How many friends do you have who have no agenda except to be your friend?

We all need deep friendships. People who love us, who want the best for us, who encourage us, and whose friendship is mutual. In a discussion about friendships this evening, one of those I was talking to said, "I sat down and tried to make a list of all my friends who didn't have an agenda for me, and I came up with two names." This individual knows many people, but he has come to realize that most of them have some sort of agenda in their friendships.

This is not unusual, but it is sad. 

Now, agendas by themselves are not bad. Whether in business or ministry, we often find ourselves aligning with people and colleagues who share our values or have something to contribute to our work. This is normal, and it is right and can be very helpful. We all need others who can contribute to our work and whom we can, in turn, add value to. It is multiple relationships and synergies that allow leaders to get critical work done. 

But that leaves an essential question for each of us as individuals. Those with an agenda may be friendly, but do they count as true friends?

What makes a true friend? A true friend cares deeply about us. One who will tell us the truth when we need to hear it. One who will challenge our thinking with their own and one who will come alongside us when we are hurting or in trouble. In other words, they love us for who we are, overlook our quirks (which we all have), and will help us become a better version of ourselves through their interactions with us.

These are friendships without agenda except to be a friend. In these relationships, there is deep trust, a willingness to speak encouraging words, and even hard words, where we know there is no ulterior motive except to be a blessing to us. In their company, we can be ourselves, share our deepest thoughts, and know we are safe in their presence. 

Take a moment and make a mental or written list of those kinds of friendships in your life. And then think about your friendships with others. Who are you friends with like that? Do you have an agenda in those friendships apart from just being a friend? 

Life is filled with agendas. Where do we have friendships without an agenda? If you were to crash and burn from issues in your life, who would be there for you because they are simply good friends? It is in the hard times that we find out who our true friends are. That has certainly been true for me. 

A great example of this was The Inklings, a literary group at Oxford where a group of writers, including C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, developed a genuine bond that lasted for almost 40 years and shaped iconic works such as The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Chronicles of Narnia. They met regularly at a local pub and gave one another support, encouragement, and constructive criticism for their writings. They were people of differing temperaments and had disagreements, and were a source of significant mutual influence with one another. 

It is worth considering the true nature of your friendships. Why do they exist? What is their purpose? Do they have an agenda? And would they be there if life came apart? And who are you that kind of friend for? 

In any church conflict it is important to find the core issue and the common source

If you are a leader whose church is in conflict, there are two issues it is helpful to understand. First, what is the actual reason for the conflict, and second, who is at the center of the conflict? 

Understanding the true nature of the conflict is often difficult because the presenting issues are often not the real issues. If one tries to solve the presenting issues without understanding what the actual issues are, there will not be a resolution, because even if you solve the presenting issues, the core issue remains untouched.

I am convinced that most church conflict has nothing to do with the surface or presenting issues and everything to do with power and control issues that lie behind the surface issues. This has to do with decision-making power in the church and control of the church. It is an agenda to force a certain decision or direction hidden behind other presenting issues. Often it is cloaked in spiritual language such as the "good of the church," but at its core, it is about power and control.

How does one know if they are working with the presenting issue or a deeper control issue? One of the key markers is whether those who are complaining and making noise are open to rational discussion and compromise, or if they insist on getting their way. If it is the latter, you are most likely dealing with a power issue, and unless you cede to their demands, the conflict will not stop. If you do cave to their demands, you have allowed power brokers with an agenda to win the day and that is always unhealthy in the church.

Often in church conflict it feels like everyone is involved because loud voices prevail. The truth of the matter is that power games in the church are rarely widespread, but like power games everywhere, can be traced back to an individual or a small group of individuals. I call these the voice behind the voices. Power games in the church are never a general group but always have an individual or a small group of individuals behind them and there is usually one central figure. They usually stay in the background and feed discontent, but the common voice one hears from others is an indicator that this is not random conflict but has a leader or leaders behind it. Common language and common attitudes are clear indicators.

