Dysfunctional church systems: Beware of closed rather than open cultures

I spoke recently with a ministry leader who resigned from his church staff position (a large church) because of the dysfunctional culture he sensed. Having left the "system," he now realizes that it was a great deal more dysfunctional than he thought, and he is so glad to be out of it. 

When we are in a dysfunctional or toxic "closed" system, we may sense that not all is right, but it is when we get out that we realize how dysfunctional it was. This applies to staff systems as well as whole congregations where there is significant dishealth. Such dysfunction can be part of the historic DNA of the church, a dysfunctional board, a dysfunctional leader, or a "church boss" who wields unhealthy power and has a personal agenda.

What are some of the signs of a closed and dysfunctional ministry system?

One: There is tremendous pressure for people to think similarly and not to have independent voices. In closed systems, independent opinions that go against the "group think" are a threat and are not valued. Independent thinkers in ministries are often labeled as troublemakers or spiritually immature. Indeed, it is not safe to disagree significantly.

The truth is that breakthroughs occur when independent thinking, asking good questions and suggesting new ways of doing things are present. These are the building blocks of growth and vibrancy; holding them in check will bring decay and decline.

Two: Questions about the status quo are seen as disloyalty. This is especially true for senior leaders who are insecure and do not like their paradigms or opinions to be questioned. As long as one keeps the party line, one is "in." If you ask hard questions, you are marginalized.

Breakthroughs in ministry occur when hard questions are asked. The status quo will not lead you to the future; it will tether you to the present and the past. 

Three: Candid dialogue is not allowed. Usually, the senior leader sets the tone here. In closed systems, candid dialogue is a threat rather than a valued part of the culture. Such dialogue will inevitably challenge the standard line.

A measure of an organization's health or dishealth is how candid the dialogue can be. In closed systems, people know that there are subjects they cannot touch and places they cannot go. There are elephants in the room that everyone knows are there, but you cannot name them—often even in the board room. There is quiet intimidation to leave specific topics alone, and those crossing the line quickly realize they have entered the forbidden territory. 

Four: Senior leaders often protect themselves from accountability or questions in closed systems. They hide behind a spiritual veil that sounds good but keeps people from getting too close. They surround themselves with people who will agree with them, and those who don't usually don't stay, either because they know how dysfunctional it is or because they are marginalized or let go. 

It always amazes me that dysfunctional senior leaders are not asked more penetrating questions by the people around them or the boards to which they are accountable. Why is this? They are masters at making themselves look good, and others take the blame. They spin and posture, and because of the first three descriptors above, they are not held accountable, and tough questions are asked. The board and leader are both caught in a cycle of codependency.

Five: When independent voices appear, or someone steps out of the prevailing culture, tremendous pressure is put on them to get in line and conform to standard opinions. It is a family system thing, and any threat to the prevailing culture brings pressure for conformity. This is why independent thinkers often live in dysfunctional staff situations and congregations. They see the system for what it is and know it is unhealthy.

Those who think for themselves and speak candidly are usually pressured to get in line or marginalized if they don't. Often these individuals will simply leave because they see how unhealthy the system is and choose not to participate. 

Six: The most telling moment for those who leave such systems is how free they feel once they are out of it. Even though they knew it was not healthy, they realized how unhealthy it was once they were out. Those who leave are also a threat to those who stay, who, at some level, feel that those leaving are not loyal. They have violated the family system. 

What keeps people in systems like this? The irony is that while we may be uncomfortable and know something is off, to step out of such a system is to be labeled as disloyal or no longer "faithful." Those are hard things to live with, especially when they come from long-time friends or acquaintances. It feels ugly and unsafe, and you start to question whether it is true or not. 

In reality, these systems are simply large codependency environments where people get trapped in dysfunctional relationships and a dysfunctional system. Often you don't see that clearly until you are outside the system. If there were one descriptor of these systems it is the word control. Each of the descriptors above is about control. Freedom it is not! If you feel controlled or if any of these characteristics are true of your staff or your ministry, consider the possibility that you are caught in a closed, codependent, and dysfunctional system.

Indicators that a leader is leading from a place of insecurity and even fear

We often do not realize it when our leader is leading from a posture of fear, but some symptoms give it away. It is dysfunctional, and it feels bad, but we often do not understand what is going on. Here are some common symptoms of a leader leading from fear. 

They demand loyalty to themselves rather than to the mission of the organization. Leaders who lack self-confidence require their staff to be loyal to them—usually meaning that their staff agree with their views—rather than loyal to the organization and its mission. They are intimidated by independent voices who speak their minds, and if they perceive that loyalty as they define it is not present, they often marginalize those voices. Loyalty means you cannot disagree with the leader or challenge their thinking.

