Boards that ignore the obvious and allow toxic behaviors to flourish

The classic book on governance boards is "Boards That Make a Difference" by John Carver. I have encountered some boards that make a huge difference because of their careful governance. But what stands out for me after decades of consulting with boards is the number of boards that ignore the obvious, allow toxic behaviors to flourish in the organization they represent, and look the other way when leaders create toxic cultures and hurt multiple members of their staff with impunity.

A fundamental truth is that boards oversee organizations, and as the highest authority in the organization they oversee, they are ultimately responsible for its health and well-being—not because they manage the organization but because they oversee its leader.

But here is the dirty little secret of many boards. They don't hold the senior leader accountable for the health of the organization and frequently overlook and ignore what is actually taking place in the organization they represent. 

This begs the question of why? In one recent case where I conducted a Culture Audit of a staff of 70 individuals on the East Coast last year, the results painted a picture of massive toxicity. The transcripts of those interviews included 850 pages, and the findings were mind-blowing in their dysfunction. When I shared the results with the board heads nodded up and down in agreement as if to say, we suspected as much. Yet the board did almost nothing to address the toxicity but rather went into a protective mode to ensure that the institution involved looked good to the public rather than became good in its culture. 

The same can be said for many church boards that ignore massive toxicity generated by a senior leader whose narcissistic tendencies leave a pile of bodies on the side of the road for years, creating untold hurt and pain for numerous staff. Rather than holding the leader involved accountable, they often circle the wagons to "protect the wonderful ministry that is taking place." 

In both cases, staff are deeply hurt, but more importantly, their boards have empowered dysfunctional and toxic leaders to flourish at the expense of the staff they oversee. 

Let me make several observations. 

One: boards that make a difference are made up of people who have the courage to call out dysfunction and hold leaders accountable. In fact, the best boards empower leaders and hold them accountable for the health and productivity of the organization they lead. Leaders who are empowered but not held accountable are dangerous leaders who create toxic cultures.

Two: Healthy boards never substitute success at the expense of a healthy culture. Healthy cultures create healthy staff, and the opposite is equally true. Unhealthy leaders create unhealthy work and organizational cultures. For any organization, this is unacceptable. In the end, only healthy cultures can create long-term healthy results, and good board members know this and insist on it. 

Three: Healthy boards are not afraid of the truth. They want to know the true state of affairs in their organization and find ways to gauge its health or dishealth. Unhealthy boards are more concerned about the public image, while healthy boards are more concerned about the true state of affairs within the organization. Time after time, I have encountered boards that intentionally chose to ignore what was obvious to staff and others to protect a public image. 

Four: The whole premise of a healthy board is to empower healthy leaders, to hold leaders accountable for how they lead, and, if necessary, to take remedial action against leaders who consistently violate their leadership trust. Yet this fails to be the case all too often.

In one organization I worked with, two loved leaders had been summarily fired by their senior leader. In meeting with the board I discovered that six other leaders had been fired or chose to leave in the preceding several years. I asked if they had done an exit interview with those leaders, and they said no. So, I contacted each of them and heard a common story of abuse at the hands of a toxic leader. This board had failed in its duty to understand what was going on and to hold their leader accountable. In the end, both the board and the senior leader resigned. As they should have. 

The greatest failure I see with boards today is failing to define what is critically important for their organization and failing to hold their leaders accountable for moving the organization forward toward its preferred future in the context of a healthy culture. 

There is never any excuse for boards that ignore the obvious and allow toxic behaviors to flourish—not Ever! Yet it happens all the time, and those who get hurt are usually the organization's staff. This is inexcusable, wrong, and sad. The victims are the staff who have no recourse as their leader is often the one creating the toxicity and a board that willingly looks the other way because they are unwilling to confront it. 

There are way too many boards that don't make a difference, and that is a leadership failure.

When boards ignore the obvious, people get hurt

 

Here is a scenario that I have seen repeated too often. The board of a large church asked me for help regarding conflict between the senior leader and two other leaders who had just been fired, causing an uproar in the congregation.