How do you determine who is at the core of the conflict? Listen to the language, have a lot of conversations, ask a lot of questions, and eventually you connect the dots toward a common source. Unless you understand the real issue and can deal with the common source, one has no chance of mitigating the conflict.

We are often naive in the church regarding conflict. We too easily believe presenting issues, not wanting to believe that power politics might be present in our congregation. In addition, we are too slow in dealing with the true source of the conflict because we are dealing with people who hide behind spiritual language. None of that, however, changes the damage that they are doing to the church. Power politics in the church destroys unity, hurts leadership and people with agendas hurt the body. The proof that you are dealing with power politics is when you get to the core group and they will not live under the authority of the pastor or elders. Those who don't respond to appropriate authority are playing power politics. 

The ultimate power play is simply to call for the resignation of the pastor and the board. Here is where motives are nakedly plain. I was the pastor of a church where this once happened and church chairman in another church where it happened. In both cases, the real issues had been revealed, and the core parties had been exposed. Their last stand was to try to force the leadership out of office. When they lost their bid, they left the church, clearly unwilling to live under authority. When someone pulls a power play in the church and walks when they lose it is an indication this was about power and control in most instances.

The bottom line? As Jesus said, be innocent as doves and wise as serpents. Don't be fooled! Be smart. Be wise. Be prayerful. Act carefully.

It is often helpful to get outside counsel from someone who can give objective feedback and who does not have a stake in the outcome. That is often a threat to the dissenters who are counting on their influence to win the day, and now there is a new level of accountability.

Six non-negotiable principles for a successful outcome in church conflict

After many years of working with churches that find themselves in conflictual situations, I have concluded that there are six non-negotiable principles for a successful outcome.

First, an outside facilitator is usually necessary. The nature of conflict is that people take sides, making it very difficult for anyone within to play the role of a neutral mediator. In fact, the larger the conflict, the more critical it is that the individual you bring in is trusted by both sides to have the best interests of the church at heart. The sooner you bring someone in when it is clear that the situation is dangerous, the better.

An outside facilitator must come with a neutral stance and be willing to genuinely listen to all sides, with the desire to find the truth. When I have played this role, I made it clear to the board as a precondition that I would listen attentively, gather information, and share my conclusions with the congregation without seeking board approval for that report first. If they were unwilling to agree to this, I would not help them because factions often exist on the board level as well and I had to be impartial in my findings and recommendations.

The board and the congregation still had to decide whether they would accept my recommendations but I needed the ability to share what I learned openly and honestly. The rest was up to them - and I was of course willing to help them with the next steps.

I cannot overemphasize that a neutral outside individual or individuals can be critical in church conflict resolution. When I held that role, I had to convey some difficult messages to various groups within the church, and I needed to do so honestly, fairly, and without worrying about how people would react. When reporting back to the congregation, I would always ask them how candid they wanted me to be. They would say very candid and I would respond, "I will do that but understand that I will likely make all of you unhappy with something I say." Getting their permission to speak freely and warning them that my findings and recommendations might not be pleasing to them gave me the freedom to speak openly and gave them a heads up that it might not always be to their liking.

Here is the thing. Spin does not work in conflict. Only truth works - hard as it might be to hear.

Second, the issues that are fueling the conflict need to be brought into the light. Conflict thrives in the shadows, in gossip, in cliques, in assumptions, and behind the scenes. Bringing all the competing agendas, attitudes, and positions into the light and allowing all members of the congregation to understand what is being said, what is happening, and what the issues are takes the mystique out of the situation, allowing everyone to respond from a position of knowledge. It also removes the power of those who have an agenda but have not been willing to make it public, instead exerting pressure from behind the scenes. Getting everything on the table allows all stakeholders to understand what is happening and to have a voice in resolving the issues. Ironically, those who are most vociferous in their opinions often exaggerate their support when, in fact, if all facts were known, the majority would not agree. Bringing the issues, actions, and words out of the shadows is key to successful resolution.

