12 ways leaders disempower those they lead

Here are twelve common ways that leaders can disempower those they lead. If you lead others, think about whether any of these apply to you. When leaders engage in these behaviors they lose the trust and confidence of those they lead. 

Don't delegate authority with responsibility
This is particularly disempowering when one is asked to do something but they do not have the authority to get it done. It is a no win situation for everyone involved and displays a lack of trust on the part of a supervisor.

Redoing what staff have done
Yes there are times when it is necessary to tweak what staff have done but a propensity to redo their work on a regular basis disempowers otherwise good staff. This includes situations where one is tasked to solve a problem and then the solution proposed is rejected.

Surprises that create consternation
None of us like surprises and when those surprises create extra work for staff it can be very discouraging. Especially if they could have been given a heads up earlier.

Dismissing ideas out of hand
Good leaders encourage innovation and new ideas. When they are dismissed out of hand, however, they send a strong signal that they are not wanted.

Declare rather than dialogue
None of us like to simply be told what to do. We desire a voice in a decision if it impacts us. In general, declarations disempower while dialogue empowers.

Take credit rather than giving it away
This is one of the most toxic things a leader can do when the credit really belongs to others on the team. It is a sign of narcissism and devalues those who made something happen.

Talk rather than listen
Anytime a leader speaks more than they listen one has a disempowering leader. They are not interested in what others have to say but what they have to tell. 

Don't give equal regard to men and women
Unfortunately this remains an issue in the Christian world. Unequal treatment of men and women is wrong and it disempowers women.

Lack of equal treatment and fairness
When leaders give preferential treatment to someone others take note of the disparity. It is a lack of fairness which disempowers others on the team.

Using the God card
Christian leaders who use the God card - "God told me to do this" - leave others with nowhere to go in dialogue, especially if they have questions of the wisdom of the decision. How do you argue with God?

Double standards
This especially applies to leaders who live and work one way but expect their team to live an work another way. Leaders cannot ask their staff to go where they are not willing to go.

Don't keep them challenged
I commonly find staff who are under challenged and under utilized but their leader has never even asked so they don't know. Not being challenged in one's role carries with it serious disempowerment.

Why leaders who lack personal discipline and intentionality run the risk of losing the ministry they have built

There are a significant number of leaders who are able to grow a church or ministry to a fairly large size - and then are asked to leave  the ministry they have built by their board. While there are many reasons one can be asked to leave, one that I have observed over the years revolves around the discipline of the leader to lead with intentionality and focus.

I would describe these leaders as people full of energy, a plethora of ideas, significant vision and often running in many different directions. The energy and ideas often get a church off the ground or a ministry started, and even to a significant size.

However, the larger the organization, the more stability it needs and the very thing that may have helped get them to where they are becomes a liability if the leader cannot modify his or her behaviors to provide stability for the ministry. Small ministries can deal with a fair amount of organizational chaos. The larger it grows the less able it is to do so  and the best staff will not put up with an undisciplined or rapidly changing directional environment.

The discipline and intentionality of leaders is a significant issue not only for their own leadership stewardship but because their intentionality or lack of it impacts others in either positive or negative ways. Disciplined leaders provide structure and stability to their organization and staff. 

Undisciplined leaders bring uncertainty, instability and even chaos as staff try to figure out where they are going and seek to respond to the changing directions of undisciplined leadership. Eventually leaders and staff get tired of the lack of directional stability which creates tension between the senior leader and the key leadership personnel of the ministry. Often, by this time, it is too late for the senior leader to regain the confidence of the staff and board.

As organizations need to grow and mature, so do the leaders who lead them. When they don't they run a high risk of losing what they have built. 

Seven Dangers of leading alone rather than through team

Lone ranger leadership is dangerous territory and there are plenty of examples that bear witness to it. Leading through team is far healthier, more effective and can contribute to long term effectiveness.


Here are some advantages of leading through team rather than by ourselves.


1. We are only as good as the skills we possess. When we combine our skills with those of others we multiply the possible outcomes, enjoy robust dialogue and are not limited by our own skills and gifting. Leading alone has built in limitations.


2. We are never as good as we think we are but left to our own we over inflate our effectiveness and under estimate our weaknesses. Leading through team - if it is a healthy team - protects us by compensating for our inflation and weaknesses. 


3. We can only handle a certain span of relationships. Thus when we lead alone we inevitably plateau whatever we are leading at some point. Leading through team, on the other hand is immediately scaleable if done right.


