Five attitudes of a leader that lead to high trust and significant influence with staff

Why is it that some leaders leave staff and colleagues drained and tired after a conversation, while others leave them uplifted and encouraged? In the first case, meetings with your supervisor or colleagues can be a dreaded exercise, whereas in the second case, something one looks forward to. What leaders often overlook is that their approach to interactions with staff and colleagues either builds or diminishes their trust and influence. You may have a title and a position as a leader, but neither of those makes up for a deficit of trust and influence with those you lead.

There are five attitudes and practices of a leader that contribute to high trust and maximum influence with those you work with.

If one desires influence, it starts with a posture of humility. This means that I don't have to be the smartest person in the room. I don't have to have the answers to every problem, and I don't have to have my way in every situation. Here is the truth: If you are the smartest person in the room, you hired very poorly. If you have the answers to every problem, you are deluded, and if you need to have your way, you will be limited by your own abilities. 

Humility is the attitude that there is a great deal I don't know, that I don't have the answers, but can find good answers with others who have greater expertise than I do. Humility leads to the second practice, which is dialogue with others, along with asking good questions rather than making pronouncements and handing down decisions. 

Dialogue and questions bring others into a productive conversation around issues that need to be resolved. Pronouncements about what should be done often shut down conversation. It is the crucial difference between arrogance and humility. Leaders frequently fail to realize how little they actually know compared to those who work closely with the issues at hand. Engaging others to share their perspectives opens up solutions that will not be found otherwise. 

Both of these attitudes are augmented if the leader approaches staff and colleagues with a non-critical spirit. Critical spirits and words shut down good conversation and are indicators of a lack of humility. If I am critical by nature, it means that I have decided my evaluation is the best. That is arrogance. If I approach issues openly and non-critically, it sends a message that together we can find a good solution. It does not elevate my perspectives over those of others (arrogance), but instead levels the playing field to find the best solutions. 

Add to these three a gracious spirit that truly appreciates the efforts of those around you or below you and assumes the best rather than the worst when it comes to motives and effort.  Graciousness is the opposite of a critical spirit. A gracious attitude invites conversation while a critical spirit shuts it down. Even when I don't understand the actions or decisions of others, they can be addressed with a gracious and non-critical spirit, and I may well learn something that contributed to decisions others made that I am unaware of. 

All of these are the building blocks of trust with both colleagues and staff who report to us. Remember that arrogance, critical spirits, pronouncements rather than dialogue, and a lack of graciousness rob you of trust and influence. They take tokens out of your leadership bank account while consistently displaying the practices and attitudes above add to your leadership bank account. The key here is consistency. Your staff and colleagues need to know that they will get the same from you in any conversation, and if you display these attitudes, they will learn to relax in your presence. They will see you as an ally rather than a threat. And you will have their trust, which leads to greater leadership influence. 

Leaders: Your IQ is far less important than your EQ

The telephone call I received from a leader I worked with was nothing short of crazy. He was massively triggered, and I listened to a tirade of thirty-five minutes where I could not get a word in edgewise. He just went on and on. He had been triggered, and rather than asking me any questions to clarify, had made some crazy assumptions and made equally crazy assertions and accusations. And his response was totally out of proportion to what had actually occurred. He was having an amygdala hijack, and it was not the first time...or the last. 

I chose not to go into work the next day, which made him all the angrier as I had "ghosted him." Everything was my fault; he was sure of his "facts" and "conclusions." Actually, he didn't have a clue! My infraction? I had told him what was going on in the business. Not my opinion, actual facts. He didn't like them and took his angst, frustration, and insecurity out on me. Unfortunately, episodes like this are all too common among leaders. 

Have you ever worked for a leader who struggled to regulate their emotions, leaving damaged relationships in their wake? Or have you struggled with your emotions when things were not going how you wanted them to? This is a common issue for leaders, even smart ones, because your emotional intelligence is more important than your IQ. High IQ does not make up for low EQ. 

