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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secretive leaders and the psychology behind a lack of transparency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leaders are stewards: The question is what are you stewarding and for whom?

 

Most would acknowledge that leaders are stewards. By definition, stewardship means that we look after the interests of someone or something else rather than ourselves. However, what we are stewarding and for whom requires some deep thinking and regular realignment because it is easy to get this wrong. We can inadvertently steward the wrong thing! This is true whether you lead a team or an organization. 

At any one time, if we are not careful, we may be stewarding (and looking after the interests of) ourselves or others and a mission. 

Leaders have the power to set agendas and focus. They also have the opportunity to look out for their interests or the interests of others. They can guard or give away authority and power. In fact, when a leader guards their authority, rather than sharing it, it is a sign that their stewardship is more about them than it is about others. 

The more autonomous a leader is in their decision-making (rather than sharing that decision-making with other competent individuals), the more their stewardship is about their interests, their ego, and their power. Often, they do not see it, but those around them do.

In all of this, ego is the enemy. Ego is about me and my interests, and to the extent that we focus on retaining our power and authority or arranging things for our interests and agenda, we are stewarding ourselves, not a mission or on behalf of an organization and its staff. 

There are four characteristics of those who are true stewards rather than faux stewards.

One: they think mission and something greater than themselves, talk about that mission, and encourage the whole organization to align their work around the accomplishment of that mission. It is not about themselves but about something greater than themselves.

Two: they lead from a place of great humility. This means that they bring others into the decision-making process, don't need to get their own way, admit when they are wrong, are non-defensive, open, and take differing opinions easily. 

Three: They share decision-making, power, and authority in appropriate ways, giving these to other competent people rather than hoarding them for themselves.

Four: They genuinely care about people around them, and their words, interactions, and actions reflect that care. Ego-driven people care about themselves, while humble leaders care about others. 

If you lead others, take a moment to reflect on this issue of stewardship and the four markers of those who are true stewards. All of us can improve, and this is an issue that leaders need to be aware of on a regular basis. 

Why organizations should not leave poor leaders in place

 

I have been following the saga of a friend who works for a global company. She is very good at what she does, outperforms her peers and produces results that have cause more senior managers in the organization to take notice and cheer her on. There is one manager, however, who does not and it is her supervisor.

The MO of the supervisor is one we have all probably seen at one time or another. He loves to blame when things don't go well. He has been known to be less than honest. He has a history of berating his staff. When staff need help he often does not come through and rarely on time when he does. One can leave conversations with him feeling belittled and denigrated. My friend has experienced all of these behaviors.

Here is the interesting thing. Everyone seems to know of this individual's behaviors. Fellow staff do and warn one another. More senior staff members have indicated to my friend that they know her manager can be difficult and tell her to let them know if she needs anything, effectively telling her to work around the system when the manager misbehaves. It seems to be common knowledge that this manager does not produce, does not build team, divides rather than unifies teams, is consistently defensive and difficult to work for. Yet, no one seems to be willing to do anything about it except to acknowledge it quietly behind the scenes.

I have seen this scenario played out too often in both for profit and non-profit organizations. Even in places where the vast majority of leadership is healthy and caring. What puzzles me is that there are consequences to allowing poor managers/leaders to stay in place. Those consequences include:

• Poor morale
• People who decide to leave and work elsewhere
• Cynicism among staff
• Loss of respect for other more senior staff who know and do nothing
• The need to negotiate around the very person who is charged with serving their staff
• Division among staff who are played against one another in an atmosphere of mistrust
• Significant loss of teamwork, common mission and morale
• Loss of missionality where staff start to look out for their own interests rather than the mission of the team

The bottom line is that scenarios like this hurt everyone - the entire organization. It is a violation of the pact that organizations make with their staff and eventually it causes loss of good people and effectiveness. If your organization has examples like this, deal with it for the sake of everyone involved.

There are few things more demoralizing to staff than leaders at any level who are allowed to mistreat staff, who are not productive, and who do not live by the values of the organization. What that tells staff is that they are not important. And, that what is professed to be the culture of the organization does not really matter. It reveals a double standard between staff expectations and leadership realities. 