Those loyal to them are perceived as "their people," while those they don't perceive to be loyal are not. The irony is that loyal people tell their leader the truth as they see it. Those who only tell a leader what they know the leader wants to hear are not, in fact, loyal but sycophants. 

They try to keep people from talking to others about issues they feel strongly about. When pastors, for instance, tell staff that they cannot talk to board members or board members to staff or staff to congregants, it is a sign of fear rather than confidence. Whenever leaders seek to limit the conversation of others (beyond appropriate channels) they are operating out of fear rather than health. 

Prohibiting or discouraging open conversation is usually a precursor to an unraveling of leadership. When I see this trait I know that the leadership will unravel. It is only a matter of time. 

They display an underlying anger that erupts in inappropriate language, statements, requirements, or rules. People who live with fear or insecurity often try to control the environment around them with threats, anger, strong statements that intimidate them, or rules that are meant to keep their staff in line. When it does not feel good, it probably is not good. When it feels intimidating or coming from a place of fear, it probably is. When it does not feel healthy it probably is not healthy.

I have seen staff torn apart by the amygdala hijacks of an insecure leader where the leader goes into angry rants against the staff member who they perceive to have crossed a line with irrational words and anger that are meant to force the staff member back into line through intimidation, fear and the belittling of their character. Because this usually happens in private and because others know they cannot challenge the leader there is often no recourse for the staff member who has been violated.

Those who disagree are let go or marginalized, and the reasons for departures, voluntary or involuntary, are disguised. Truth is usually a victim of insecurity and fear. There is an inordinate desire to control the message and spin the reasons for departures to protect the insecure leader responsible for the staff member's departure. How is the truth disguised? by an alternative narrative determined by the leader—spin, if you will—rather than the truth of the situation. 

This is often the reason departing staff members are pressured into signing NDAs. The goal is to prevent the individual from speaking the truth from their point of view. NDAs are a sign of leadership insecurity and fear and usually mean that something leaders do not want disclosed does not reflect well on them. Ironically, the organization letting the staff member go often does not feel an equal responsibility to speak truthfully.

There is a culture of fear among staff. Anytime fear becomes the culture and people are not allowed to talk with one another or others, it is a sign of an insecure leader. No secure leader creates an environment of fear or intimidation. None. Where there is fear among the staff in general, there is a dysfunctional and usually fearful leader. 

Candid feedback to the leader is not allowed or appreciated. Only insecure or fearful leaders create an environment where candid and honest feedback is limited, controlled, or not allowed/appreciated. It says more about the leader than it does about the staff. It comes from fear and insecurity rather than security and freedom. 

I have been with executive teams who speak candidly together about issues when the leader is not present. When the leader is present, there is not a peep about those same issues. Why? They know that the leader does not appreciate or invite candid feedback, so the issues become elephants in the room that cannot be discussed in his/her presence. This is a classic sign of insecurity and fear.

A leader's board and senior staff must toe the line of the leader. Some years ago, our organization made a decision that irritated a senior pastor within the denomination. He forced his board (through intimidation) to agree with him and to withhold all support for our organization in the face of irrefutable evidence that we had reasons for our decision. But no pushback was allowed, and he forced his board to go along with him. When a board or senior staff must toe the line of the leader, it is usually a sign of control, fear and insecurity.

Boards are often caught up in leaders' insecurity and fear, so they don't ask hard questions or seek clarification about situations that should be clarified. 

My question is why such behaviors are not seen for what they are in the ministry arena and why staff and boards allow this behavior? It demonstrates naivete on the part of boards and usually fear on the part of staff who are put in an impossible situation. Don't be fooled, and don't get sucked into a dysfunctional leader's stuff. It is poison, and it is foolishness. Too many board members get sucked into the dysfunction.

When you should not write new policies

In my experience, organizations often have too many policies and policies that reflect a general distrust of staff. It is always interesting to read the policies of organizations I am helping because they usually give me insight into their past problems (solved, of course, by a new policy) and the general level of trust and empowerment in the organization, which is often low.

Here is something to remember. Policies reflect an organization's culture but do not necessarily create culture. People create culture, and policies reflect whatever culture is created. While policies are obligatory for any organization, how and why they are written sends a message to staff.

Policies should keep your organization legal, fair, safe, and clear on important issues. They are the non-negotiables that keep your organization in safe waters. They reflect the principles by which a healthy organization operates to keep it legal and fair with clarity. Policies are necessary to clarify expectations for everyone. However, not all policies are helpful, and they tend to proliferate if one is not careful. 