The term Emotional Intelligence and its components was pioneered by Daniel Goleman, Ph.D., who authored the bestseller Emotional Intelligence and co-authored Primal Leadership: Learning to Lead with Emotional Intelligence.

Goleman suggested that an individual's emotional intelligence (EQ) mattered more than their intelligence (IQ) because an individual with good EQ was better equipped to understand themselves and how they are perceived by those around them, and has the social skills to negotiate healthy relationships.

He suggested that there were five components to emotional intelligence:

Self-awareness - the ability to recognize and understand your moods and emotions and how they impact others.

Self-regulation - the ability to control your emotions, impulses, and moods and think before acting. If self-awareness is the ability to understand one's emotions, self-regulation is the ability to control those emotions in how one behaves.

Internal (or intrinsic) motivation - having an inner drive to pursue goals for personal reasons rather than because of some external motivation or reward. Our motivation has to do with deep inner core values that inform our actions. 

Empathy - the ability to understand the motivations of others, the reasons for those motivations, and to put oneself in their shoes. If self-awareness is about understanding ourselves, empathy is about living with an understanding of others. 

Social skills - the ability to manage relationships, connect and collaborate with others, manage conflict, build healthy networks, and forge healthy relationships.

Think about this: When leaders get into trouble, it almost always involves the flip side of these components of emotional intelligence. Leaders who are not self-aware have little understanding of how their words and actions impact those around them, often creating significant pain. My guess is that we have all experienced those instances ourselves.

Leaders who do not have self-regulation and cannot control their emotions say and do hurtful things to those around them. I ended up resigning from the leader I described above, who could not control his emotions and therefore his words and actions.

 “An amygdala hijack is a situation where the amygdala, a small, almond-shaped structure in the brain responsible for processing emotions like fear and anger, takes control, leading to an immediate and overwhelming emotional response.” (Study.com).

This is the leader who cannot control their anger and whose response is far greater than the situation merits. In that flood of emotions and fear or anger, things are said that are damaging, people are hurt unnecessarily, and the recipient is left wondering what happened and that they were the subject of a tirade of angry words and accusations. Countless people have encountered this from supervisors. Even when there is an apology after (a good thing), it does not repair the damage done in the heat of emotion, where a leader cannot manage and regulate their emotions. (see Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence, 10^th anniversary edition, Chapter 5, Passion’s Slaves).

When leaders lack empathy, they are unable to understand the perspectives and concerns of others. So, for instance, the sales executive who overpromises services to clients to look good and gain the sale at the expense of the staff who must fulfill those promises—leaving them unable to do so and the bad guys for not doing so and then blaming the staff for the resulting fallout—has an empathy deficit that impacts those around them.

One sure sign of a lack of empathy is leaders who rarely, if ever, ask questions of staff but simply make statements and demands. Empathy means that I care about how my decisions and actions impact those I work with, which naturally requires dialogue and an inquiring mind to understand the perspectives, needs, and wisdom of others. Leaders with empathy ask good questions, listen carefully, and seek to find solutions that work for all. Leaders who are defensive, don’t listen to staff, or take their concerns into account have an empathy deficit that hurts the culture of many organizations.

These are leaders who cannot manage their egos or emotions. Empathy is about others and understanding their concerns. Ego and empathy are incompatible, while humility and empathy are friends. If you struggle with these issues, get help so your leadership is not toxic but healthy. Unhealthy leaders hurt those around them while healthy leaders lift up those around them. A sign of dishealth is uncontrolled anger, which results in hurtful words and actions. 

As you reflect on the five elements of Emotional Intelligence above, which are you strong in, and which do you need to focus on?

The ONE leadership trait that says everything about your leadership maturity

There is one leadership trait that stands head and shoulders above all others when it comes to one's leadership maturity. And it is, unfortunately, way too rare. You may think you have it, but the test is whether those you lead believe you have it. They know. Leaders often do not know.

Here it is: I call it a commitment to Robust Dialogue in which any issue can be discussed, with the exception of a personal attack or hidden agenda. 

