Healthy cultures are built by humble leaders

Healthy leaders can build amazingly healthy cultures if they set their minds to it and make it a priority. There are several traits of healthy leaders that can directly contribute to making the culture you have better, healthier, more effective, and better serve your mission. It starts with a posture of humility.

If ego is the enemy, then humility is your best friend. While some may view humility as a sign of weakness, it is, in fact, a sign of strength: the strength to see things as they truly are, the strength to listen to perspectives we may not naturally agree with, and the strength to accept difficult feedback. At every level of life, humility represents strength under control. Only truly strong individuals can embody humility.

Humble leaders embrace the belief that they have nothing to prove, nothing to lose, and nothing to hide. They don't need to be defensive. Instead, they focus on guiding a mission rather than pursuing a personal agenda. They lead collaboratively, recognizing that diverse perspectives contribute to the best solutions.

A key trait of a humble leader is their genuine care and concern for others. Unlike ego-driven leaders, who use people to achieve their own goals, humble leaders prioritize serving others. They strive to help individuals reach their full potential while working towards a shared mission. This approach fosters an environment where people are valued, their talents are nurtured, and the collective mission is successfully achieved. Humble leaders genuinely value and care about their team members!

The humility of leaders fosters a culture of humility throughout the entire organization, creating a powerful ripple effect. When an organization believes it has everything figured out and acts from a place of pride, it often becomes resistant to change. In contrast, organizations embodying corporate humility are more likely to seek better solutions and embrace innovation and new ideas. There is no substitute for humble leadership.

Egos, defensiveness and leaders

The defensiveness of many leaders to being challenged significantly affects a healthy culture because it shuts down needed discussion and dialogue and keeps staff from speaking fully and truthfully to leaders. In these situations, leaders must either learn new skills or be replaced if a healthy culture is a goal. Where there is not a free and welcome exchange of ideas, you have leaders who need to control others rather than release them. They shut down important candid dialogue, and their ego issues destroy and prevent a healthy culture.

When leaders cannot be challenged, and there is no free exchange of views, ideas, and opinions, a healthy culture cannot exist. In this context, ego becomes the enemy!

Ego is the enemy of good leadership and a healthy culture. Humility is your friend, while ego and pride are your enemies. Why do I say this? Ego causes leaders to overestimate their ability and underestimate the input of others. As a result, ego-driven leaders limit the input from others, don’t engage in robust dialogue, and listen to others poorly.

A fundamental principle of healthy leadership is the commitment to the mindset of "Nothing to prove, nothing to lose, and nothing to hide." Many leaders feel the need to prove themselves, which can lead them to exploit and pressure others to achieve their desired results. This behavior often results in impatience, anger, and a lack of forgiveness towards those who let them down.

What they risk losing is their pride and their agenda. Their leadership is often motivated more by their desire to succeed than by the organization's mission. Ironically, this drive is often fueled by personal insecurity, which hinders them from listening to others or considering advice that does not align with their views. As a result, their ability to access diverse wisdom and perspectives is severely limited.

Ego has a particularly insidious side; it can give rise to narcissism, where life revolves entirely around oneself. While one might believe this behavior stems from a place of security and confidence, it more often originates from deep insecurity. The outward confidence in one’s correctness and the bravado that comes with it often serve as a facade to conceal underlying insecurity.

Over time, the outward displays of confidence and bravado become protective barriers created by the insecure person within. These walls often prevent individuals from recognizing what is happening around them and understanding their role in contributing to organizational dysfunction.

I have had memorable conversations with leaders after conducting extensive interviews within their organizations. What stands out in these cases is the leaders' absolute denial of reality and difficulty in allowing outside perspectives to penetrate their protective walls. Their responses often include disbelief (my staff must be mistaken, or you, as a consultant, misunderstood), anger at their staff for expressing such views, or outright belligerence (I don’t care; I am the leader and will do it my way, regardless). In these situations, the protective barriers are so thick that the culture is unlikely to improve without a change in leadership. The problem is that such behaviors harm everyone around them, creating significant toxicity within the culture.

Ego issues fueled by insecurity hinder individuals from perceiving reality accurately. Secure individuals listen attentively, are willing to admit their mistakes, and are committed to addressing their blind spots and the more challenging aspects of their leadership. They can do this because they are comfortable in their skin and exhibit more humility than pride.

The more secure I feel, the more open I can be. In contrast, the more insecure I feel, the more I tend to hide my deficiencies and weaknesses. As a result, I cling to my ego, feeling that I have too much to prove and too much to lose.