If the individual cannot be coached and mentored and if they are not willing to rethink and renew their behaviors, they simply do not belong with your organization. And staff will tell you that every time!

Church staff cultures: Who is responsible for ensuring that it is healthy?

 

In my many years of working with churches, I have encountered many situations where the culture of the staff is unhealthy. In many cases, these are good churches with vibrant ministries, and congregants would not necessarily know there are internal challenges. Although, inevitably, dishealth at the staff level does spill out into the congregation. It is usually only a matter of time.

Who is responsible for creating a healthy staff culture? That always falls to the senior leader who sets the tone. While they don't do this alone, they are the gatekeepers for ensuring it happens. While there are many facets to a healthy culture, I would argue that the following are critical: 

• The focus is always on Jesus and His mission for the church. It is always His agenda that matters, not ours.

• There is an intentional culture of candid conversation where any issue can be put on the table except for a personal attack or hidden agenda. In other words, there is the freedom to express one's views without fear of reprisal. This takes a leader who is non-defensive and open.

• There is clarity around the mission, the values, the direction, and each staff member's job. Without clarity, there cannot be alignment or desired results.

• There is an intentional disciple-making culture. That is the mandate for the church, but many churches don't have a plan. Without a disciple-making plan, it won't happen.

• All staff and members are treated with respect and kindness, and there is a marked absence of gossip or behaviors that don't fit a Jesus culture (think the fruit of the Spirit).

• A spirit of new ideas, innovation, and better ways of doing things is fostered.

• Staff are heavily empowered to carry out their work with great accountability. Empowerment and accountability go together. Senior leaders don't micromanage staff but empower them.

• Senior leader(s) serve their staff rather than believing that staff should serve them.

Where there are dysfunctional staff cultures, one or more of these elements is absent. In many staff cultures, there is not clarity, there is control rather than empowerment, staff are not treated with dignity and respect, alignment is not present, open dialogue is not allowed, and while there may be many good things happening ministry wise, they don't move people in a common direction of becoming disciples of Jesus. This is true of large and small congregations. 

Signs of an unhealthy staff culture include mistrust, keeping quiet, not being candid about what one sees, cliques, gossip, keeping your head down, and a low happiness factor. Add to that a significant amount of turnover as staff members get tired and worn down by the unhealthy culture. 

And so much of this comes back to a leader who is humble, put's the agenda of Christ above his/her own, is open, and has good Emotional Intelligence (EQ). I have never seen an unhealthy staff culture where there was not an unhealthy leader, nor a healthy culture without a healthy leader. I have never seen an exception to that rule. 

The core marks of a healthy leader are humility, a servant spirit, a desire to hear the opinions of others, the willingness to delegate authority and responsibility, the ability to clarify, treat everyone with respect, and a commitment to put the agenda of Christ first. 

Unfortunately, where the culture is unhealthy, it will inevitably impact the congregation as a whole because both health and dishealth spill over to the larger body.

So who is ultimately responsible for ensuring the health of staff? It is the board. The senior leader creates the culture, but a church board monitors that culture. Where there is a failure to create a healthy culture and a failure to monitor and deal with it, you have a major failure of leadership!

Leaders who hurt others and the organization they lead

It is unfortunate but common to encounter leaders who hurt those who work for them and actually cause damage to the organization they lead. What is even more unfortunate is that these leaders don't realize what they are doing and often do not listen to feedback that could help them. If it is a business they generally will end up hurting the bottom line. If it is a non-profit they will hurt the very constituency that they are meant to serve.

What are the behaviors that end up hurting those we lead? They include a lack of empathy, an inability to listen, micromanagement, grabbing credit and blaming others for failure, seemingly capricious actions and changing of direction, unrealistic demands, dictating strategies without the input of those who must carry them out, putting subordinates down and a lack of encouragement. 

These behaviors do not necessarily come from a bad heart. Sometimes they come from poor leadership training, family of origin issues or wiring. But they do have a negative impact on the organization and their staff. 

How do these behaviors hurt the organization? First, it creates a toxic and unhealthy work environment. Second, it eventually drives out the best leaders who come to a point where they are unwilling to put up with unhealthy behaviors. That has a direct ripple affect on the rest of the staff and the mission of the organization. Both the people and the organization's mission suffer under this kind of leadership.