Third. Reconciliation is always preferable to disunity. This is actually a hard concept for many who have taken a position in church conflict. First, our natural tendency is to take a hard line, and once we have told others about our own line in the sand, it is humbling to change our position. Second, the longer the conflict persists, the more we tend to view members of the opposing side as evil, dishonest, and disingenuous, with bad motives. Once we demonize people, it becomes difficult to envision reconciliation as a possibility. 

Not being willing to consider reconciliation is to make a mockery of God's reconciliation with us and His call for us to be reconcilers. Speaking of church conflict, this is what Paul had to say to the Corinthians. "I appeal to you brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought (1 Corinthians 1:10)." 

In Ephesians 4:1-6 Paul writes, "As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit - just as you were called to one hope when you were called - one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." Having said that, it may not be possible to reconcile and stay together. Sometimes it means that we part ways and speak well of one another.

Fourth, ground rules need to be established. One of the most incendiary fuels in all conflict is the absence of ground rules - what is acceptable and what is not. For a list of the ground rules that I recommend, see my blog, Negotiating church conflict in a healthy manner. Or, if you want to keep it very simple, look back at the passage in Ephesians 4:1-6, where he says to be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace. When you think about it, these characteristics are almost always lacking during conflict. What gets in our way? Pride, wanting to get our own way, anger, and our emotions.

Five, you may not convince everyone. There are people who don't want to reconcile. There are people whose pride exceeds their humility, and they have no desire to seek a win-win solution. 

In working with churches in conflict, I don't do very much to try to convince the unconvincible, even if they have the loudest voices. 

I am seeking individuals who are committed to peace and reason and are willing to collaborate in promoting unity within the church. This does not mean that the issues that have caused disunity are swept under the rug. To the contrary, as principle two states, they are all on the table, and those that need to be addressed are addressed. To do that successfully, however, it requires men and women of peace and reason, whose personal agendas do not cloud their emotions.

Who is most likely to leave in a church conflict? Those who have taken a hard stand and cannot or will not compromise that stand. Frankly, it is good for them to leave because they will simply contribute to ongoing conflict if they are not willing to come together with the rest of the congregation.

Sixth: It is a process. Church conflict does not start overnight, and it does not get settled overnight. In some cases, it may take a year to bring the church back to health. The benefits of doing so far outweigh the trauma of either a church split (which damages churches for years to come), a power play by a faction in the church (which causes huge trauma to a church and a significant lack of trust), or not dealing with it at all, which dooms the church to later issues.

What is needed for a healthy process is a willingness of the congregation to work together, recognizing that how they handle their differences will either enhance or diminish the reputation of Jesus. If his reputation is at stake—and it is—I will do all I can to enhance it.

Ten principles for handling conflict in the church

One of the observations I have made in working with churches that are experiencing conflict is that we generally don't do it very well. Conflict itself is not inherently bad, provided it involves differing ideas on how to accomplish our mission. The issue is always how we handle the conflict or our differences. It is poor handling of differences that gets us in trouble, not the differences themselves, which are merely differing perspectives on what should be done. That being said, here are some principles that can help us negotiate conflict or differences in a healthy manner.

One: Disagreement and expressing that disagreement is not wrong. Some are afraid to share their opinions because they have been told that to do so is gossip. It is not. All of us have the right to share our views in the church, provided we do so in a healthy manner. It is unhealthy to try to shut down discussion in the church. It is OK to talk. It's OK to express our views. It is OK to differ with others.

Two: Gossip is sin. Gossip is "idle talk or rumor, especially about personal or private affairs of others" (Wikipedia). Gossip differs from sharing our opinion, as it concerns the motivations or actions of others and is generally destructive in nature. Scriptures are clear that gossip is wrong. Gossip includes questioning the motives of others, passing along third-party information as fact, and denigrating others. Disagreement or stating our views is not gossip; it is simply expressing what we think.

Three. Robust dialogue is healthy. Robust dialogue means that we can discuss any issue, except for personal attacks or hidden agendas. There are differing views within congregations on a variety of issues. It is good to talk about those things, but to do so without personal attacks, hidden agendas, or language that inflames rather than informs. Healthy leaders invite healthy dialogue and listen to those who speak.