4. We hear and believe what we want to. All of us have a bias about what we hear and believe. None of us are unbiased in our judgements and decisions. Having a team around us that gives us another perspective and tells us the truth when we need to hear it can save us a great deal of dumb tax. 


5. Leadership isolation eventually leads to a bad place. Lone ranger leaders easily become isolated and autonomous, especially if they see success. It is a dangerous place because isolation often leads to actions that we would not engage in when we are in community. We were made for community not isolation. 


6. Alone breeds pride while team breeds humility. Leading through team tempers our natural tendency to think too greatly of ourselves as it is by definition no longer about me but about us. Leaders who lead through team share the success with the team - in fact the best ones credit the team! Lone ranger leaders have no one to share the success with (they think) and often take the credit.


7. Leading alone is lonely while leading through team is collegial and offers the support of a group. Leadership is lonely enough. Trying to do it without others is lonelier still. Healthy individuals enjoy the benefit of relationships in the journey.


If you lead, don't do it alone. Form a healthy team. You will be a better leader, a better individual and your organization will thank you.

Enemies of a leader's heart

Our hearts have enemies that would like nothing less than to sabotage our personal lives and ministry effectiveness. We ignore them to our peril. Which of these enemies are you ignoring?

Out of control schedules that leave too little margin for the feeding of our own souls. A starved heart cannot give life to us or to others.

Substituting professional knowledge of God for the inner transformation of our lives from God: A subtle shift that makes all the difference in the world.

Leadership success that causes us to increasingly rely on our own wisdom than being dependent on God's Spirit and power.

Professional and personal spiritual pride that keeps us from listening to God and to others around us. 

The seduction of position and power that convinces us that we are different and entitled. Power and position without intentional safeguards breed deceived hearts.

Deceit which comes from the seduction of position and power allowing us to think the rules don't apply to us and to skirt ethical and truthful boundaries.

Arrogance that keeps us from listening to God and to others leaving our hearts exposed to its enemies.

Isolation which robs us of the natural accountability of close friends or others we are accountable to. Lack of accountability is a precursor to personal failure.

The praise of others which exaggerates our spiritual and professional health and underestimates our depravity and sinful tendencies. We believe it to our peril.

Using a ministry mission as a platform for a personal mission that is more about us than it is about God - hidden behind a spiritual facade. 

What are the enemies of your heart and where have those enemies breached your walls and threaten to harm you? Be aware, be vigilant and guard your heart for it is the wellspring of life.

Unempowered, unhappy and undervalued staff

I have met my share of people in ministry positions recently who have been working for unempowering leaders, hierarchical structures, controlling leaders or who have been sidelined or unappreciated by the leadership structure above them. 

They feel like they are swimming upstream, their voice is not heard, that they cannot use their gifts to the fullest and while they love the ministry mandate of their organizations they feel like they no longer fit. It is a sad commentary on many ministry cultures. In many cases the controlling and unempowering culture causes great pain to those who are caught in its grip.

Whenever I have conversations with folks like this I think of the great waste of ministry potential, the frustration factor for good staff and the net loss to the kingdom. I cannot help think that God may hold leaders accountable for not fully releasing other ministry personnel for the sake of His kingdom.

What is more sad is that the leaders who cause this dysfunction don't even know they are doing it, or don't care. I have had leaders tell me how happy their staff are but when I ask some questions of those staff I find a radically different story. It is clear to me that the leader has assumed much and probed little. 

One of the trends I am watching is high quality staff who are leaving these dysfunctional cultures in their fifties as they realize that life is short and they want to be in a place where they can experience convergence between their gifts, God's call and an empowered ministry culture. 

The beneficiaries of those moves are ministries that value their staff, create empowered cultures, collegial teams, and value the gifts, voice and ideas of their ministry colleagues. For those who have been in the bondage of dysfunctional or unempowered ministries it is a breath of fresh air.

If you are a leader and value your staff, think about the culture you are creating. If you are a staff member in the wilderness of unempowered cultures, know that there are ministries that will release you to use all of your potential. Life is short and the opportunities are huge.

Those who need to control and how to recognize it

I am convinced that the desire to control others is a result of the fall and our sinful nature. And there are many people who are very good at controlling others. Often we feel the uncomfortable nature of someone's control but cannot always pinpoint the source of the control or its dysfunctional nature. 


Sometimes we don't realize the controlling nature of the relationship until we are out of the relationship. An abused spouse, for instance, often does not realize what freedom is until they have been out of the abusive relationship for a period of time and it is in retrospect that they are able to pinpoint the sources of the control.