Five contrasts between healthy and unhealthy leaders

There are significant contracts between healthy and unhealthy leaders. If you lead, take a moment and consider the following contrasts. The reality is that in each case, every leader struggles with some of these and growing in personal health is a lifelong pursuit. Any leader who claims that they are fully healthy in all five is fooling themselves. So....as you read these, consider honestly where you are in each contrasted character trait.

Contrast one: Pride versus humility
Pride sees life as being about us while humility sees life as about others. Pride believes that others should serve us while humility believes that we are here to serve others. People with significant pride focus most of life on themselves while those with true humility focus most of life on others. Prideful individuals like and need the spotlight while humble leaders focus the light on others. For a Christ follower, life is a journey from pride to humility and Jesus is our model of humility.

Contrast two: Personal gain versus a life of stewardship
Leaders have perks. They have more flexibility than others, get paid better, have more power in the organization and have more control over their destiny. Some leaders love it and use their leadership status and power for personal gain whether in salary, power or other opportunities that benefit them. there is a direct connection between an attitude of pride and a desire for personal gain.

Contrast that outlook on life with one that sees leadership as a trust to be stewarded. It is not about personal gain but about stewarding a mission and a staff. Stewards have a humble persona that is not self seeking but is other centric. Leadership as a stewardship sees authority and power as tools to serve the staff and mission and not for personal gain.

Contrast three: Intentionally accountable versus intentionally unaccountable
Unhealthy and self seeking leaders will intentionally foster systems that protect themselves from close accountability or scrutiny. Sometimes the strategy is to surround themselves with people whom they can manipulate. At other times unhealthy leaders use personal intimidation to prevent questions from being raised. Interestingly enough, in the Christian world you can add another strategy: allowing people to place themselves on a pedestal of spiritual leadership which keeps many people from challenging that leader. Make no mistake: These are intentional strategies to screen themselves from close accountability.

Healthy leaders are equally intentional but their intention is to keep themselves accountable so that there are no questions about their integrity, practices and activities. They create cultures that are open and which allow for contrary opinions, allows and encourages questions and is not threatened by debate. In creating this kind of culture healthy leaders create a culture of accountability because nothing is off limits and the open ethos creates natural accountability. While unhealthy leaders try to shield themselves from scrutiny, healthy leaders create a culture of accountability.

Contrast four: Control versus empowerment and freedom
A major indicator of unhealthy leaders is a need to control. That control can be manifested in control of people, of money and resources, of information through its withholding, of debate questions that disagree with the leader and finally, the need to regularly get their way. The greater the culture of control, the more dysfunctional the system. This is not about legitimate controls necessary to accomplish one's mission but a culture of control that seeks to limit the conversation, questions and ideas.

Healthy leaders understand that unless they can pull out the very best from those around them, the organization will not move forward. They encourage discussion around the allocation of resources, they share information liberally in order to foster a flat organization, give people the freedom to share their opinions and challenge the status quo, and people the freedom to use their gifts and abilities to accomplish their responsibilities. It is a culture of empowerment, not control.

Contrast five: Image control versus mission accomplishment
When you encounter leaders who have a high need to practice image control be wary. Image control is about the leader. It is about the leader looking good which is about pride, ego and narcissism. Healthy leaders are not focused on their image but on helping the organization accomplish its mission. Image control is inward looking whereas accomplishing the mission is outward looking.

For those who lead it is worthwhile to think through these five contrasts and where they fit on the continuum with each. Also, don't be fooled by impressive looking leaders who exhibit the unhealthy characteristics on the left of the continuums above. Where you find symptoms of dishealth above, it will harm the organization.

Sorry about that: My board or boss made me do it! Leadership Default

Leaders can be strange creatures. We want to lead but there are times when we don't want to take responsibility for our leadership decisions which we know will be unpopular. So we look for a foil, someone else to blame for the bad news that is coming. Sometimes it is our board (My board said this is what we have to do). Other times it is our boss (I was told that this is what has to happen). Sometimes it is God (God told me to do this). 

In all three cases you will notice who is not responsible for the decision that has been made: The leader who is making the announcement. In essence the leader is saying "They have said we must do this" creating a deadly division between their staff and whoever he/she is blaming for the decision. Good leaders never blame others in the organization for decisions as it sets up a them/us mentality as if the "they" are not part of "us." 