The irony is that our staff knows our strengths, weaknesses, quirks, and deficiencies. When we deny who we are and pretend to be someone we’re not, they can see that we are not being authentic. Insecure and ego-driven leaders often fail to recognize that their refusal to accept reality breeds cynicism among their team members. This cynicism is harmful to a healthy workplace culture, and the leaders themselves foster it.

The adverse effects of ego are numerous. It prompts individuals to belittle others to elevate themselves. Those with inflated egos tend to blame others for their failures and take credit for achievements that belong to someone else. This mindset hinders honest and open discussions because leaders feel too insecure to address differing opinions. An ego-driven person often lacks respect for their staff and disregards the commitments outlined in the Leadership Contract. By trying to elevate themselves, they inadvertently diminish those around them.

In instances where I’ve shared the results of Culture Audits with senior leaders who were perceived by others as unhealthy or lacking leadership skills, they have been utterly shocked and disbelieving of the interview findings. This reaction highlights their poor self-awareness, understanding of those around them, and their resistance to engaging in open and honest dialogue with colleagues.

In one instance, individuals had been telling the leader for decades that he should step aside and take on a different role due to his inadequate leadership abilities. Instead of heeding the advice of the many who expressed their concerns, he listened only to the few who praised him as a great leader and stubbornly refused to step down. In the meantime, the organization suffered a severe decline; key staff members became disillusioned and left, and there was an urgent need to re-envision the mission and plan for the future.

The individual's deep-seated insecurity and ego blinded them to the realities of their abilities, the needs of the organization, and the feedback from those around them. This organization faced multiple issues that required attention, and it is unlikely to make progress with this leader in position. It is a tragic example of how ego can undermine the development of a healthy culture. A resolution is unlikely to be achieved in situations like this unless boards take action.

Unfortunately, even when a board is in place, there are often inadequate feedback mechanisms to assess the health of the organization's culture. Typically, problems become severe before any effort is made to understand what is happening. During this time, valuable staff members leave, demoralizing the remaining employees. In the case mentioned above, exit interviews with staff revealed significant issues with the senior leader, yet there was a lack of initiative to address the situation. Consequently, the cost to the organization was substantial. Ego can truly undermine a healthy culture.

A leader's maturity can be gauged by their willingness to engage in open and honest dialogue about any issues that affect the team or organization's success. The most effective leaders encourage and promote candid discussions surrounding important topics because they understand that open dialogue leads to the best solutions. They do not shy away from being challenged; rather, they welcome it.

As a leader, do you promote open and honest dialogue? Do you encourage a genuine exchange of ideas and allow your team members to challenge you? If your answer is no, what insecurities are holding you back? Are you afraid of not having all the answers or not getting your way? Whatever the fear may be, it often stems from your own insecurities, and these insecurities can significantly impact your leadership.

Stop the blame game and play the learnng game

A key difference between selfish and unselfish leadership is our posture when things go wrong. And they will! Few things strike fear in the hearts of staff more than knowing that they made a significant error. Selfish leaders can be quick to blame those whom they hold responsible for failures. In fact, selfish leaders love to take credit for success and blame others for failure. As Jim Collins points out, Level 5 leaders give credit to others for success and take responsibility for failure—a major difference in posture.

How we deal with failure in our feedback with staff says much about our leadership. When I led a large organization, I popularized a concept called SDR. Now, bear in mind that I led a global religious organization. I remember the meeting where I laid out the SDR concept. It was a large gathering of leaders, and I wanted to get their attention. When I told them what the words meant, there was a moment of silence, shock, and then laughter. They never forget what it meant.

SDR stood for the Shit Disclosure Rule. Stuff hits the fan. Bad things happen! So this is what we meant by the rule. When things are going wrong, or have gone wrong, you must tell us. We know bad stuff happens. We know people make mistakes. We don’t want surprises, so when bad stuff happens, tell us. No surprises!

Our responsibility as leaders,  I told them, was twofold. First, we will help you fix whatever needs to be fixed. We are here to help you determine what needs to be done. Not to blame, but to help you solve the problem.

Second, one of our guiding principles was “Autopsy without blame.” This was a commitment to figure out what went wrong and why. And then to learn from the situation so that we don’t experience it again. We would do an autopsy, but it was not designed to assign blame. It was designed to help us learn. SDR allowed staff to engage leaders when stuff went south, and an autopsy without blame gave staff the confidence that we viewed failure as a learning exercise and not a blame game.

This kind of relationship with staff allows supervisors and leaders to provide valuable feedback and collaborate with them rather than simply being their boss and supervisor. It is a major trust builder. Of course, if staff violated the values and commitments of the organization, we would hold them accountable, and on some occasions, that resulted in their dismissal. But that is a very different situation from staff who make mistakes or try something new with unintended consequences. 