People and even groups of people control others in a variety of ways: actions; anger; flattery; attitudes; words; money; organizational structure; friendship or lack of it; intimidation; closeness or marginalization. In each case, the effort is to control the actions, thinking or behavior of others. 


How does one know if there is control going on? Here are some signs:

• I am feeling pressured to act or believe a certain way
• I feel the displeasure of another when I act independently
• My relationship with another is based on how I respond to them
• I feel intimidation
• I experience flattery when doing what the other desires and anger or distance when I don't
• I experience threats: implicit or explicit
• The other wants an exclusive relationship with me and is not comfortable with me having a variety of relationships
• There is not freedom to disagree or push back
• The other has an attitude of "you are either my friend or my enemy", "you are either for me or against me."
• The other feels free to critique me but does not give me the freedom to critique them
• I often feel an air of condescension or superiority
• I feel used in certain circumstances where I am expected to act on their behalf when they need it but there is not reciprocation
• I am often wrong but they are not - at least they make me feel that way

What these kinds of feelings are telling us is that there is dysfunction in the relationship that is violating our sense of personal freedom. If a relationship has these kinds of feelings to it we are wise to do some introspection on the relationship because it is usually going to end badly. 

The reason it will end badly is that this is not a true and healthy friendship. Rather it is a relationship where one is being used - and when no longer needed will be discarded. Those who control people ultimately use people for their purposes. Otherwise they would have no need to control. 

Beware of controlling relationships. Someone is ultimately going to get hurt and it will not be the controller.

Fear based leadership

There are ministry leaders whose primary leadership trait is that of fear. Before any decision is made, there are endless discussions of whether the decision is right, lots of second guessing, revisiting of the issue, dragging feet on pulling the trigger and anxiety about whether they should move forward or not. If some leaders are too impulsive, fear based leaders are so risk adverse and fearful of something going wrong that they become paralyzed by that fear.


This is crazy making for staff who want to get on with things and become frustrated when their decisions or recommendations get the same scrutiny, questions, and reservations as their boss's. Endless meetings are had, issues rehashed time and again, decisions made and then revisited. 


Why? Because the senior leader is so driven by not making a mistake, not communicating something improperly, not doing something that might fail. It is caution gone amok. It causes him or her not only to scrutinize their own decisions but those of others and leads to micromanaging the work of others out of the same fear. It is fear based leadership and is not true leadership at all.


Fearful leadership comes out of a lack of self confidence, deep anxiety about making a bad call and fear of what others will think if they make a poor decision. The fear paralysis of the leader becomes a paralysis for the organization as a whole. Because leading is about being in front of others, leading them into the future, fear based leadership is not leadership at all but is really just the opposite: keeping the organization from moving forward out of an abundance of caution. 


Fear based leaders need serious coaching or counseling to get at the root of the fear that haunts them. Unless they can understand those fears and face them they will not be able to lead or if they do will not attract and keep other good staff. 


If you suffer from decision making fear ask yourself, "What is the absolute worst thing that could happen if the decision went south?" How likely is that worst thing to happen? If it did would it be so bad? One soon realizes that the fear is not only unfounded but silly when you play out the scenario. 

Empowerment that actually disempowers.Leadership by benign neglect

Think of empowerment as a horizontal line. On the left hand side is the manager or leader who micromanages - highly disempowering to those they lead. At the extreme right side of the continuum is total empowerment or actually neglect of staff which is equally disempowering.

Leaders on the right end of the continuum often think that they are highly empowering leaders. After all they rarely if ever tell staff what to do. But what they are actually doing is neglecting their staff to the point that staff must figure out what their job and priorities are without any structure, framework or guidance. They also have to solve problems without the help of their leader. This is leadership by benign neglect. More accurately it is a lack of leadership that usually makes for frustrated staff.

Leaders who lead by benign neglect think that they are doing their staff a favor. In reality they are not doing their staff any favors.

Here is why.

First, when there is a leadership vacuum, someone will fill it. If a leader or manager is not leading someone else will exert their influence. That someone else may or may not be a favor to the rest of the team. They are free to control others and drive their agenda, however, because the organizational leader is not providing adequate oversight.

Second, people want and need clarity about their role and what the organization is up to. I have actually had staff who work for benign neglect leaders tell me that they don't know what they are supposed to be doing or what their role is. Staff who must fend for themselves are generally frustrated.