Why do leaders name others who made a decision? It is simple. First, they want to be popular with their staff so blaming others means they themselves were not responsible. Second, when you blame others, what is staff going to say. If it is the board, they have ultimate authority! If it is my leader's boss, what can you say? If it is God, how do you argue with Him? In other words, the strategy is to blame someone who has more authority and is not in the room so there can be no discussion. Let me be clear. This is terrible leadership.

Think about this. How can the senior leader blame his/her board when they sit on the board? It is not "They have decided," but it is "We have decided" including that leader.

How can you blame your boss when your primary team is the team of your boss, not the team you lead. Blaming God is the ultimate strategy to shut down discussion in a Christian organization. What room is there for discussion when God has spoken?

I label all these behaviors as "Leadership Default." I have not taken personal responsibility for decisions that I have had a part in or that I am committed to supporting in my leadership role. In blaming others I am trying to deflect my involvement, shut down discussion and in doing so I create a them/us dichotomy that divides rather than unites. 

Leadership Default is poor leadership. And, unfair to staff who cannot engage in a discussion regarding the decision. It is unfair also to those we blamed who then look like the bad guys when that is rarely the case.

When senior leaders exert too much pressure on staff

Many senior leaders are highly driven. Maybe most. They tend to see life from 35,000 feet and all the things that need to get done. And, they are often impatient. They want to see results, fix things, explore new opportunities, reinvent old strategies, ensure results, fix disconnects and who knows what else. Are you tired yet? Some years ago my senior team said, "TJ, we are not starting anything new this year!" They had their hands full.

There are predictable results when senior leaders push too hard on too many things. 

Cynicism. Because you cannot do everything at once, leaders who are always pushing for more and for better eventually wear their subordinates out until each new proposal is met with a certain level of skepticism, even cynicism. Better a few important initiatives than many minor ones. More does not equal better. Usually it equals mediocrity. Usually, leaders who push and push also change their minds often leaving staff who have worked on an initiative frustrated when they must change directions mid stream.

Discouragement. There is nothing better than celebrating success. But when many initiatives are on the plate, success is elusive since most will not get accomplished. Or accomplished well. This is discouraging to staff who are working hard to accomplish the mission of the organization. 

Lack of focus. None of us can focus on more than a few important issues at a time. When leaders make unrealistic demands on many fronts, staff don't know where to put their energies and the priority of the senior leader my change quickly. Staff are left to guess as to which initiative is the priority leading to a lack of focus throughout the organization.

Commitments that don't get kept. When pushed hard, many staff will make commitments that they don't want to make and cannot keep. It is the only way to relieve the pressure of the senior leader, however, so they do it. Many of these will not be met because they were unrealistic to start with. This then sets up a cycle of blame for promises not kept which in this case is the fault of the leader rather than the staff member.

If senior leaders will allow their senior team to have a voice in what issues are tackled when there will be a far more realistic view of what can and cannot get done and by when. When leaders exert too much pressure they hurt themselves, the organization and the staff. 

Pesident Trump's leadership style could be his undoing.

I have watched with some bemusement the internal leadership dynamics of the Trump presidency and White House. Not his politics - the country voted for that. But his leadership style. In fact, I suspect that it is his personal leadership style that will prove to be the most serious challenge in his presidency. 

As a reader of biographies including many of world leaders, I am well aware that their personal quirks, often combined with very smart minds make them the leaders that they are or were. Those who know me know that I read everything I can on Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt, whose leadership style combined with their personal idiosyncrasies made them the leaders that they were. Or, equally, Abraham Lincoln whose team of rivals made his presidency what it was through a tumultuous time in our history. That being said, I have some observations to make about the leadership style of President Trump that I believe could be his undoing. These issues go to the heart of great leadership.

One: The best leaders are crystal clear on their message. 

Clarity is one of the fundamental secrets of good leadership. Clarity means that one has thought through their position and will articulate that position with simplicity. When Roosevelt insisted that the only way that World War Two would end was with unconditional surrender of the Axis powers he clarified the endgame and made all other options of negotiated surrender superfluous.