No organization can encourage new ideas and innovation if it then blames staff for failures. Without failures, we are not trying hard enough to do things better!

 

Moving your organization from mom and pop to mature

According to Google statistics, “Approximately 20-24% of small businesses fail in their first year. After five years, that number rises to about 50%; by the tenth year, nearly 65% have failed.” Why? In my experience, it has much to do with a lack of a culture of discipline, accountability, and results.

It is not that those who start these businesses are not bright and smart. In fact, entrepreneurs are individuals whom I admire greatly. They find niches, take risks that others would not take, and often, through sheer energy, grit, and willpower, manage to get things off the ground and see significant profits in the short to medium term, only to see the business fail in the long term.

Why does that happen? Often, they never transitioned from the mom-and-pop, seat-of-your-pants, unorganized, and unfocused start-up phase to a more mature organization with clarity, discipline, and scalable internal structures and culture, which could allow it to grow with stability.

New businesses are often run in a hub-and-spoke management style. The hub is the entrepreneur, and the spokes are everyone else. Frequently, in this management style, the owner makes major decisions and directs their staff to perform various tasks. Decision making is centralized in one person, and because they got the business up and running, they often find it challenging to share decision-making responsibility with others. They are the experts, and they know what needs to happen…or so they think!

In that environment, there is often no team culture where people can strategize, plan, and make corporate decisions together. The founder finds it challenging to give up control, so he/she is bound by what he/she knows how to do. They are also bound by the hub and spoke system, which limits their growth to the size they can personally control. In other words, scalable systems are not developed, people are not truly empowered, and there is a delegation of responsibility but not authority, which remains with the owner.

This is what happened with one organization I worked with. They grew to a $25 million operation over several years and contracted to a $15 million operation in one year. The lack of internal discipline, team processes, clarity of roles and responsibilities, and reliance on the owner who always had the final say meant that the business had a functioning structure but not internal stability, and it collapsed quickly when it did. The owner had worked in the business, but not properly on the business, and it had never moved from a mom-and-pop management style to a mature organizational style. It worked until it didn’t! And you can imagine the pain of losing 10 million in revenue in one year. The business almost did not survive.

Perhaps you recognize some of these challenges in your business or organization. If you do, I encourage you to get the help you need to move to a more mature organization with a healthier culture. These principles apply equally to not-for-profit as well as for-profit organizations. 

How does this go unnoticed? First, because there are sales and momentum, we assume that all is ok. It is no small thing for a business to be doing 25 million a year in sales. Further, we get used to doing things a certain way, and are comfortable. However, the management needs of an enterprise when it is new differ significantly from those when it is growing in staff and revenue. Third, the skill set of the leader who, through grit and determination, made things happen is critical in a start-up, but not all that the organization needs long term. Finally, the ego of the founder is often a barrier to learning new skills and ways of doing work. 

What are some of the differences between mom and pop and mature organizations?

In a mom-and-pop structures:

• One leader often calls the shots in a hub and spoke system
• There is often not great clarity around processes and procedures
• Things change rapidly
• There is not a well defined organizational culture
• There is often loose accountability because of the lack of organizational clarity
• Not a great deal of attention is paid to the internal structures
• Staff training and development is an afterthought if it happens at all

Remember that in a start-up phase, these are to be expected. What works in that phase, however, hurts the organization if it is not modified long-term. Unfortunately many organizations languish in the mom and pop far longer than they need to and leave tremendous opportunity on the table as a result. 

In mature organizations:

• There is a defined senior team that makes collaborative decisions under good leadership
• Mission,  vision, and direction are clear to all, and while methodology may change, the philosophical boundaries of the organization are constant
• There is great clarity at all levels
• There is a high degree of accountability, and promises are kept
• There are regular, carefully crafted management meetings for alignment and accountability
• A clear and healthy organizational culture is in place and adhered to
• Internal structures, processes, and procedures are clear and consistent

Moving from mom and pop to mature usually takes a coach, as the skills and behaviors are very different. A mature organization that is healthy is far stronger than mom and pop stuctures. The sooner you can move from the one to the other, the stronger you will be. 

The secret of being a self defined leader who can also stay in relationship

One of the key elements of Emotional Intelligence is the ability to negotiate relationships. It is the inability to negotiate relationships successfully that is at the root of a great deal of unnecessary conflict. One of the critical skills of good EQ is being self-defined. A self-defined individual can tell you what they think even when they know that you will disagree with their position. They don’t insist that you see the world as they do, and they are OK if you don’t.

