I would suggest the other elders were not self-differentiated is that their actions, each step of the way, seemed to display a “failure of nerve,” as Friedman puts it. Whether or not the accusations were founded on fact is of great concern to John. If there was some failing in his character, he would like to know. But, instead there was just silence.

The strange thing about self-differentiation is that others, who do not have it, often place their own anxiety on the self-differentiated. This drives the people-pleaser to keep confrontation at arm’s length. They think they will hurt feelings (like they would have their feelings hurt), make angry (like they would be angered), and cause an unpleasant incident.

And yet, the self-differentiated is the one who is safest to confront. Their feelings are not going to be hurt. They are not going to go into an angry tirade. They will not be unpleasant. A godly, self-differentiated individual will hear the complaint and weigh the validity of it against a biblical standard…and either confess or reject the claim.

Fear of Confrontation

I could sense a fear of confrontation in John’s story creeping into a process that required faith in God’s process – a process that involves brother-to-brother confrontation when one believes the other has sinned. Rather than bring the accuser together with accused, silence reigned. It was as if the leaders just wanted it to go away. No argument. No battle.

In the end, the church humiliated John with a public statement that he was unqualified to lead according to the 1 Timothy standards – no specifics given. When he confronted the church leadership, they made another public statement that John had not committed “sexual immorality.” Nothing else.

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. [1 Timothy 3:2-7 (ESV)]

Neither John nor I know what was happening behind closed doors. But, the lack of communication, which I am interpreting as fear of conflict, has deeply wounded the John. There is broken fellowship.

Herrington, Creech, and Taylor say,

“Jesus cared for the crowds, but he governed his relationship to their needs on the basis of principle, not their demands. He would serve them, but they would not determine his decisions.“4

When we allow our anxiety to rule our decision-making instead of God’s Word, it can create havoc relationally. It is ironic that when we are most often seeking to allay relational damage, those relationships suffer much greater violence in turn.

It takes trust that God will “work all things together for our good” to knowingly enter conflict. But, conflict created by the loving attempt to help someone grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ is well worth the relational struggle. The church leaders missed a golden opportunity to model godly differentiation to their congregation when they kept the accusations quiet and refused to allow John the opportunity to defend himself or grow through confrontation. In fact, his response to his accuser would have given them an excellent picture of his character.

As Friedman notes,

“Differentiation is being clear about one’s own personal values and goals. Differentiation is taking maximum responsibility for one’s own emotional being and destiny rather than blaming others or the context.”5

Friedman was not a Christian, yet had very helpful things to say that challenge those of us who seek people’s pleasure rather than the Lord’s. What are our personal, God-given values and goals? And will we stand by them?

Notes:

* John is not his real name.

1  Jim Herrington;Robert Creech;Trisha L. Taylor. The Leader’s Journey: Accepting the Call to Personal and Congregational Transformation (Jossey-Bass Leadership Network Series) (Kindle Locations 273-274). Kindle Edition.

2 Friedman, Edwin H. (2007-02-01). A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix (Kindle Locations 1679-1683). Church Publishing Inc.. Kindle Edition.

3 Ibid. (Kindle Locations 341-342).

4 Herrington. (Kindle Locations 322-323).

5 Friedman. (Kindle Locations 3364-3374).

“How To Decide When It’s Time to Quit Your Job” is a wonderful article written by Dr. Paul White. White joined Dr. Gary Chapman and Harold Myra in writing a book called “Rising Above a Toxic Workplace: Taking Care of Yourself in an Unhealthy Environment” a number of years ago. This is a rare text written for Christians on this topic.

Go to this link to read “How To Decide When It’s Time to Quit Your Job.”

In the book, White, Chapman and Myra interview a number of people and use their stories throughout the book to bring their ideas to life. Their description of toxic leaders can be summed up as those who are the opposite of those who are “exquisitely attuned to their followers and feel their pain, their wants, their needs. Leaders richly endowed with empathy.” They include a “top ten traits of toxic leaders” as a helpful guide. In addition, they chart “key differences between functional and dysfunctional individuals” and discuss how to engage with them.

With each chapter the writers give “survival strategies” and “leadership lessons,” both of which are helpful summaries of the chapter. One section considers “how to stay sane,” an important section for those seeking “self-differentiation” in their interactions.

The article above is a summary of one section of the book on determining whether it is worth it to continue the battle. It is a good, wise, balanced approach to that question giving helpful advise on what needs to be considered; such as thinking through what options you have, seeking advice from good advisors, and considering your health.

Read the book…it is well worth it!

In order for leaders to relate to their work and those under their authority in ways that create shalom [peace], there must be a humility exemplified by other-centeredness. This other-centeredness is expressed in a willingness to recognize the giftedness of subordinates.

As noted in “Biblical Leadership – Part 1,” the word “leadership” means “go forth, die.” This second part of the series looks at how bosses encourage the development and use of the God-given gifts of their employees.

Teaming and Gift Cultivation

Though a leader be quite gifted, subordinates have something valuable to bring to the table.

Author Amy 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.”[13] Particularly when it means learning from subordinates.