Four: Unity in diversity is critical. Unity within the body of Christ is a high value in Scripture. Congregations are made up of different views, opinions, social and ethnic backgrounds, but it is the Holy Spirit that binds us together as one. Each of us has the same Holy Spirit in his or her heart , and that spirit is a spirit of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control. If we live in His Spirit, we can have differences and still remain united as one body. As Paul put it in Ephesians 4:3, "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace."

Five: Being able to disagree and stay in relationship is good Emotional Intelligence and demonstrates the work of the Holy Spirit. Each of us has preferences and opinions on many things in the church. What we want to be able to do is state those positions while remaining in fellowship and friendship with those who hold differing positions. This is not always easy, but it is Biblical.

Six: By extension, marginalizing or demonizing those who disagree with us is bad Emotional Intelligence and does not reflect the Holy Spirit. It is one thing to disagree with someone. It is another to believe that they are bad people because they think differently and to allow our differences to shatter our relationships, trust, or to see them as evil. This does not reflect the will of the Holy Spirit.

Seven: Taking on the offense of others is foolish and wrong. My best friend has an issue with someone in the church, so out of friendship, I take up their offense and allow their issue to become my issue. This is foolish and wrong because I have allowed my friend to alienate me from others when I have no personal reason to do so. Nor can I resolve an issue that is not my issue. It happens in families and congregations, and it contributes to greater conflict.

Eight: The church is the Bride of Christ, and therefore, we must display the attitude of Christ toward one another even when we differ from one another. The church is unlike any other organization, for it is the Bride of Jesus and His chosen instrument for reaching the world. We of all people need to be His people in good times and in hard times. Paul writes in Philippians 2:4, "Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others." 

Nine: Forgiveness is often needed when we have conflict. We need not apologize for having differing views and perspectives but we do need to apologize when our words, attitudes or actions get the best of us and we say or do things that are not pleasing to God. I have often had to apologize in times of conflict. God is pleased when we keep short accounts and forgive those who need forgiveness and seek forgiveness when we need it.

Ten: Pray diligently! When we focus on ourselves we want to be right and win. When we focus on God we start to see those who differ with us in a different light and desire God to win. In prayer, our hearts are often softened and changed, our humility is increased and our desire for a Godly solution is heightened.

There will be conflict this side of heaven. Lets do all we can to handle it well.

Six things a church board should not do when there is church conflict

One of the most difficult jobs of a church leadership board is to deal with differences of opinion within the congregation, especially when the issues are significant, sides are being taken by parishioners , and there may even be the possibility of a church split (whether that means many people leaving or the church literally splitting). 

Boards often respond to such situations just as a person does when attacked - with a defensive posture. Usually, it includes a circling of the wagons where there is a great deal of secrecy, the labeling of people who may disagree with their position as dissidents, an attempt to shut down discussion of the issues, and even intimidation through threats of "church discipline." In other words, just as each of us operates under challenging circumstances with either good or bad EQ, there is a corporate board EQ that responds either in healthy or unhealthy ways to church related issues. 

Ironically, while boards can point the finger at what they may justifiably (or not) label as behaviors of congregants as sinful or divisive, they can be equally guilty of the same behaviors. Of course, they can use the "authority" card, even when their behavior is not healthy.

I have several suggestions for boards who find themselves in this position.

One. Do not shut down legitimate discussion. Whenever we try to muzzle people, we are operating out of fear rather than from a position of health. Whenever there cannot be a free discussion of differences, while staying connected with one another, we are operating from fear. Healthy leaders both invite candid dialogue and strive for win-win solutions rather than win-lose outcomes. They are non-defensive, open, listen carefully, and work toward solutions that preserve the unity of the church. When boards circle the wagons, free dialogue is over.

Two: Do not marginalize people who disagree with you. This is a common behavior when one feels under attack. Rarely is this about whether those who disagree with us are sinful or righteous, but rather that we disagree on process or solutions. Often, division comes when one side or another takes a position that disenfranchises the other, rather than looking for ways to address the concerns of both sides. 