I discovered that there were at least six staff members who had been fired or left the church on their own accord in the past two years. I asked the board if they (or anyone) had conducted exit interviews, and of course, the answer was no. I interviewed each of these staff members, and the story was a similar account of abuse and bullying by the senior leader. This was not a case of benign neglect of staff but of active belligerence and unkindness toward his reports. 

I asked why the board had not explored these issues, knowing that there was a pattern. They didn't have much to say. Unfortunately this is one of many instances where I have seen boards ignore the obvious because they did not want to wade into unpleasant waters or challenge their leader. 

In their lack of due diligence, they become complicit in the dysfunctional culture created by their leader and the unfortunate pain caused to staff members poorly treated. In this case, when the issues were brought to light with the congregation, the entire board resigned and new board members were elected. 

Boards have responsibilities to guard the culture and health of the organization they represent. When they don't do that in the face of obvious leadership issues, they become complicit. They contribute to the pain of others. And that disfunction spills over into the rest of the organization.

Seven signs of a closed and dysfunctional ministry system to be wary of

 

I spoke recently with a ministry leader who had resigned from his church staff position (a large church) because of the dysfunctional culture that he sensed. Having left the "system," he now realizes that it was a great deal more dysfunctional than he thought, and he is so glad to be out of it. When we are in a "closed" system that is dysfunctional or toxic, we may sense that not all is right, but it is when we get out that we realize how dysfunctional it was. This applies to staff systems as well as whole congregations where there is significant dishealth. Such dysfunction can be part of the historic DNA of the church, a dysfunctional board, a dysfunctional leader, or a "church boss" who wields unhealthy power and has a personal agenda.

These same dynamics play out on church boards!

What are some of the signs of a closed and dysfunctional ministry system?

One: There is great pressure for people to think in similar ways and not to have independent voices. In closed systems, independent opinions that go against the "group think" are a threat and are not valued. Often, independent thinkers in ministries are either labeled as troublemakers or spiritually immature. Certainly, it is not safe to disagree significantly.

Two: Questions about the status quo are seen as disloyalty. This is especially true for senior leaders who are insecure and do not like their paradigms or opinions to be questioned. As long as one keeps the party line, you are "in." If you ask hard questions, you are marginalized.

Three: Candid dialogue is not allowed. Usually, it is the senior leader who sets the tone here. In closed systems, candid dialogue is a threat rather than a valued part of the culture. The reason is that such dialogue will inevitably challenge the standard line.

Four: In closed systems, senior leaders often protect themselves from accountability or questions. They hide behind a spiritual veil that sounds good but keeps people from getting too close. And they surround themselves with people who will agree with them and those who don't usually don't stay: either because they know how dysfunctional it is or they are marginalized or let go. 

Five: When independent voices appear, or when someone steps out of the prevailing culture, there is great pressure put on them to get in line and conform to the standard opinions. It is a family system thing, and any threat to the prevailing culture brings pressure for conformity. Those who are deeply vested put pressure on independent voices to conform and get back in line.  This is why, in dysfunctional staff situations and congregations, independent thinkers often leave. They see the system for what it is and know it is unhealthy.

Six: In closed systems, those who leave are marginalized and become non-entities. People in the system don't talk to those who left the system and are seen as disloyal. It is no different than a dysfunctional family (family system theory), where there is a high level of pressure to ensure that people conform, and when they don't, they are left outside by themselves.

Seven: The most telling moment for those who get out of such systems is how free they feel once they are out of it. And even though they knew it was unhealthy, they realized once out how unhealthy it was. Those who leave are also a threat to those who stay, who, at some level, feel that those leaving are not loyal. They have violated the family system.

If any of these characteristics are true of your staff or the ministry, you are to consider the possibility that you are caught in a closed and dysfunctional system. None of this has anything to do with a healthy church, staff, or board. Nor the love of Jesus. It is simply an unhealthy and dysfunctional family system played out in a congregation. And it happens all too frequently. Once out, people recognize how toxic it was. 

Signs that a church board needs renovation

I am always surprised when Church boards deny that they need help when all the signs point to the obvious. Here are some symptoms of board dysfunction that should get our attention. They are not yellow flags but red flags that the board is sick and needs help. I have encountered boards that were literally on life support but did not know it or acknowledge it. 