Does the leader see himself as the pinnacle of skill, character, and smarts? Does he think because he is paid more or has more degrees he is smarter than the peons? Vulnerability will be beyond his skill set!

However, those who are not narcissists will be able to see their failings and holes in their abilities and gifts, and be vulnerable to their subordinates. They will seek their wisdom and willingly hear their criticism. Lencioni says, “The most important action that a leader must take to encourage the building of trust on a ‘team’ is to demonstrate vulnerability first.”[14]

Vulnerability is evidence of humility and it is within the context of vulnerability that creative and productive work takes place. Dr. Robert Burns expounds upon the importance of vulnerability, saying, “Vulnerability in safe relationships makes learning possible.”[15] 

Being vulnerable does not happen unless there is safety in sharing personal failing.

However, according to Lencioni, most “successful people” have been trained either by example or by teaching to pursue career advancement through competiveness.[16] If the leader is most interested in being the “big man,” of winning at all costs, he will make it clear to his subordinates that failure is not an option.

And he will create an environment where open dialogue is impossible.

According to Ortberg, being vulnerable allows your people to see your human side – hearing you say,

“‘I’m sorry’ or ‘I was wrong’ – will take you off the pedestal…and put you down on the ground with them, where they will say, ‘If she can do it, I can do it’ or ‘If he can make it work, I can, too.‘”[17]

Oren Harari, author of The Leadership Secrets of Colin Powell, suggests “open doors, an unfettered clash of ideas, an unfiltered dialogue, all aimed at solving problems” is part of the good practice of leadership.[18] 

There are many cultures when this openness is believed to invite disrespect by those under the authority of the boss. However, biblical respect has never meant unquestioned authoritarianism. [see Paul’s instruction in 1 Timothy 5:17-20 or the Apostles’ response to Jewish authorities in Acts 4:19-22]

“Seeking feedback” and allowing mistakes from subordinates – giving opportunity to learn as a team – is for the purpose of creating better products and providing better services for the glory of God.

Going Against the Grain of Hierarchy

However, “Hierarchy, by its very nature, dramatically reduces speaking up by those lower in the pecking order.”[19] It is only by concerted effort of the boss to seek out feedback and humbly receive it that this tendency can be minimized and real learning and productivity take place.[20]

Frank Barrett, author of Yes to the Mess: Surprising Leadership Lessons from Jazz, agrees and draws on his experience as a jazz artist. He describes the process of improvising in the jazz genre. He says, jazz musicians “must develop…a mutual orientation to one another’s unfolding.” Barrett argues this building on the talents of others takes a large “degree of empathic competence.” [21]

“Leaders must communicate that they respect employees, in particular by acknowledging the expertise and skills the employees bring,” according to Edmondson.[22]

The leader that works to create an environment for “cultivating” employees’ giftedness is simply following the biblical mandate as Ortberg notes.[23] Ortberg says, Jesus trained his followers for three years for the eventuality he would give away his power to them.

The Apostle Paul admonished the leadership of the Ephesian church “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ.”[24] Though the leaders of the church have authority, it is to be used to build the members’ own giftedness. The plurality of leadership in the church is one of building a team that uses their gifts for developing the ministry of the entire church.

Barrett tells the story of a new employee of the IBM corporation. The president, Bill Gore, met the new MBA graduate and told him, “Look around and find something you’d like to do.”[25] Rather than the common view that leaders make all the decisions, Barrett challenges those in authority to give leadership away in order to build partnership and provide creative solutions in decision-making.[26]

Just as Jesus sent the disciples out two-by-two early in their ministry where they saw God at work and learned difficult lessons from failure, so should the Christian leader. [Luke 9 and 10]

This is strikingly similar to the model of the “priesthood of all believers” as described in Ephesians and 1 Peter.[27] In these passages, the Apostles Paul and Peter describe the egalitarian structure of ministry. The ministry of a Christian leader is a “joint ownership” with others those under their authority.[28]

Christian leadership should be characterized by genuine humility and the development of subordinates’ God-given gifts.

Notes

[13] Edmondson, Teaming, Chapter 1 (locations 845–847), Kindle.

[14] Lencioni, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, 201.

[15] Burns, Resilient Ministry, Chapter 4 (location 511), Kindle.

[16] Lencioni, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, 201.

[17] Maxwell, Christian Reflections on The Leadership Challenge, 90.

[18] Oren Harari, The Leadership Secrets of Colin Powell (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), 50.

[19] Edmondson, Teaming, Chapter 8 (locations 5043–5044), Kindle.

[20] Ibid., 1226–29.

[21] Frank J. Barrett, Yes to the Mess: Surprising Leadership Lessons from Jazz (Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2012), 42, Kindle.

[22] Edmondson, Teaming, Chapter 4 (locations 2487–88), Kindle.

[23] Maxwell, Christian Reflections on The Leadership Challenge, 88.

[24] 1 Timothy 1:5; Ephesians 4:11-12.

[25] Barrett, Yes to the Mess, 151–52, Kindle.

[26] Ibid., 138.

[27] Ephesians 4:12; 1 Peter 2:9.

[28] Frank E. Gaebelein et al., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982), 12:231.