Third, staff often feel as if their manager or leader is not engaged in the team or organization. The truth is they are right! The leader is engaged in his or her personal agenda but not in helping the staff of the organization if they lead by benign neglect. Neglect is of course not leadership but an abdication of leadership.

In my experience this situation occurs for a number of reasons. It may be that the leader has grown an organization by the force of their vision but does not have the skills to be an organizational leader. It may be that the leader is more interested in their own world than providing the leadership that the group needs. Either way, their staff feel disempowered.

If a senior leader is not wired to organize, lead, provide clarity to staff, mentor and coach staff they need to find someone who can and will. This is where a strong COO role is needed but in order to be successful, the senior leaders needs to cede organizational authority to the COO and then stay out of staff and management issues. In the absence of a strong internal leader, benign neglect leaders will eventually stall or plateau their ministry because the larger a ministry the more critical clarity and good organizational structures become.

Back to the empowerment continuum. The place to be is in the middle. Not micromanaging but not neglecting. It is empowerment withing boundaries with clarity and accountability. No favors are done staff with micromanagement an no favors are done with benign neglect. Both disempower rather than empower.

Leaders who need to be liked by those they lead

The greater our need to be liked by others the less personal freedom we have to be ourselves, follow God's leading and be self defining about what is important us us. It is a trap that keeps us from being us and from leading well! 


I have no desire to be disliked. In fact, I believe that leaders who lead well will be respected and liked by most, probably not by all. Leading well, treating people well and creating an environment for staff to flourish all contributes to respect for a leader. 


Many leaders, however, are not after respect but want to be loved and liked by those they lead. Wanting to be liked is a symptom of a lack of self worth - needing therefore to get our worth from the love of others. But for a leader, it is a trap because our desire to be liked can get in the way of our leadership.


Leaders who desire to be liked often are not able or willing to push into missional issues with their staff where results are needed but not forthcoming. It is a choice to keep a perceived friendship intact by not pressing on issues that might be considered contentious. In reality, the need to be liked is holding the leader hostage from addressing issues that need to be addressed. Ironically, they lose respect from their staff  when this happens.


Leaders who desire to be liked also become hostage to the expectations of others. Self definition - the ability to state one's position, even if it is not popular is a key leadership trait. But if my desire to be liked is strong, it will be difficult for me to self define in areas where that might not be liked. I am therefore hampered from making directional calls that might "compromise" my perceived friendship with those I lead. In doing so, I actually hurt the organization I lead.


Leaders who desire to be "one of the boys or girls" do so at the risk of their leadership because one cannot be best friends with all the staff and lead well. Once a leader becomes one of the boys or girls they are identifying with their team rather than with the organizational leadership role they carry.


Here is an interesting thought. Most staff do not have a need to be best friends with their leader. They want a collegial atmosphere where issues can be discussed and decided and they want to be respected. In turn they want to respect their leader but do not have an expectation of being best friends with their leader. It is the leader's insecurities that drive the need to be liked, not the staff.


Healthy leaders are highly collegial but they keep an appropriate social distance from the staff they lead so that they are able to see beyond the "friendships" and keep the missional agenda clear. It is in leading well that they earn the respect and appreciation of they staff even if they are not the staff's best friends.


See also:
Leaders and those they lead
Transitioning staff from family to team

Pride and Christian Leadership

Personal pride and Christian leadership are fundamentally incompatible with one another. 

Signs of pride are easy to spot:

• Loving the praise we get from others
• Name dropping - we are on the in with the big shots
• Letting others know how big and successful our ministries are
• Not listening to others - we have the answers
• Letting others know we are in charge
• Taking credit for success
• Blaming others for failure
• Ignoring our shadow side
• Narcissism (there is a lot of it in Christian leadership) 
• Elevating ourselves
• Defensiveness (pride central)
• Putting others down

Think about this: Pride elevates self but we are to elevate Jesus. Pride says "I accomplished this" when in reality anything of spiritual significance was accomplished by God's power. Pride says, "I made something of myself" when in fact God gave us our skills and wiring as a gift to be used for Him. Pride thinks that our success is a reflection of our greatness when in effect, it is simply a gift from God.

If anyone had a right to pride it was Jesus but where do you see it? He claimed to speak the words of the Father, do the will of the Father and gave all the glory to the Father. He lived for the Father's glory rather than His own. When His disciples vied for position and glory He rebuked them saying that they were living by the world's values not kingdom values. 