• Board members dread board meetings
• Meetings are filled with dialogue that seems to go nowhere
• There are elephants in the room that no-one wants to name
• There is tension between the senior leader and the board
• There is tension between the board and staff over authority and responsibility
• The church is in decline
• There are unresolved issues between board members
• The board is divided over important directional issues resulting in a stalemate
• There is little vision for the future
• The board spends its time managing the status quo or trying to manage its own dysfunction
• There is no board covenant that defines board member's behaviors or if one exists the board is unable to hold one another accountable
• There are issues that exist that the board is unable to talk about
• Board members do not want to serve another term
• There is little prayer as a board
• Pride and agendas prevail over humility and the seeking of God's will for the board and church
• Senior leader, board and staff are not on the same page
• The board resists help even though all signs point to a need for it to get help so they can become healthy

Why would a board that suffers from some of many of these dysfunctions resist getting help? It takes courage to get help while fear keeps us from doing to. The result is that the church suffers (dysfunctional boards cannot lead healthy ministries), the board remains stuck in its ditch, good leaders eventually bail and God is not glorified.

As under-shepherds of Jesus who is the head of the church, we will one day give an account for our leadership according to Peter. If all the signs point to a need for help - get it - because healthy boards are a joy to be a part of and healthy churches are always led by healthy leaders. There may be some whitewater to navigate but a good board coach can help you navigate the rapids and land in calm water on the other side. 

If this is your board, choose the courageous route and get help!

I am available to meet with church boards and dialogue with them on the challenges they face and possible solutions. With zoom technology, this can be done easily at low cost to you. If interested, you may contact me at tjaddington@gmail.com.

Church boards and fear

All too often church boards are unwilling to make strategic directional and ministry decisions because of fear. Fear that someone will not be happy with the decision. Fear that conflict or controversy might erupt. As a result many church boards provide a terribly low level of leadership. It is as if, not doing anything that would ruffle the waters is their true job when nothing could be further from the truth.

One of the realities of life is that most people do not like change. It takes them out of their comfort zone and they like the predictability and comfort of the status quo. Studies on change show that within the general population, 2.5 percent are innovators; 13.5 percent are early adopters; 34 percent are early majority; 34 percent are late majority; and 16 percent are laggards (Rogers, The Diffusion of Innovation).

Most people don't like change. Yet the mission of the church is a distinctly missional one - to take territory for Christ and that means there is a constant need to get people out of their comfort zones and engaged in strategic efforts to introduce people to Jesus and help them grow.

What do leaders need to know when they propose bold initiatives of ministry?

• Many people will react with skepticism or negatively at first - this is normal
• Some loud voices will be heard in opposition - this is normal
• Some might threaten to leave the church - this is normal
• Some may well leave the church - this is normal
• Some will take shots at the leaders - this is normal

The question is not whether some or all of these normal events will happen. The question is whether leaders will be intimidated and run for cover. 

Unfortunately that is also too often normal but it is cowardice, not leadership. It is to abandon their leadership role to help the church be as effective in carrying out the commission Christ left it as they can be.

Here is an interesting thought. In an evangelical church, most if not all of those who push back on new ministry initiatives will be in heaven one day. But, most of the community around us will not be, unless we boldly lead. Thus, to be held hostage by those who know Jesus but don't like change is to abandon those who will not be reached unless we move forward. Which is the greater value?

I have watched once vital churches decline significantly in attendance and effectiveness because leaders would not lead in the face of those who resisted change. I am sad for those churches. I understand the resistance to change. But I do not understand the lack of courage, will, fortitude, resolve and commitment of the leaders. That to me is the truly sad thing.

If you are a leader, do not be intimidated by those who resist change. That is normal. Rather be motivated by the responsibility God has given you to lead His church into the most effective ministry possible. That is a divine mandate.

Violations of good board behavior that kill good goverenance

Good boards practice good governance which means that they go out of their way to not violate healthy board practices. The fact is that unhealthy practices on boards create all kinds of chaos and conflict within ministries. Healthy boards contribute to healthy ministry while unhealthy boards contribute to unhealthy ministry. Having worked with ministry boards for 25 years I would suggest that the following violations of good governance are responsible for a great deal of harm among ministries.