However, the second part of self-definition is also important. I can disagree with you and still be in a relationship with you. Think about that in terms of the political divisions that are tearing up America and much of the world.

This is what it means to be able to negotiate relationships in a healthy way. Poor EQ will state a position and insist that you agree with it. If you don’t, you are marginalized and demonized. After all, you don’t get it. Good EQ, on the other hand, can negotiate relationships with people who are very different from us. This skill is needed in a diverse world, whether inside or outside the workplace. The ability to disagree, engage in honest, candid dialogue, and still stay connected would prevent a lot of conflict. 

This ability for leaders is crucial to creating cultures of open and candid dialogue. By taking a position that may not be popular (which is how all innovation or improvement usually begins) a leader is encouraging others to do the same. It is then in the clash of these views and perspectives that the best solutions are typically found. The alternative is the common groupthink behavior that stifles and hinders progress. 

To this point, healthy leaders don’t have a problem with apologizing when necessary. Even when they don’t really need to, they do it because it will alleviate stress or controversy. I recall a time when I made what turned out to be a controversial decision (the right decision, but one that was hard for my organization to swallow). Being a blogger, I wrote a blog post for my staff entitled “Just get over it!” My intention was to explain the decision further and then encourage people to move on.

Unfortunately, many took offense at the blog title. I apologized (though I didn’t need to, but I wanted to lower the angst) and wrote a new blog titled “Build a Bridge and get over it.” It was a way to apologize for how my prior communication had come across and give me another chance to move us forward. It worked, but I had to apologize for it to work.

Healthy leaders keep short accounts. One of my practices is to “Walk toward the barking dog.” If I have offended someone or created an issue, rather than walking the other direction, I will engage the individual, seek understanding, and do whatever is necessary to put the issue to rest so we can move on.

These may seem like small things, but they are not. Much of our leadership capital is based on relationships. The ability to negotiate healthy win-win relationships is a key to good leadership and reflects good EQ.

How Emotional Intelligence training can change your organization

Many organizations have a significant commitment to training and staff development. Often, however, the issue of emotional intelligence training is not on the radar. Yet, the implications of healthy or unhealthy EQ impact everything the organization does and affect every relationship and interaction.

In Daniel Goleman’s words, the cost of emotional intelligence illiteracy is high. It can include unresolved conflicts, lack of cooperation, silos, politics within the organization, turf wars, competition for power, and a range of dysfunctional and toxic behaviors that can hinder our desired outcomes.

Take a moment and consider the financial cost of toxic behaviors: unresolved conflict, turf wars, lack of alignment, lack of cooperation and organizational silos. EQ deficiencies and immature EQ behaviors can be like an aircraft carrier anchor dragging behind a 36-foot sailboat. All deficient EQ behaviors impede, slow down, and cost the organization money. In the case of not-for-profit enterprises, it costs in terms of Return on Mission.

This is a powerful reason to help leaders grow in their EQ as they set the pace for the organization and provide ongoing training to raise the staff's EQ literacy. Here is something to consider. Most behaviors that hold an organization back from being all it can be are EQ in nature. Grow your EQ, and you grow yourself, your organization, and your return on mission.

What would you do as a leader to see the following changes in your business, church, or non-profit?

• Getting everyone on the same page
• Eliminating ego-driven dysfunction for humble leadership
• Moving from competition to cooperation
• Creating an open culture where candid dialogue can take place around any issue
• Building a culture of promises kept and excellent execution of work
• Seeing conflict resolved quickly and cleanly
• Eliminating the politics and turf wars that get in the way of cooperation and a common mission· 
• Creating scalable and clear systems for your processes and workflow
• Eliminating defensiveness and replacing it with a desire for the best solutions possible throughout the organization
• Growing the EQ maturity of all staff all the time
• Seeing toxic behaviors replaced with healthy ones
• Creating a culture that supports all that you do and eliminates all that holds you back
• Rather than settling for what is, create a commitment to what could and should be
• Moving from emotional illiteracy to emotional literacy

·   Each transition or commitment is possible if you commit to continuous EQ training. Each improvement in these areas enhances your ability to generate profits, achieve a better return on mission, retain top talent, and foster innovation and improved solutions.

You can train in all kinds of skills and should. However, without training in emotional intelligence, you cannot address the primary issues hindering your organization: unhealthy EQ and its implications. And all of these are directly related to culture, so you improve your organization’s culture in direct proportion to an improvement in its emotional intelligence.

What it takes is for senior leaders to make this a priority for themselves and then for their entire organization. It can and should be done. 