The life of Jesus was one of humble dependence and servant leadership. Paul had the same mindset committed to boasting about one thing only - the cross of Christ. He took no credit for his accomplishments, great as they were but gave all the credit to God. He knew that "when he was weak, then he was strong," because it was all about God's power, not his wisdom or power. 

Why is there so much pride, so many egos and may I say it, narcissism among Christian leaders? It does not square with the life of Jesus or the life of Paul or the teaching of Scripture. We are nothing without God. My ability to write blogs and books is simply a gift I have been given. The leadership skills I have were also a gift from God to be used in trust for Him. What do I have to boast about except that God was gracious to me? And if I do take the credit am I not stealing credit from the One who rightly deserves all of it?

It is no wonder that many Christian leaders have major blow ups in their lives and ministries. Pride elevates self and minimizes Jesus and the greater the elevation of ourselves and the minimization of Jesus the more dangerous territory we are in. Narcissism is the ultimate elevation of self and rejection of Him. Once it becomes about us we have lost all ability to lead on His behalf. It is not that God abandons us, we have abandoned Him for all practical purposes.

It was pride that caused Satan to rebel against God. It was pride that prompted Adam and Eve to eat of the tree. It is pride that causes us to elevate ourselves but to the extent we do we are minimizing God. And that is a dangerous path to walk. Our hearts are indeed deceitful above all things. Guarding our hearts against pride is job one of anyone in Christian leadership. 

The issue of staff loyalty

"Are they loyal to me?" is the question that many leaders ask themselves about their staff. Sometimes in conflictual situations, a leader will either ask or demand loyalty of their staff. In negotiating through conflict I have often heard the charge, "he or she is not loyal to me as their leader," which usually means they don't belong in the organization anymore.

I believe, by the way that loyalty is a good thing and that healthy organizations and leaders have a great deal of loyalty. There is a difference, however between loyalty and subservience. 

When I hear this kind of thing I always ask the question, "What is your definition of loyalty?" Some of the more interesting and problematic responses I have received are "that he/she agree with me," or "that they do what I tell them to do and how I tell them to do it." For others it means, "never question my decisions (implicitly or explicitly)." I find these problematic definitions because they remove the autonomy of thinking from the staff member and insist that they allow their leader to think for them. That, by the way is how cults start. And how many dysfunctional staffs operate.

In my experience, the removal of staff on a charge that they are not loyal is usually more of a reflection on an insecure or narcissistic leader than it is on the conduct of the staff member. Unless one  can demonstrate that an individual's behavior is harmful to the organization, labeling someone as "disloyal" and marginalizing or firing them is a reflection of an unhealthy leader rather than an unhealthy staff member who may simply be thinking for himself/herself and expressing themselves honestly. Beware of leaders who have a pattern of dismissing or marginalizing people on the basis of a lack of loyalty.

There are gradations of loyalty. Our highest loyalty cannot truly be to any person but it is to God. Thus, if any individual, leader or not, asks us to violate a moral or ethical standard or skirt the truth our loyalty to God trumps our willingness to do as we have been asked even if out of "loyalty."

Our next highest level of loyalty is to the mission of the organization we work for. If I don't believe in the mission of my organization and cannot be loyal to that cause I am in the wrong spot. So while I work for the most empowering leader ever, I do not serve because of him but because of the cause of the organization. He makes it a joy to work for the organization and I might not be there under another leader.

So what about loyalty to our leaders? One dictionary defines loyalty as "Faithful to any leader, party, or cause, or to any person or thing conceived as deserving fidelity: a loyal friend."  Notice that it is couched in the term faithfulness and only to a person or cause that is "deserving of fidelity." In other words, loyalty cannot be demanded but it can be deserved and earned.

But take this one step further. What does faithfulness to a leader entail? It certainly means that we want the very best for them and for the organization they lead. Thus there will be times when we specifically do not agree with them if a decision they are making is going to hurt them or the organization. Loyalty by definition speaks up (respectfully) when one is concerned about and issue. It does not stay passively silent and supportive. Loyalty means that my leaders trusts me to be supportive of him/her and the organization, and not to do anything that would undermine it or them. 

In our organization, I would want these characteristics from our staff: Loyalty to the cause, respect for and cooperation with those who lead, and nothing that undermines either the mission or those who lead including cynicism and mistrust. Honesty and candidness in communication with the best of the organization always in mind. 

I also have a set of expectations for leaders toward those on their teams. Loyalty and respect go two ways.