Let me illustrate. Staff instinctively know where they can or cannot go with their leader. I remember a situation where the organization I was a part of was short of funds, and the senior leader was using crazy amounts of money for his pet projects, which were not mission-critical. Few were willing to call this issue out on the senior team and ask the relevant questions out of fear that the senior leader would take offense (and he would have). 

The senior leader was out of the country during one of the Leadership Team meetings, and the subject came up with a candid dialogue about this issue. I asked the team, "Are you willing to have this same conversation with the senior leader in the room?" The team members just looked at me, and no mention was made upon his return. They knew they could not go there with the senior leader. 

What dynamics did this reveal about the senior leader?

One is that the team had a culture of fear. They feared speaking up on issues they knew the senior leader was unwilling to discuss.

Two: This was the case because the senior leader was operating from a place of deep personal insecurity and was unwilling to allow open and candid dialogue about this and many other issues. 

Three: This resulted in many important issues not being discussed, ultimately resulting in a net loss to the organization regarding effectiveness, transparency, and the ability to dialogue openly. This was all due to the leader's poor emotional intelligence. 

The maturity of a leader can be directly determined by their willingness to have candid and robust dialogue on any issue relevant to the success of the team or the organization. The best leaders both allow and encourage open and candid discussion around important topics because they know that it is in the context of open dialogue that the best solutions are found. They do not fear being challenged but, in fact, welcome it. 

Do you encourage open and candid dialogue as a leader? Do you foster an honest exchange of ideas, and are you willing to be challenged by your team members? If the answer is no, what are the insecurities holding you back? Why are you afraid? Are you fearful of not getting your way or having all the answers? Whatever the fear, it is about your insecurities and impacts your leadership. 

For many years, I have lived by the philosophy of nothing to prove, nothing to lose, and nothing to hide. When we have something to prove, it is usually that we are correct (and therefore in competition with those around us). It is about ego! When we have something to lose, it is generally our pride (admitting we don't have all the answers and need others). We don't like to look weak. And when we have something to hide, it is generally our insecurities, which ironically are well-known by those around us even though we try to hide them. 

The alternative is a life of radical transparency unencumbered by a need to prove ourselves. We choose humility over ego and do not worry about hiding our insecurities or weaknesses, which others know. That leaves us free to treat people with dignity, honor, and respect, listen well, collaborate rather than compete, and pursue a common mission collegially. Free of the need to manage our image, we are able to serve those around us rather than serve ourselves. 

If you want to know how well you are doing, simply ask your team how open they perceive you to be and whether there are issues they want to address but don't feel they can. It may take some time, but keep asking for the last ten percent. Then, listen, don't react, and foster a culture of Robust Dialogue. 

Evangelical deconstruction: not of faith but of the church.

I spoke this week to a close friend struggling deeply with the church. He is discouraged, disillusioned, and tired from his years of church leadership: Trying to see issues addressed that needed to be addressed, trying to move the church toward TOV (Goodness), trying to deal with massive dysfunction at the leadership and staff level, and getting nowhere. 

The result is that while he does not question his faith, he is asking much about the church scene and whether he wants to have any part in it. I would describe him as tired, disillusioned, and cynical about his church experiences. 

We have all read a great deal about Christians who are deconstructing their faith. For some time, I have been convinced that there is another, more significant issue: The deconstruction not of faith but of what the church is and should be. If I were to identify the kinds of issues involved, I would look at the following common problems:

• Senior church leaders who are narcissistic to the core create a toxic atmosphere on staff while proclaiming the love of Jesus from the stage. 

• The end result of narcissistic leaders is that many people get hurt: run over, marginalized, and, if they disagree with something, run out. No one cares. 

• Church boards do not hold such leaders accountable, allowing the toxicity to continue and hurting people. It is easier not to rock the boat, especially if the numbers are growing! 

• On Sunday mornings, the church presents a "face" by what happens on the stage. It is happy, optimistic, faith-filled, and Spirit-led. Behind the facade is a toxic staff and a board that facilitates the toxicity to continue. In other words, there is no alignment between the stage, the staff, and the board regarding health or spirituality.