 

Becoming aware of our own Leadership derailers

If you lead others, there is a good chance that you also struggle with leadership derailers. Actually, every leader does. The question is not whether they have potential derailers but whether they know what their derailers might be. 

Derailers are behaviors, words, actions, or responses that prevent us from acting maturely as leaders.  For instance, the CEO who does not like to be challenged and responds defensively when they are, shutting down critical discussions that senior teams need to have, is dealing with derailment behavior. His/her defensive behavior is a derailer. The behavior is immature leadership, which could threaten their ability to lead well.

Leaders who do not accept and even solicit feedback from others exhibit derailing tendencies. Their lack of receptiveness to the input of those they work with prevents them from seeing themselves clearly and the state of the organization they lead. Their inability to listen to others and accept feedback creates a toxic environment because candid dialogue cannot be had, and real issues cannot be addressed.

Ironically, it takes the input of others to help us understand our derailing tendencies, where our leadership is coming from immature emotional intelligence rather than mature. It highlights the importance of leaders being inquisitive about their own emotional intelligence, receptive to feedback from others, and committed to addressing the derailing tendencies that negatively impact their team members. 

Here is something to consider. Most derailers are not about competency but rather about the emotional intelligence of the leader and how their EQ hurts their leadership, the organization, and those they work with.

It is relatively easy to recognize the derailers in other leaders because we have experienced them. It is often harder to see them in ourselves because we are used to our tendencies. This is where we need people around us who we give permission to speak into our lives and leadership. 

Leadership derailers can be simple, such as the tendency to not solicit feedback from others or ask the kinds of questions that would give us insights into what is truly happening in the organization or team we lead. They can also be more complex, such as narcissistic tendencies that elevate our own leadership at the expense of others. In either case, it comes down to an EQ issue where we have a needed growth opportunity. Derailers hurt our leadership, and they hurt those we lead if not recognized and addressed. 

When I led teams and organizations, I would periodically ask my associates if I did anything that really irritated them. Is there anything I am doing that you think others should do? Is there anything you wish you could discuss with someone, but haven't felt free to do so? In this way, I was being proactive in soliciting feedback and permitting them at the same time to speak candidly.

In the Intelligent Leadership coaching of the John Mattone Global organization, we help leaders understand their leadership styles' relative maturity or immaturity to move toward healthier leadership. This is achieved through a combination of healthy discussions, testing, 360-degree feedback, personal development plans, and a coaching process designed to foster the learning of new behaviors.

The challenge for anyone who leads others is to give permission and opportunity for those around us to speak candidly with us about potential derailers in our leadership. It could make the difference between a highly successful leadership tenure and one that comes off the tracks prematurely.

 

Healthy leaders create a climate of psychological safety in their organization

A climate of psychological safety is where it is safe to be vulnerable, speak up about issues that bother us, challenge a leader or strategy without fear of retribution, and ask for help when needed. Creating such a climate is one of a leader's most important responsibilities—and often one of the most neglected!

My guess is that everyone reading this can remember times in their career when they said or expressed something that a leader did not welcome. Many leaders' defensiveness makes candid conversation around essential issues unsafe. The net result is that staff cannot express themselves with candor, and the organization leaves great potential on the table.

It takes healthy emotional intelligence to permit, welcome, and invite open dialogue about issues that impact the organization. This only happens when there is a culture that embraces this. I call this a culture of robust dialogue, where any issue can be discussed with the exception of a hidden agenda or personal attack.

The senior leader is responsible for creating such a culture, which is then followed by other leaders throughout the organization. If I ask staff in any organization if there are subjects, topics, or areas where they know they cannot speak freely, and they say yes, they are acknowledging that there is not adequate psychological safety in the organization. And that goes to senior leaders and the culture they create. Healthy leaders insist on an open culture where it is safe to speak candidly. It is the only way to a healthy culture. If it is not safe to speak up, the culture is unhealthy!

Here is the thing. Organizations that ask the best questions become the best organizations. No organization gets better without the probing questions of good people who want the best for the organization. Yet, in many instances, the pride of the group or the leader shuts down the questions because they are irritating. Great questions are a means of getting to the truth and better practices.

Good questions should not be seen as threats but as a means of honing strategies, practices, and assumptions that may need reconsidering. This does not mean the current practices are ineffective, but that there may be more effective ways. You get there with questions. Good questions are disruptive to the organization in a significant way. Your culture will either celebrate great questions or shut them down. The result will either be a better organization or one that resists actual progress. Proud organizations and leaders with egos resist good questions and those who challenge the status quo. Humble organizations and humble leaders welcome them because it is not about them but the mission.

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.