Leaders who demand loyalty no matter what are merely looking for "yes" people who will do their bidding. Healthy leaders want to be respected but they want their staff to be honest, candid and to think for themselves - and speak up when needed. Unhealthy leaders categorize staff into two camps: those for me or against me - a dysfunctional definition of loyalty and disloyalty. Those who do this lose the support of healthy staff and build a staff of people who know that they cannot cross their leader.  

Dangerous and subtle false ministry gods

Ministry is a funny thing. By definition it is about serving Christ. But, just as the world has many false gods so do those in professional ministry. These gods often take the place of or get in the way of the God we are here to serve. They can creep up on us slowly but once entrenched they become agents of deceit that turn our eyes from the One we serve to ourselves because each of these false ministry gods are ultimately about us. They are not about Jesus.

The false god of success. We want ministry results but those very results when they become our obsession turn our eyes from Jesus to whatever definition of success we are measured by. The church becomes about numbers and programs and not about Jesus. We start to measure our dollars and budgets and not life transformation. Our buildings, facilities, programs, budgets, staff, technology, cutting edge strategies become our gods and lost in our drive for success is the one we serve, Jesus. 

The false god of recognition. Lets be honest. Most of us like recognition and some of us crave it. And ministry is a perfect platform for it because in addition to being somebody, we have the extra benefit of being able to say we do it for Jesus which is considered noble and self sacrificing. Actually, when recognition is our god, it is self aggrandizement and selfishness hiding behind the guise of ministry. The need for recognition from others rather than the smile of Jesus is a false god and one that is dangerously seductive. Whenever our ministry begins to feed our ego we are on dangerous ground.

The false god of power. This is a common false god of those in ministry leadership. It starts innocently enough perhaps - we need to lead. That leadership, however, brings with it power and the ability to control events and people. That power can become an instrument to fuel our false god of recognition and success and it is a great platform to exercise control over others. We can easily enough hide behind our mandate to lead and all the while feed a desire to exercise power over others. Ironically, the one we lead on the behalf of, Jesus, served those He led rather than controlling them. 

The false god of money. Ministry needs a certain amount of funding but that resource can easily become a god that drives us. When we start to pursue ministry funding more than we do Jesus, we substitute our resources for His power and provision. We become proud of our budgets and ability to raise funds and start to rely on our funding more than the One who is the ultimate source of all that we need. If only I had more funds we think, I could do more ministry when in reality if we had more of Jesus and His power we would see more true ministry fruit.

False gods are substitutes for Jesus whether we pursue them in the guise of ministry or in the secular arena. Those in ministry are no less susceptible to the lure of false gods than the rest of society. We simply have a different platform from which to pursue them. More importantly, however, since we do it under the guise of serving Jesus, they are perhaps even more devious and dangerous and harder for us to spot in our own lives. 

The issue of our deepest motivations is one that only we and Jesus can truly know but if we fool ourselves we are chasing something other than the Jesus we think we are serving. The only antidote is staying close to Jesus, constantly staying in tune with the motivations that drive us and surrounding ourselves with people who can speak truth into our lives. And, we need to be constantly aware that we are always in danger of pursuing false gods rather than Jesus. 

Insecure Leaders and their impact on others

One of the greatest gifts staff can receive is a secure leader. Unfortunately, in the ministry world there are a great number of insecure leaders. This results in behaviors that can seriously impact those who work for them.


Here are some of the signs of an insecure leader:
-Defensiveness when someone disagrees with them
-A need to be right
-A need to assert their "authority"
-Inability to empower others
-A need to control others
-A need to manage their reputation
-Inability to engage in candid dialogue
-Lack of personal transparency
-An unhealthy need to be liked
-A tendency to marginalize those who they perceive to be threats     to them
-Often threatened by those around them who are more competent than they are 
-An inability to chart a consistent course


All of these descriptors have a negative impact on those who work for insecure leaders. Ironically, insecurity is often hidden by an exaggerated sense of authority and leadership - a facade that hides an insecurity in both areas.


Personal security starts with being OK with who God made me to be - both my strengths and weaknesses. It results in an attitude that says, "I have nothing to prove and nothing to lose." If that is true, I don't have to pretend I am something I am not, I don't need to be right and I value the contributions of others as much as I do mine. It also means that I don't need to compete with others and don't compare myself with others. 