Not keeping confidences of the board room.
The board room is a place for honest, robust dialogue where any issue can be discussed with the exception of personal attacks and hidden agendas. However, that is only possible in an environment of trust which means that board members need to be assured that their deliberations will always be kept confidential. Once that trust is breached it is hard to regain it.

Allowing staff to go around their supervisor directly to board members on issues that concern them.
This is a huge "no no" for several reasons. First, it violates the principle that every individual has only one supervisor. Second, the board member now has one side of an issue and has information other board members don't have skewing his or her perception. Third, it is not fair to the organizational leader who may not know what is happening and certainly doe not know what is being communicated and it undermines their authority. Board members always respect the chain of authority in an organization and have in place a grievance policy for those times when it warrants it. 

Not supporting decisions of the board once they are made.
This is a hard one especially when a board makes a poor decision. And, there are times when decisions are so poor that it may make sense to step off the board knowing that one cannot support its decisions. If one is going to serve on a board, however, it must speak with one voice through its decision making process. Robust dialogue should take place in the board room but once the decision has been made it is the boards voice that is heard, not individual voices.

Allowing factions to grow on the board bringing division to its deliberations.
Divided boards create divided congregations. Further, board factions make it impossible for the board to make decisions together since faction by definition divide. It is critical that board members exercise the discipline of maturity in this and don't allow factions to divide them. That is a choice we all make and it is a clear sign of either maturity or immaturity.

Allowing any individual to control the outcome of decisions.
No individual, be it the pastor, a founding member or influential individual should have the power to veto or determine board decisions. Healthy boards have a collective voice determined by prayer, and collective deliberations. 

Protecting a piece of the pie rather than the health of the whole.
Board members do not represent a constituency or a piece of the ministry but are there to ensure the health of the entire ministry. Even when board members serve as quasi staff in a new or small church, once they enter the board room they put their board hat on and represent the whole, not a part.

Focusing on administration to the exclusion of a vibrant prayer and study rhythm.
Boards must pay attention to administrative issues within a church but most church boards err on the side of administration to the exclusion of prayer and relevant Scripture study together. Some boards never pray together and yet they represent a Christian cause. Prayer and the Word are the work of a board that is serving as under servants of God.

Operating without a board covenant.
Board problems almost always trace back to poor behavior or practices of one or more board members. A well written board covenant spells out the expectations of board members to speak well of one another, keep confidences, resolve personal conflict quickly, abide by board decisions and so on. Board members not only sign that covenant but they agree to be held accountable for living up to it. It goes a long ways toward ensuring a healthy board.

Ignoring known issues.
It never ceases to amaze me that boards have an uncanny ability to live with issues that everyone knows exist but that no one is willing to state or put on the table for discussion. It is pure conflict avoidance - the elephant in the room - that we are afraid to discuss openly. Here is the bottom line: It is cowardly not to be able to discuss known issues. Elephants are not elephants once they are named. Rather, they are issues to be discussed and prayed over. Board members need to put on their grown up pants once in a while and deal with hard stuff. 

Focusing on the small rocks and pebbles rather than the big rocks.
This is a major sin of many boards. They allow the trivial to keep them from discussing the truly important. Why? For one it is easier. Second, it seems urgent at the time. Urgency is not the same as important, however and many things can be delegated to others. The way to control this is to empower the chair of the board to allocate the bulk of the board tine for those things that are most important and let the pebbles and sand go to the bottom or to someone else.

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.

church boards and failure of courage

Church boards are notorious for an inability to make key decisions when they need to and then to stick to their decision when a few loud voices are raised.

The inability of boards to make timely decisions is endemic. Issues are hashed over numerous times, re sawing the sawdust because boards find it hard to make decisions and act. Not only is this a great waste of leadership time, it is in the end a failure of courage - to lead.

Take a staff issue, for instance, where there is a known problem that has lasted for years. The senior pastor knows there is a problem and the board knows there is a problem - but nothing happens.