• Rather than focusing on the two cardinal commands for the church to love God and love people, the staff creates programs that give people the illusion that these things are happening. Still, it is about the program, not about individual practice.

• There is little to no disciplemaking strategy in the church, even though the mandate to create disciples is central to the mandate Jesus gave the church.

• While the church is always looking for volunteers for their programs, there is not a culture where people are invited to find their gifts and use them for the Kingdom in meaningful ways. Instead, come to the welcome center, and we will tell you where you can fit. All ministry is tightly controlled. 

• The prayer and spiritual commitment of staff and board are virtually nonexistent. There is no time for such things or that great an interest. There is too much time on programming to spend extraneous time on spiritual issues. 

• The stage is performance rather than worship. The difference between a rock concert and worship has become blurred. Teaching is a TED Talk of self-help rather than an exposition of the Scriptures. 

• First impressions give the impression that we are one happy family, while the reality behind the scenes is much different. In fact, if you choose to challenge the system, you quickly find that you are no longer a part of the family, and you are discarded. Over time, the bodies pile up on the side of the road. 

None of this fits with the picture of the church in the New Testament. Sure, the church had its problems, which is why we have many of the New Testament epistles. Still, the biblical image is far from what it often looks like in many corners of American Evangelicalism.

Where does this leave the church? It leaves untaught congregations, discouraged leaders who long for something different, a spiritual drought where there ought to be spiritual life, people controlled rather than released into their faith and gifting, and the loss of some of the best who leave in discouragement after realizing that things will not change. 

In fact, one of the most discouraging indictments of the church today is the number of church boards that have no clue about their responsibilities as church leaders or any sense of ecclesiology (what the church is all about from the New Testament). Many have not read anything on either topic, yet they are ultimately responsible for the church's health. No wonder the church is in trouble. In growing numbers, senior pastors have little theological training. They are pragmatic but not theologically astute. And too often, cannot lead healthy teams. 

I personally know many individuals who no longer attend church after being deeply hurt. Many were church leaders who simply gave up over time. They have not given up on their faith, but they have given up on the church as it exists in American Evangelicalism. To be sure, many churches don't fit the description above, and to be equally clear, leaving the church altogether is not what God desires. However, these factors contribute to a significant deconstruction of faith—or its practice.  

We have lost the Biblical vision for the church in our search to find "success." However, the success we have seen is often a failure if measured against the New Testament teaching of the church.

Ten ways that leaders can sabotage organizational culture

 

Leaders can inadvertently sabotage the culture they desire to create in their team or organization with behaviors that may seem insignificant to them but are very significant to those they lead. They are careless behaviors that leaders that demotivate those they lead because they send a message that their team is not valued or important.

One: Blowing off meetings, showing up late, or coming unprepared for scheduled meetings. I once worked with a colleague who regularly did not show up for scheduled meetings or, if he did, would come in 15 to 30 minutes late. This message was that I was not valued and my time was unimportant. I am sure my colleague thought nothing of it, after all, he valued flexibility but it became so common that the staff just expected that he may not show up. It was aggravating, to say the least. 

Healthy leaders value others' time, show up on time, and are fully present for the meeting at hand. 

Two: Telling people what to do rather than engaging in dialogue to understand the perspectives and ideas of staff. Leaders who simply tell staff what to do create a culture where staff are devalued and their wisdom left on the table. In these cultures, the only voice that really counts is the leader. Eventually, the best people leave the organization rather than work in an environment where their expertise is not valued.

Healthy leaders don't assume they have the answers; rather than telling, they dialogue to understand staff thinking and perspectives and devise better solutions.  

Three: When things go wrong, blame people rather than ask if some processes or systems could be fixed to prevent such failures. Blame is a terrible motivator. It assumes the worst motives when poor motives are rarely the reason for failure. In most cases, underlying issues explain why things go wrong, and failure can be a learning opportunity rather than a blaming opportunity.

Healthy leaders know that things will not always go well. Rather than blaming others, they seek to fix the underlying issue so that the "disconnect" does not happen again.

