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.

When loyalty becomes a threat to an organization

We all want loyal staff, particularly to the mission of the organization we lead or are a part of. However, that very important element can become a problem when leaders choose staff members primarily on the basis of loyalty to them.

Recently I had a first-hand glimpse into an organization that does great work. But there was one key staff member who caused me puzzlement. He had poor interpersonal skills, did not empower others below him, made snap decisions, and created major consternation for about half of the staff who served at his direction. Don't get me wrong, he was a great individual but was in a spot that everyone seemed to know was not designed for him.

As I asked around about this individual and a few others the consistent answer I received was this: The leader of the organization values personal loyalty above all other qualities. And by this they meant loyalty first to him. Thus he would choose leaders based on their personal connection with him regardless of that individuals qualifications for their role. In doing so, he inadvertently disempowered those who had to work for these loyal but miscast staff members.

That loyalty also fostered a "yes person" culture as these staffers tended to not challenge the thoughts of the leader as loyalty to them was taken as agreement. Thus the concept of robust dialogue was not fostered at the top of the organization and subsequently throughout the organization.

What fascinated me was that this was a healthy organization overall, and the challenges it had internally almost always went back to one of these leaders who was chosen for their loyalty. Not because they were not good people but because they were in the wrong spot for their gifts and had been chosen for the wrong reasons - loyalty to the leader regardless of their qualifications for the role.

Competence for one's role needs to come first, along with loyalty to the mission and respect for leadership. But when personal loyalty or a long-term relationship with the senior leader is the primary qualification for leadership in the organization, this loyalty factor becomes a threat to the organization as a whole.

At Addington Consulting,

We Simplify Complexity

Speak Candidly

Help You Find a Way Through

tjaddington@gmail.com

Many leaders need to redefine their definition of loyalty

It is not uncommon in conversations with leaders and their staff to have the issue of loyalty come up. I have heard many leaders say, "my highest value for staff is that they are loyal." That statement, however it is made begs several questions: loyal to what or whom and what is the operative definition of loyalty?

Whenever I hear leaders talk about loyalty as one of their highest values, yellow flags go up in my mind. For many leaders, loyalty means that staff will agree with them or if not at least not take issue with them. And, that they will follow the party line with others. Disagreement means that the staff member is not loyal and that becomes cause for mistrust in the best case and dismissal in the worst case. This definition usually reflects either narcissism or at least deep insecurity on the part of the leader. 

I actually deeply believe in loyalty but strongly disagree with the definition that many leaders have. First, the best loyalty is to the mission of the organization not simply to an individual. We require our staff to live within the philosophical boundaries of our organization. They include our mission, our guiding principles, our central focus and our culture. These are well known, clearly articulated and critical if we are going to achieve our God given mission. When loyalty is primarily to a central leader rather than to the mission of the organization, what happens when the leader leaves? Healthy leaders build a commitment to the mission rather than to themselves.

This has implications for the ability or lack of ability to have candid and robust dialogue over critical issues. When loyalty is defined as agreement with the leader, any disagreement is seen by him/her as a threat and a sign of disloyalty (a highly dysfunctional view of leadership and loyalty).

On the other hand, when loyalty is to the mission of the organization, candid feedback, robust dialogue and the clash of ideas is highly valued because all are committed to seeing the best for the organization and the mission they together are committed to. Thus one's definition of loyalty has a direct correlation on the ability of staff to speak their minds and be candid in their assessments. When loyalty is defined as agreement with the senior leader it shuts down discussion. When loyalty is defined as a commitment to the organizational mission, it invites discussion.

I once worked for a leader who did not appreciate disagreement of any sort. The result was that most individuals told him what he wanted to hear - to his detriment. There were several of us who simply told him the truth as we saw it and we were called the unholy trio. What he did not understand is that we had the best interests of both himself and the ministry in mind when we were candid. Several times I told him that I was in the wrong place if I could not express my views with him.

I want a loyal staff. I want them to be as passionate and loyal to what God has called us to be and do as I am. It is not a loyalty to me but a shared loyalty to a calling to reach the world with the Gospel. That means that we need the very best thinking and dialogue as to how to achieve that within our non-negotiable framework. Therefore we invite rather than squelch differing opinions. After all it is not about us but about the mission.

Posted from Washington DC


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.

Loyalty: To the leader or to the mission of the organization?

Recently I led a retreat for a senior group of executives who desire to go to the next level. Each of them is fiercely loyal to their founder/leader. Yet, among themselves there is a fair amount of dissonance with sometimes poor cooperation, siloed departments and lack of cooperation. Why is that when there is such strong loyalty to the leader?

The answer is relatively simply. If my primary loyalty is to my leader I will do everything I can to please him/her but that does not mean that I need to relate well to my peers. It may even be that I jockey with my peers for the "affection" of my leader at the expense of relating and cooperating with my peers as I need to.

Now think about this: If my primary loyalty is to the mission of the organization I will have a different perspective on cooperating with others on the team. After all, for the organization to be successful it must have an integrated, results oriented, synergistic team all pulling in the same direction. Pleasing the leader is replaced by the success of the organization and the fulfillment of its mission.

It is a small difference in focus that has huge consequences for how we act and think. In this case, the leader was frustrated by the lack of commitment to a common mission. We clarified that mission and did a reset of the team's loyalty around that compelling mission which will necessitate that they think and relate differently than they have. A small shift with significant consequences.