The board spends endless hours talking, revisiting the issue meeting after meeting but there isn't the courage to make a decision because several board members are afraid of the fallout. The longer they debate, the more damage the staff member does. Finally under pressure, the board acts. But, soon they feel under pressure from a few in the congregation who don't understand or agree with their decision and they start to cave.

If one is going to serve on a church board it is necessary to have the ability to make decisions that will further the mission of the church and fulfill the call of God on the congregation. News-flash: not everyone in the congregation will be happy with that. Comfort, status quo and resistance to change are higher values for some than fulfilling Christ's mission for the church.

Sensitivity and process are important in the execution of key decisions. But he responsibility of leaders is to take the congregation in directions that God would be pleased with and that means making directional decisions that some will not eagerly sign on for.

A lack of courage to make timely decisions and to stick to those decisions in the face of criticism - which will come, sentences the church to mediocrity. If you serve on a church board, don't get caught with a failure of courage. Make timely decisions that are best for the ministry, expect that not everyone will be pleased, and don't cave. Board members who cannot do that need to move over and allow someone who is willing to lead - to lead.

It only takes a few bad leaders to destroy the vision of many

The story of numbers 13 is deeply instructive for any ministry organization. As you remember, the spies were sent into the promised land to survey it prior to the Isrealites taking it. On return, two of the spies gave a favorable report while ten did not. Those ten said it was an impossible job to take the land. The people were too big, the cities too fortified and the land to vast. Never mind that God had promised it to them and said that He would go before them as he had so many times before already.

What is scary is that it took only ten individuals to sway the vast majority of the people who then refused to follow God and ended up causing everyone to wander in the desert for 40 years. Hundreds of thousands of people suffered because of ten individuals who refused to follow God or believe his promises, and these were leaders no less.

Ministry success always depends on leaders who are willing to courageously follow Christ and believe that He will take them to the places He wants them to go. Negative leaders, scared leaders, tentative leaders, easily swayed leaders, leaders of little faith - none of these should be leaders in God's Kingdom. Like the leaders in Moses day they will hurt rather than help those whom they lead.

Ministries do way too little to guard the leadership door against those who do not belong. Who you have in leadership matters a lot. The wrong leaders exact a spiritual price on those they lead while good leaders do the opposite. It only takes a few bad leaders to derail an organization.

In almost every ministry meltdown or church conflict I have watched it was the failure of a few leaders to act with wisdom and vision that caused the problems. Who paid the price of their bad leadership? Everyone else!

The challenge and danger of a divided ministry board

If you sit on a ministry board that is divided and in conflict, you need to know that the division is highly likely to negatively impact the organization you oversee. Divided boards are a clear warning that danger is imminent for the ministry as a whole and it is therefore imperative that the board do whatever it needs to do - including disciplining and humbling itself to resolve the issues.

There are a number of ways that boards become divided. How it become divided is not the relevant issue here. That the board is able to get on one page is! Not to do so is to place the ministry in jeopardy which violates the board's responsibility to protect and ensure that the ministry flourishes. 

Let me suggest that divided boards must grapple with a number of key issues:

Clarity 
It is critical that divided boards are clear as to what the mission and the priorities of a ministry are. Philosophical differences reflect a lack of clarity and until that lack of clarity is dealt with the board will remain divided.

Humility
Divided boards are often the result of one or more individuals who will not submit their will to the will of the group. This is both unbiblical and it is poor leadership. If a board member cannot in good conscience submit to the will of the majority they should resign. Allowing the board to remain divided hurts the organization.

Practices
At times, boards are divided because the board does not have good governance practices. For instance, I have worked with boards where disgruntled staff are regularly talking to board members who then have information that other board members don't have and which undermines the leader. Often, a change in governance practices can bring the board greater health.

Makeup
There are times when the only way to solve a divided board is for the minority to choose to step aside so that the board can move forward in in unity. While it is a significant step to take, divided boards are dangerous and if the division be resolved together it is better for the minority to step aside. 

Divided boards usually need an outside consultant to help them work through divisive issues. Consultant's however can only help if the board as a whole is willing to humble itself and deal with its dysfunction, whatever the source. Wherever we stand, the ministry as a whole and its health comes before our own desires. 

Don't ignore a divided board. Do whatever is necessary to deal with it for the sake of the ministry.