Security is rooted in an understanding that God fashioned me as He chose, is happy with how He made me. Insecurity is rooted in trying to prove to God and others that we have value. Thus insecurity is a theological issue in our lives. It comes out of an incomplete understanding of God and His view of us. Until we resolve this incomplete understanding we will suffer from the pain of insecurity and the need to prove ourselves to God and others. 


For those leaders who struggle from insecurity, and there are many, it is critical that they embark on a journey of personal growth. Most can overcome this deficit and lead from a healthier place. For those who do not, the implications for their leadership are many, and negative. Their behaviors create disempowerment and dishealth for their staff and those around them. If you work for an insecure leader you know exactly what I mean.

Five danger zones for leaders that contribute to leadership failure

I have spent a great deal of time lately mulling over the propensity of otherwise good leaders to crash and burn after years of effective leadership. we have examples in Scripture of leaders like King Saul and there are many contemporary examples. But what are the factors and symptoms that most often contribute to good leaders who get themselves into trouble?

One. We neglect our inner life for too long a period of time. This is usually not by design but the busyness of life (leaders are busy) and the demands that are either self imposed or other imposed (and not regulated) cause many leaders to run faster and faster until they are exhausted and the shallowness of a neglected inner life catches up. We can easily rationalize our busyness by thinking that what we are doing we are doing for God but He does not ask us to do anything at the expense of our inner spiritual lives.

Schedule, a fast pace of life fueled by the "importance" of what I am doing are deadly to healthy leaders. Because our outer life is simply a reflection of our inner lives, neglect of the former spells trouble for the latter. The antidote is actually to slow down and do less activity, more introspection and spend more time with God. He does not feed our ego as our activity and other people do but He feeds our tired and hungry hearts. 

Two. We start to believe our own press. People tell us we are good leaders and somewhere along the way we begin to believe that we are better people and leaders than we really are. Our humility erodes and our pride increases until we end up with a highly over inflated view of our leadership, self importance and value to the organization we lead. 

Belief in ourselves, our abilities, when they become over-inflated, cause us to make decisions without adequate input from others (we know the direction, we know the truth north) and even make over-calculations as to the impact of those decisions. After all we have a history of making good calls so this one must be a good one as well. 

The antidote is never to believe the press others give you but to cultivate a thorough and accurate self knowledge that is based on deeply understanding one's wiring, dark side, propensity to sin and the "real truth" about who we are. The more press we get, the more time we need to access who we truly are because the accolades from others are never a true picture of who we really are. It is only a public persona that others see. They see the good but we know the dark side. What we want to maintain is an accurate picture of who we are which is rarely the inflated picture others have of us as leaders. The loss of personal humility is deadly to any leader.

Three. We stop listening to the people who will tell us the truth and start listening to those who tell us what we want to hear. This is a very dangerous place to be. Those who tell us what we want to hear simply stroke our egos and opinions which only works to prove to ourselves what we want to think or hear. It is false knowledge that begins to skew our view of reality. When our view of reality becomes skewed, we see life through a faulty lens which blinds us to the dysfunction in our lives and causes us to make decisions that are based on skewed data. 

Once a leader gets to this stage, they are headed for trouble because they no longer listen to truth tellers, even those who have been truth tellers and counselors in the past. Because they trust their own judgments, they are able to discard those who don't agree with them and seek counsel from those who will agree with them. 

This is complicated by a fourth characteristic. Leaders at this stage often divide people into two camps, those who are for them and those who are against them. After all, with an inflated view of our own self importance and value, those who disagree with us must not understand how God is using us! And in getting in our way they are also getting in God's way. Often those who share opinions or counsel that the leader does not want to hear are marginalized and put into the enemy camp effectively preventing them from ever speaking into their lives again. I have had this happen to me on a number of occasions. 

This becomes a self fulling prophecy of leadership implosion unless it can be halted. The antidote is to surround ourselves with wise, Godly people who have permission to speak into our lives and whose counsel we will never disregard even when it is hard to hear.   The best counselors are those who have had a history of giving us wise counsel in the past, before we were in the place we are today. When leaders crash and burn and others look back they almost always see an individual who has isolated herself or himself, stopped listening to those they used to listen to and increasingly narrowed their list of friends or counselors. 

Fifth, leaders who crash and burn have usually isolated themselves from others. Often this is because they no longer feel they need to be accountable, or are running too fast to stay in relationship, or are unwilling to be transparent in their relationships out of a desire to control their image. This isolation also involves keeping others at arms length so that it is not easy to "reach" them. Often, the knowledge that my opinion may cause them to marginalize me will keep me from speaking up, and the strong personality of an isolated leader can keep me from pressing in.