When President Trump contradicts himself in his messaging he confuses the people around him, makes them look like chumps (especially when he has send them out to defend a prior position) and opens himself up for unnecessary attack. And frankly, it looks amateurish and foolish. Further, it undermines his credibility with other leaders in the world who wonder which Trump they should believe. Continually surprising your own staff will alienate them and eventually erode their trust in their leader.

Two. The best leaders ensure that there is a common narrative that is true, defensible and clear so that the team is on the same page. This is the responsibility of a leader and of his communications team. They need to talk, they need to agree on the message and not be in a position where one or the other is going to contradict their messaging. Clearly this has not been happening in the White House and Sean Spicer and staff have been left out to dry numerous times by the president they are trying hard to serve.

While Saturday Night Live has pilloried Sean Spicer nicely, at the core of Sean's challenge is a leader who loves to sow confusion at the expense of his staff. Sean became ineffective, I would argue, because of the individual he was working for and his dysfunctional leadership style. If I were Sean I would be bitter at how my leader had treated me.

Three. The best leaders support their staff in public and air their issues in private. Whatever one thinks of Jeff Sessions, he is currently being undermined directly and publically by the one who appointed him to his leadership role. Good leaders do not undermine their own staff! This week President Trump called Sessions a "beleaguered A G." Of course if he is beleaguered it is the President who has created the situation for Sessions. This is not only highly unprofessional but it is also disrespectful, counter productive and demonstrated that the "boss does not have the staff's back." 

I suspect that Sessions will choose to leave his role and I also predict that some others will choose to leave early because of their growing conviction that if this could happen to one of their team members it could just as easily happen to them. Of course, the President has also undermined others with whom he disagrees, which leads me to the next issue. 

Four, the best leaders respect differences of opinion and actively solicit alternate points of view. The reason that Lincoln's Team of Rivals worked as well as it did was that he wanted differing points of view, respected them and insisted that his team worked together. This was also true of FDR whose team members did not always like one another but who chose to work together through the issues of the depression and the war. 

This is not President Trump's modus operandi. Consider his ill advised early morning tweets. Almost all of them blast people or institutions that differ from his point of view including his own staff when he chooses (including other world leaders like the President of China, the leadership of Germany or the Mayor of London). While I believe there is huge bias in the news media against the president and all things conservative, I have come to the conclusion that "fake news" includes not only bias but anything that the President disagrees with. His issue with Sessions that has become so public is not with "fake news" but his unwillingness to allow Sessions to make a decision to recuse himself from the Russia inquiry. Ironically, Sessions is actively carrying out the President's policies even as the President undermines his authority and position.

Five. The best leaders take the blame in failure and give away the credit in success. One is hard pressed to find many evidences of this from President Trump. Failure, as a rule, is pinned on others, including members of his own staff and party while success seems to always come back to him. 

I suspect that many great leaders are narcissists and it appears that the President fits that description pretty well. Yet at the core of great leadership is a leader who has gathered a first rate team around him or her and it is because of the team (working synergistically together toward common objectives under good leadership) that the best things happen. That is why the best leaders give the majority of the credit for success to their team. And, since the "buck stops at the President's desk" he/she shields the team from responsibility for failure - at least in public. 

Does any of this matter? It actually does! Consider:

• The best staff will not agree to serve and may not stay when these leadership dysfunctions continue to exist. Sure there will always be people who want positions in the government but the best people may well stay away given what they see.
• These leadership dysfunctions are real downers for the staff that is working overtime to please their boss. It is demoralizing and it is leadership by fear and intimidation. In the long run it is not a healthy leadership paradigm.
• At some point trust between the leader and staff begins to erode when this leadership style is present. I have to suspect that other good leaders on the President's team are watching the issues with Jeff Sessions with great unease. 
• Senior staff do not need the chaos created by a boss who changes his story or contradicts what they have said in good faith. How, for instance, does Mr. Tillerson lead the State Department when President Trump tweets messages contradictory to what Mr. Tillerson has said or creates situations that Mr. Tillerson must clean up with other world leaders. 
• Thinking people around the world including many world leaders are watching Mr. Trump's leadership style with consternation. What should they believe? And why does it seem that he is more critical of his friends around the world than America's enemies (Russia?). 
• If senior staff come to the conclusion that the President does not listen to them they may well ask "Why then am I here?" And leave. 
• Most important of all, there are real issues that face our nation that are largely being ignored because of (I would argue) the leadership style of the President. Yes the media goes after Mr. Trump relentlessly but his style and some of the people around him feed the media beast with reason to be suspicious (unreported meetings, inaccurate or incomplete information). Whatever the organization, when there is dysfunctional leadership at the top the staff of the organization and most importantly the agenda of the organization is sabotaged. 