Three: Don't do it alone. When issues become magnified and positions become staked in the ground, you often need an outside facilitator who can help moderate a discussion. A skilled outside facilitator does not have an agenda and therefore can speak to both sides and help them come together. Resisting an outside voice is usually an indicator that we want our way rather than a win/win solution. 

Four: Realize that the more you spin the issues and try to manage people who disagree with you the more dysfunctional the debate will become. People don't like to be manipulated, and many boards that go on the defensive do just that with spiritual language, board "authority", and actions that put people in a corner. The more a board tries to "manage" the debate rather than allowing it to occur, the more dysfunctional the debate will become. Ironically, it is in trying to shut down discussion that the issues become even more problematic. When people don't feel heard, they will try all the harder to be heard. 

Five: Remember that you can split the church (the bride) simply by making it clear that "if you don't agree, you should leave." Many will not fight a board and pastor but feel forced out nonetheless. When people start redirecting their giving, for instance, it is usually done because they feel no other way to send a message to leaders about the direction of the church. Leaders who fail to recognize such signs are either in denial or foolish. I am always amazed by leaders (including pastors) who are willing to see large numbers of people leave who don't agree with them. They may get their way, but there will be no end to the conflict, as those who leave continue to have relationships back at the church they left. 

Six: You cannot move forward by marginalizing a segment of the church. Leaders need to honor the past as they build for the future. Being willing to sacrifice the past for the future is neither Biblical nor unifying. Yet it happens all too often. Ephesians 4:3ff is a good place to start in terms of how we see the folks in our congregations: 

Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit - just as you were called to one hope when you were called - one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."

Boards and other leaders who feel defensive need to live out the theology of unity. It takes wisdom and humility, but it is possible. And don't discount the possibility that the critics may see something you don't see. 

One caveat. If the conflict exists because someone in the congregation just wants to get their way and is stirring the pot to leverage their position, and if gossip and untrue statements is being propogated, leaders need to shut that down and if ncessary call it out. Intentionally causing division to get one's way is different than legetimate questions or difference of views.  On the other hand, often when I have mediated church conflict, there were people who saw issues that needed to be addressed but were instead labled as troublemakers because the board was unwilling to deal with the issue. Don't go defensive. Have an honest discussion.

When we take on the issues of others rather than keeping our own counsel

Some of the most challenging situations I faced as an organizational leader involved individuals who would call my office angry, unhappy, and irrational over issues they had no firsthand knowledge of. They had taken up someone else's problem and gone on a crusade.

The reason these are such difficult situations is this. First, because they don't have firsthand knowledge, one cannot have a rational conversation about what really happened. All they know is what they "heard" happened, and in the context of anger, hurt, and raw emotions. Thus, this is not a conversation about facts but perceived facts and emotional reactions. Conversations that cannot be focused on objective facts are usually conversations that cannot be resolved. 

Second, the conversations are crazy-making because those who take up others' offenses usually do not reveal that fact. It is clear from the conversation that there is an underlying issue (someone else's offense), but it is never stated, making it challenging to address. If I sense there is an underlying issue, I will often probe as to what it is and try to get to the heart of the matter. Dealing with side issues does not help one resolve the real underlying issues. Unless that is put on the table, there is no resolution.

Third, since these conversations are not about facts due to the absence of firsthand knowledge, they ultimately become about perceptions and anger. Perceptions of others are usually wrong, and anger cannot be resolved without dealing with facts. And facts cannot be established without those with firsthand knowledge present. 

Finally, these are no-win conversations because those who take up the offense of others have no way to move on because they cannot resolve "facts." So while the person whose offense they picked up moves on eventually, those who picked up the offense do not and cannot.

When there is conflict, the goal must always be to achieve reconciliation. The goal is to come to an understanding and achieve a level of peace. When I take up someone else's offence, however, I am doing just the opposite, enlarging the conflict rather than minimizing it: I cannot solve it for others; my own anger spills over to others; I have no objectivity in the situation, and because it is not my issue, I cannot find resolution. It is a no-win situation and does nothing to bring reconciliation or peace.