Here are some reasons not to write new policies.

One: Someone has done something dumb (It happens)! The answer is not to write a new policy but to deal with the individual who has crossed a line. It is unfair to other staff to establish policies based on one individual's bad choices. No policy can keep people from doing dumb things. Deal with the individual rather than write a new policy. The reason we often write policies when someone crosses a line is that we are not willing to have a difficult conversation with the one involved. And rather than a difficult conversation, we end up disempowering all staff. 

Two: You want to deal with an issue of organizational culture. Organizational culture is usually a matter of leadership rather than of policy. I can create a culture that avoids gossip, but I cannot write a policy to do the same. Some issues are issues of leadership and modeling rather than of policy. 

Three: You need to control what people do and do not do. If we need to control people, we are either poor leaders or have hired the wrong staff. Mostly, it is the former rather than the latter. The longer a policy manual, the more there is usually a desire to control rather than empower. And, in general, the longer a policy manual, the less empowerment an organization gives its staff. 

How do you clarify issues with staff other than writing new policies? Create a dialogue on the issues so they filter down through the organization. This honors your staff. Only write a new policy when necessary. 

Always remember that policies reflect how leaders see their staff. They reflect the culture of leadership within the organization.  It might be instructive for all of us who lead to have an outsider read our policies and give us feedback as to what they see. In one church I consulted with, I suggested that their policies reflected a great distrust of support staff. Reading them through that lens, they agreed with me. They had used policies to do all three of the above-named issues rather than simply spell out their non-negotiables and commitments. 

Policies can reflect a high degree of empowerment and trust of staff. More often, they reflect mistrust and the need to control. Leaders expect staff to trust them but often do not reciprocate with trust to their staff. 

Secretive leaders and the psychology behind a lack of transparency

When working with organizations in crisis, I sometimes encounter what I call the "secretive leader syndrome." This is a leader who is reluctant to tell others, often including staff and boards, what they are thinking. Or, they let on some of their thinking but not enough for others to fully understand them or their plans.

This creates a great deal of uncertainty on the part of staff, who need to mesh their own plans and thinking with that of their leader. For those who work for a secretive leader it is a most frustrating experience. In fact, it usually ends badly for the leader or their staff because a lack of transparency leads to conflict. If I don't know what is in the mind of my leader, I will either have to beg for forgiveness when I get it wrong or lead with caution in case I cross an invisible line I cannot see. It is one of the most discourteous behaviors a supervisor can exhibit.

What is the psychology behind a lack of transparency in a leader's thinking? First, consider that information is power! If I have information others don't have I  have power that they don't have and frankly some leaders want that power. It also allows a leader to share information selectively with those they deem worthy of having it and withhold it from those they don't. If it sounds like a mind game, it pretty much is.

I once worked with a leader like this, and even though we were supposedly co-leaders, I would wake up to all kinds of surprises on a daily basis. In addition, he was not transparent with me and would tell one individual one thing and another a different thing. It was crazy making.

Second, if I as the leader have all access to information and others don't I can play people or departments against one another. FDR famously did this in his leadership style, and while he achieved great things, it was at the expense of the relationships of his senior leaders who were told what he wanted them to know (and different leaders were told different things). Only he had access to all the information and, therefore, the keys to the kingdom. Others had to figure it out themselves, often at the expense of conflict with others. There is certainly an element of manipulation here.

Third, secrecy allows a leader to keep staff on edge as they present "surprises" in terms of decisions that staff have no context for. Again, this smacks of selfish and problematic behavior. Never would they want their staff to surprise them—ever—but they have no compulsion to surprise their staff. They are the leaders, after all. This also means that they have different standards for themselves than for others. 

This behavior is unfair, deeply dysfunctional, unempowering, and foolish. It usually masks a leader's deep insecurity. It is a form of control that allows the leader to keep the initiative and ensure that others don't have it. What is amazing to me is that boards allow this kind of behavior to take place.

This is a leader who does not want candid conversation regarding their ideas or thinking. That is why they keep it close to the vest and dole it out to those they choose, leaving others in the dark. In doing so, they limit any pushback they might receive, which is a manipulative means of getting their way.

There are things a leader does not share for valid reasons, but secretive leaders create problems for those around them - whatever their motivation. No healthy leader withholds critical information from their staff and/or board. If they do, it eventually comes back to bite them or the organization.

Non-transparent leaders create dysfunctional and often chaotic organizations. Eventually good people figure it out and move on. You cannot participate in real decision-making or strategy with a secretive leader, and that eventually leaves the organization vulnerable because other voices and minds are no longer at the table. Even if they are still in the organization.