The consequences of leaving poor leaders in place

I have been following the saga of a friend who works for a global company. She is very good at what she does, outperforms her peers and produces results that have cause more senior managers in the organization to take notice and cheer her on. There is one manager, however, who does not and it is her supervisor.

The MO of the supervisor is one we have all probably seen at one time or another. He loves to blame when things don't go well. He has been known to be less than honest. He has a history of berating his staff. When staff need help he often does not come through and rarely on time when he does. One can leave conversations with him feeling belittled and denigrated. My friend has experienced all of these behaviors.

Here is the interesting thing. Everyone seems to know of this individual's behaviors. Fellow staff do and warn one another. More senior staff members have indicated to my friend that they know her manager can be difficult and tell her to let them know if she needs anything, effectively telling her to work around the system when the manager misbehaves. It seems to be common knowledge that this manager does not produce, does not build team, divides rather than unifies teams, is consistently defensive and difficult to work for. Yet, no one seems to be willing to do anything about it except to acknowledge it quietly behind the scenes.

I have seen this scenario played out too often in both for profit and non-profit organizations. Even in places where the vast majority of leadership is healthy and caring. What puzzles me is that there are consequences to allowing poor managers/leaders to stay in place. Those consequences include:

• Poor morale
• People who decide to leave and work elsewhere
• Cynicism among staff
• Loss of respect for other more senior staff who know and do nothing
• The need to negotiate around the very person who is charged with serving their staff
• Division among staff who are played against one another in an atmosphere of mistrust
• Significant loss of teamwork, common mission and morale
• Loss of missionality where staff start to look out for their own interests rather than the mission of the team

The bottom line is that scenarios like this hurt everyone - the entire organization. It is a violation of the pact that organizations make with their staff and eventually it causes loss of good people and effectiveness. If your organization has examples like this, deal with it for the sake of everyone involved.

8 Signs of an insecure leader

In my consulting with troubled churches and ministry organizations, I often encounter the chaos that is created by the insecurities of the senior leader. Those of us who lead anything - a team, a church, an organization, or in business owe it to our staff to lead from a place of personal security rather than from insecurity. Here are the key issues that are signs of a leader's insecurity. If they pertain to you, pay attention to them. If you are a board member of an organization and these are represented by your senior leader - please get them help. They are destructive and harmful to those around them.

1. When a leader is defensive and resists feedback, he is operating out of insecurity. Secure leaders invite feedback even when they disagree with it, and they are not defensive. In fact, secure leaders go to great lengths to know what their staff is thinking, to interact with them, and to keep themselves from shutting down discussions out of defensiveness. Personal defensiveness and healthy leadership are incompatible.

2. When a leader tells staff that they cannot talk to board members or others about issues or ideas, they are operating from a position of insecurity. Secure leaders welcome dialogue and do not put gag orders on their staff. Of course, once a team has decided on a course of action, they should all support it. But gag orders come from a leader who knows that there is no support from their staff and wants to hide it from others rather than resolve it. One of the marks of unhealthy church staff teams is the notion that staff cannot share their opinions or thoughts with others. Inevitably, this is a culture that will blow up badly in the end. It is a true sign of leader insecurity.

3. When a leader sees "loyalty" as meaning, you must agree with me, you have an arrogant or insecure leader. It implies that personal loyalty is more important than loyalty to the mission and well-being of the organization. That is a terrible assumption, and it comes out of dysfunctional leadership. It also implies that staff are simply there to do the bidding of the leader rather than to make a real contribution to the mission and strategy. Healthy leaders want staff who are loyal to the cause and respectful to one another.