Picking up someone else's offense is foolish, demonstrates poor EQ, and causes relational havoc beyond what is necessary. It is one thing to seek to help resolve an issue in a healthy and productive manner. But once you take up another's offense, there is no good way out.  

One of the hallmarks of good emotional intelligence is that we can empathize with others without getting enmeshed in their issues. This does not mean that we do not care, provide counsel, and support. It does mean that we don't allow the problems of others to become "our" issues. 

A key to this is what I call "keeping my own counsel." Everyone has a perspective on issues, but they are not always accurate or fair. It is their perspective. This is especially true in relationships. I often hear negative things about others. In line with keeping my own counsel, I seek to listen and, when appropriate, ask questions, but ultimately I must make my own judgments based on my own personal experience rather than on the perspective of others. It is not wise, fair, or healthy for me to simply take the opinions of others when my experience does not line up with theirs or when I have no firsthand knowledge. 

In addition, I want to avoid enmeshment because I cannot solve other people's issues for them. I can encourage them to resolve their issues with whoever they have those issues. I can offer to mediate a meeting between them for resolution. But ultimately, I am responsible for my problems and not for theirs. All manner of relational chaos is caused when I take up the offense of others without firsthand knowledge and based on their information alone. 

Getting sucked into the issues of others takes a relational breakdown between two people and multiplies it among others, where they were never part of the original breakdown and have simply taken on the stuff of others rather than keeping their own counsel. This is often the stuff of organizational conflict and church splits. What was an issue between two parties becomes an issue between multiple parties, and what was a minor problem now becomes a significant issue. What was complicated now has become exceedingly complex. What might have been resolvable is now often not resolvable.

When we have issues with others, we always have the choice as to whether we draw others in and seek to influence their opinion of the one we have problems with, or whether we keep our own counsel, seek to resolve the situation, but not to influence the opinions of others. It is not my place to hurt the reputation of others, but to ensure that my own behavior is healthy. 

This is all about demonstrating wisdom in our relationships with others, living with healthy emotional intelligence, and being peace makers rather than stoking conflict.

When none of your options are good options

Let me pose an interesting dilemma. There are times that we face situations in our ministries where a crisis has occurred, or a decision must be made, and all available options seem to be bad options. 

Here is an example: A financial crisis needs to be addressed, but the process will be painful due to the lack of viable solutions. Any and all decisions on the table are tough choices that will inevitably bring some kind of pain. Or you have a personnel decision that needs to be dealt with, but there seems to be no upside in the choices you have in dealing with it. There are times when the only options we have are bad.

I have seen a variety of responses to situations where all the options are bad. One response is for leaders to not act at all because they want a good option, and they see none. Humanly speaking, this is understandable as none of us want to deal with the fallout of bad choices. Of course, this simply delays the inevitable, and the options rarely get better by waiting. 

The exception is with personnel issues, where waiting can be a viable option if behaviors known to a few become evident to many by giving the issue time, thus minimizing the fallout when a decision is made. However, this is not ignoring the issue but choosing to wait on the issue - a strategic difference.

A second response is to face the bad options realistically and choose the best of the bad options. This is often true in financial situations or where a staff member has caused a situation that is going to be painful to address, no matter what. 

I recently moderated an international situation where neither party could expect a favorable outcome due to past decisions made by others. While closure was needed, it was going to be a closure that both parties had to swallow hard to accept. This is often the case in church conflict situations as well, where the conflict has become so complicated and contentious that in the short term, all that will be experienced is pain. 

There is good news, however. If leaders wisely choose a course of action, knowing they have no good current options and that it will cause short-term pain, they can achieve long-term gains simply by being willing to do the hard work of tackling the issue despite the pain in the process. Choosing the best of bad options today can lead to closure and health down the line. 

At times, leadership is nothing more than choosing between bad and painful options. But being willing to make the choice for the sake of a healthier future.

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.

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?