Arrogance or humility in leadership is found in how we treat staff

While many have been watching high profile evangelical leaders who have treated staff and congregants poorly, the truth is that this happens all the time in otherwise good evangelical churches and Christian ministries. I routinely see this first hand as I consult and hear regularly from people who have experienced heavy handed treatment. I would say that there is more pain from poor treatment of staff in the church and ministry world than in the corporate world. This is partly because they can get away with it as people are not likely to cause division by broadcasting the issues.

Mistreatment of people is a sign of leadership arrogance. Often boards are complicit as well when they do not verify what they are hearing from their senior pastor or allow what they know to be heavy handed tactics. Here are some common ways that arrogance is demonstrated in the treatment of staff and/or congregants.

One: Staff who try to raise legitimate issues or engage in legitimate dialogue are shut down by senior leaders through intimidation or threats. This is far more common than many people realize. The threat can be for their job (and there are many ways to threaten one's job subtly), it can be around causing division (by a difference of opinion?), ridicule, or a pattern of simply firing those who disagree. When there is fear within a staff culture there is clear indication that intimidation is taking place and there are many churches where this is the case.

One of the most egregious kinds of intimidation is a gag order where staff are not allowed to talk about issues with themselves, with members of the congregation or with elected leaders and  their leadership will not let them into the process of ministry decisions. They are essentially left without a voice, without a place to go with their concerns and live with the fear that if they voice their concerns they will be called to task. All such gag orders are a sign of poor leadership, they are dysfunctional, they lead to toxicity and a culture of mistrust and eventually good people will choose to leave. 

A second sign of arrogance in leadership is when staff are let go without due process. Even with "at-will" employment in many places I am amazed that there are not more lawsuits for staff being fired by senior leaders for highly questionable leaders (I just want them gone) without due process. Sometimes the fired staff are not even told why they are being let go. Due process means a process where the issues are explained, there is the ability for the staff person to defend themselves and if necessary there is a third party present. I have seen countless examples where staff are "gotten rid of" by senior leaders who either don't like them, don't like their opinions or simply want to fill slots with sycophants who will do their bidding - all without true due process.

Even when there are performance issues, the first question should be, has this person been coached and mentored and can we help them get to where they need to go. If many senior leaders were treated like they treat their staff, they would understand what it feels like to be at the capricious will of a dysfunctional leader and it does not feel good. 

Another way that arrogance is expressed in treatment of staff is very simple: not listening to staff, not soliciting their views, and not engaging them in the process of ministry decisions even though they are stakeholders and will be impacted by those decisions. I am always amazed when senior pastors (many when they first arrive and are going to solve everything that is bad in the church - from their perspective) make sweeping unilateral decisions without even engaging their senior staff. It is a fast way to lose all coinage with staff. And it is highly disempowering. 

Why do I call behavior like this arrogant? Because it is clearly all about the leader and what he/she wants and not about the staff. Anytime we mistreat staff we are using our authority and power in ways they were never meant to be used. Nor did Jesus operate this way. Humility is a recognition that we need each other, honor each other, build team and always treat others with fairness, integrity and dignity. Humble leadership may take more time to get some things done but it will build to last with a reservoir of trust. Arrogant leadership can move fast but at the deficit of trust and through using and abusing staff along the way.

A word to elected leaders. Behaviors like this are usually blissfully ignored by boards. Why? Their leader is getting things done or they simply don't want to address it. Ultimately if such behaviors are taking place on your watch you are responsible even if not the agent. Poke around a bit and make sure that your staff culture is as healthy as you are told it is. Often it is not. I know because eventually I get called into situations when they come apart and I always wonder why leaders either did not know or did not intervene.

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 discount on orders of ten or more.

Wise engagement with current cultural issues

Increasingly Christian leaders are faced with the need to deal with cultural issues of our day. That we need to engage is not the issue but how we engage is a critical issue.

Many Christian leaders are quickly reactive to issues of concern to them and in doing so have spoken to these issues without the benefit of careful thought. This was true on issues of gay marriage, the recent World Vision decision and retraction of that decision, and reactions to court decisions that seem to erode morality or religious freedom. Reactive statements are rarely wise responses and rarely help produce productive dialogue.

Some suggestions to help us move from a reactive to a proactive stance in controversial issues.

First, reactive statements are rarely helpful. We need to think before we talk or write. I am always circumspect in my first thoughts on controversial issues. 

Second, think about how what you say will be perceived both by your constituency which will probably agree with you and by those on the other side who will not agree. If those on the other side perceive your words as ungracious, insensitive or an attack on them it is not helpful. Never mind others don't always play fair, as Jesus' disciples we need to play fair and be gracious in our truth.

Third, civil discourse beats uncivil discourse every time. Civil discourse invites dialogue and understanding while fighting statements do not. For instance, the Duck Dynasty controversy could have been avoided if Phil Robertson had thought about his audience and how he said what he said. One may defend his right to free speech but wisdom could have avoided the noise around what he said. Christians are often seen for what they are against - mainly because of how we say what we say. What are we for? And are we gracious in our communication?

Fourth, we need to consider our audience. For instance, is what one says to their church or constituency the same as one says to the public? I suspect not. The public will often not understand the reasons that believers take certain positions. To them it sounds restrictive and narrow. Again, this was the issue with Phil Robertson. When he quoted Paul from Romans, he missed the fact that Paul was not communicating to a pagan audience but to the church itself. Taking into account the audience on controversial issues is critical.

All of this takes wisdom and thought. Waiting on our response until we can speak with wisdom and care saves us a lot of controversy and may also help us develop productive dialogue with the other side of the issue. 

(Posted from Oakdale, MN)