4. When a leader regularly uses their "positional authority" to push people in a certain direction or get their assent, you have an insecure leader. Staff who regularly feel pressure to conform to the opinion or decisions of a leader and who have not been invited into discussions where they are stakeholders should recognize that they are dealing with dysfunction rather than health. All leaders use positional authority in certain but usually fairly rare circumstances. Those who use it regularly are saying, "I am in charge, and you will do what I say."

5. When people are publicly called out by a leader, you are dealing with an insecure leader who is using the public "calling out" as a power play to put others in line. It violates the dictum that we praise in public and deal with disciplinary issues in private. The very leaders who do this would never allow themselves to be called out in public. It is plain intimidation and unhealthy, and it says more about the leader than the staff member.

6. When a leader must have their own way on a regular basis, you have an insecure leader. Secure leaders want what is best for the organization, not their own way. Healthy leaders regularly modify their agendas and strategies in dialogue with their staff. Life is not about getting our own way but about accomplishing a common mission. The "my way or the highway" is an adolescent character trait rather than the trait of a mature leader.

7. When a leader takes credit for the success of others who made the organization look good, you have an insecure leader. Secure leaders do not need the spotlight, and they do not seek it. In fact, they go out of their way to give credit away rather than to keep it themselves. They know that success comes from a team, not any one individual, and they acknowledge that regularly.

8. When a leader regularly puts others down, you have an insecure leader. Usually, they put others down in order to build themselves up. Healthy leaders keep their own counsel on others and do not share negative information about others with others.

This is all about having a healthy self-image and good EQ. When that is not there, we end up hurting others in ways that may take years to undo. If any of these characteristics represent you as a leader, take note and work to correct the damage and your leadership style. 

Secretive leaders: Their methodology and psychology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TJ Addington (Addington Consulting) has a passion to help individuals and organizations maximize their impact and go to the next level of effectiveness. He can be reached at tjaddington@gmail.com.

"Creating cultures of organizational excellence."

Six issues to avoid for those in professional ministry

Professional ministry can be a place of great joy and great frustration. It is the frustrating part that can often cause us angst. My own observation is that there are six issues that those in professional ministry need to guard against.

Cynicism: Let's face it, lots of people are not going to get with the program. I remember people who attended the church I pastored who came once in a while but it seemed that God never touched their lives. At least it didn't seem that way to me. It is easy to become cynical but those folks have always been out there. As have the hard times in ministry when the arrows come from the pew and not from the pagans. There are times when we just need to fight cynicism off because it is not what God wants for us and it won't allow us to minister well. Jesus is our judge and He wants us to be faithful.

Anger: It is a close second to cynicism. It is easy to become angry: power politics in the church, how long it takes to get something done, feeling under appreciated, and any number of things. Anger is often about us instead of other people. Things didn't move on my timetable or in my way. It pops up in unexpected places but when it does, it is time to take stock of myself rather than of others. 

Self-focus: The two issues above are really about allowing ourselves to focus on ourselves rather than on those we are called to minister to. No one said ministry was easy, in fact no one should go into ministry who has something better to do. It is hard, and it becomes harder when our focus is on ourselves. There is plenty to complain about but only when our focus is in the wrong place. Read Paul's list of issues he faced. Yet he did not focus on himself but the mission God gave him. It changed the picture for him.

Professional Spirituality: This is about allowing our work for God to take precedence over our relationship with God. It is easy to do and most of us in ministry have done it. But it is a trap because Jesus wants us, not just our work for him. There is no substitute for our own personal time with Jesus and for our own followership. Just because we may know more than others (and it is often not true) it does not translate into a deeper relationship with Him unless we are deeply intentional about it.

Misidentity: This follows from the last. It is allowing our identity to be formed by our work rather than our relationship with the living God. It is also why many Christian professionals are quick to take offence when people disagree with them. They have not separated their identity in Jesus with the work that they do. 

Arrogance: It can come from knowing too much, having the wrong identity and a professional spirituality. No one in ministry should be arrogant but a lot seem to be. The way to guard against arrogance is to be focused on others and to guard our own hearts against its insidious grip. Other focus, accountability with people who know us and will tell us the truth and an identity in Jesus are all keys to remaining humble.

Posted from Oakdale, MN

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.