Four: Not taking the time to listen and ask good questions. Leaders often lack valuable information because they don't ask questions or take the time to listen, which means they assume they know what they need to know. This is not only a faulty notion, but it is also disempowering to staff who have insight that a leader does not have and desire that their voice be heard for the betterment of the organization.

Healthy leaders know many things they don't know, so they intentionally ask many questions and listen well. 

Five: Being quick to criticize and slow to encourage and lift up. Critical leaders create cultures that are fear-based rather than grace-based. Fear-based cultures do not breed healthy dialogue and the necessary give-and-take of ideas. There are often reasons that people have done something that a leader is unaware of unless he/she first asks questions and enters into a conversation. Leaders who criticize carefully and lift up regularly create a healthier culture than those who do the opposite.

Healthy leaders are slow to criticize and quick to encourage and enter into constructive conversation.

Six: Changing one's mind after the work has been completed by staff. I have watched senior leaders give an assignment to staff to work on a particular program, and then when they present the plan, the leader dismisses it because he/she now has a better idea. In one case, the work had taken the better part of a year. This was not because their work was not good but because the leader simply had a new and better idea. This kind of behavior is very demotivating to staff and indicates that the leader did not give good direction on the front end, did not stay engaged along the way, and was willing to dismiss the work out of hand at the end. Leaders who change direction frequently create chaos rather than stability.

Healthy leaders give good direction, stay engaged, and don't quickly change their minds for the "flavor of the month."

Seven: Micromanaging. Micromanagement is the failure to delegate responsibility and authority around a task or project and instead inserting oneself to check up, change, modify, or redo work that is in progress or that has been done. It screams, "I don't trust you to do this right," and often, "I want you to do this my way." So, it is about a lack of trust and needing to do things the leader's way. It is profoundly disempowering behavior.

Healthy leaders set boundaries and empower good people to do their work without undue interference. They don't insist that the work be done the way they might and are very careful about interfering in the process. 

Eight: Lack of appreciation. Leaders have a gift that many others don't have. They have staff available to help them do what needs to be done. They can delegate and get all the help they need. However, the key to healthy staff is to treat them with respect, dignity, and appreciation. When staff feel used, leaders lose coinage—a lot of it. Lack of appreciation creates a feeling among staff that they are being used, which creates cynicism toward leadership.

Healthy leaders never take staff for granted. They show their appreciation in their words, attitudes, and acts of kindness toward those on their teams. Their staff know that their leader is deeply appreciative of their efforts.

Nine: Narcissistic tendencies. To put this one in perspective, each of the behaviors listed above are, in fact, narcissistic behaviors. They are about me: What I want and choose to do rather than how I can best serve the mission and the staff of the organization I lead. Narcissism is the antithesis of servant leadership. Our leadership is not about me but about those we lead and the mission we steward. All leaders have narcissistic tendencies. That is part of the human condition. The question is whether we recognize those tendencies, work to counter them, and manage our shadow side. Narcissistic behaviors include wanting our own way, lack of collaboration and listening to others, treating others poorly, lack of accountability, believing too highly in ourselves, taking credit for success and blaming others for failure and the list could go on. 

Healthy leaders recognize and counterbalance their narcissistic tendencies with a servant-like attitude toward their staff. They also allow trusted colleagues to talk with them when those tendencies show themselves.

Ten: Lack of genuine relationships. A key ingredient to a healthy culture is getting to know those who report to us. Without an authentic relationship, staff will likely not be candid with us. Relationships mean that we take the time to get to know our staff. We ask them questions, learn about their situations, and relate to them as fellow human beings rather than simply staff.

Healthy leaders get to know their staff and create trust and understanding.

A healthy organizational culture is fostered in the little and the big things. The culture will rarely rise above the practices of the head of the organization or the head of the team you lead. Take your assignment seriously, and don't sabotage the culture by unhealthy practices. As a Master Certified Coach in Intelligent Leadership I can help you improve the culture in your organization. You can contact me at tjaddington@gmail.com.