Image control naturally leads to isolation since transparency is a prerequisite of close relationship and transparency gets in the way of image control. The need to control image is a sign of one who has become isolated and that isolation will eventually hurt them. God designed us for relationship and community and that community keeps us from going in directions that are unhealthy. Isolation removes the protection of deep friendships and community and sets us up for trouble.

All of us need others in our lives who will speak truth, hold us accountable, help us in our journey of faith and give wise counsel. When we cross a line where we are too important or too busy to cultivate those relationships we will find ourselves in dangerous waters. If you are a leader, pay attention to these five characteristics. We are all susceptible to them. They are very dangerous, each of them. In combination they are deadly.

Ask yourself these questions on a regular basis:
1. Am I too busy for my inner life?
2. Am I starting to believe my own press?
3. Have I marginalized people I listened to in the past?
4. Am I dividing people into camps: for me and against me?
5. Am I becoming isolated?

A failure of nerve

Leaders are periodically faced with issues or situations that they know in their gut ought to be addressed because they are threats to the success of the ministry. It is amazing how often, however, that they choose not to act on what they know, somehow hoping that the situation will right itself and continue on as if the threat did not exist.


It is simply a failure of nerve and it is a leadership failure.


Ministry and church boards are guilty and leaders at all levels are guilty of this when they know there is a threat to the organization but fail to address it. And it happens far more often than we would like to admit.


Boards and leaders have a great capacity to gloss over, ignore, put off, or explain away threats because they do not have the willingness and courage to name what is and figure out how to deal with it. In fact, most crises when they occur do so because there is a history of not dealing with an issue long before it damaged the ministry. The crisis is not really a surprise and was probably inevitable because the factors leading up to it were know but not dealt with along the way. Someone did not want to face hard facts.


Why do boards and leaders ignore issues that later on often become a crisis? They simply lack the nerve to address what they know to be true. This is true of the mission leader who knows that if they do not make radical shifts in philosophy they will go into decline. 


It is true of church boards that don't deal with pastors who leave large numbers of bodies in their wake. It is true of ministries that don't deal with financial issues. It is true of ministries that are in organizational drift. There are many scenarios but the common element is that someone in leadership is not willing to deal with a threat that they know to be real. 


A failure of nerve is a leadership failure that often leads to organizational crisis that could and should have been avoided. The sad thing is that in not addressing a known issue, the leader(s) have set the organization up for great pain that will impact many people and derail the ministry's success for a long period of time if not permanently. 


Most ministry crisis can be traced back to current or prior leaders who chose not to address a known issue. The result is that someone else must now deal with an even greater issue and the mission of the organization has been compromised. Their choice to ignore what they knew to be true was the true cause of the crisis that eventually occurred. 


It takes courage to lead. What we do about issues we know should be addressed as leaders or boards has significant long term ramifications. Our inaction will most likely cause harm to the ministry in the long term, hurt people in the process, and cause a larger problem in the future. A failure of nerve is simply a failure of courage to address what we know to be true. It is a leadership failure!


Those who ignore known issues are just as guilty for a crisis as those who caused them. Both are part of the cause. Sometimes they are one and the same.

Positional and personal authority

Authority is an interesting concept. There are really two kinds of authority: positional and personal. Positional authority is based on one's position and responsibility in the workplace. Personal authority is the standing I have with others because of my behavior, values, treatment of others and morality. 

What is interesting is that it is possible to have positional authority without personal authority. Here, someone above us has title and position but does not have credibility or respect in our eyes. They think they have authority but it is actually a weak authority because they lack the trust of those they lead.

This is true of leaders at all levels whose personal lives, treatment of others, competencies, attitudes, or behaviors are not worthy of respect. Those under them may cooperate because they must but it is not a cooperation or followership based on respect or trust. And a leader who does not earn the respect and trust of those they lead is a leader who cannot truly lead. 

It is precisely these leaders who often make it clear to those they lead that they have positional authority over them ("I am the boss"). This is a sign of a lack of personal authority, a result of their lack of personal influence. Because they lack personal influence they are forced to use the positional authority card. Interestingly, those who must lead from primarily positional authority usually see those they lead as serving them, rather than them serving those they lead. 

This raises the question of which kind of authority is the most powerful. Without a doubt it is personal authority where people listen, respect, follow and cooperate based on who we are rather than position or titles we have. It is a life that has authority based on its authenticity, care for others, moral fiber and consistency. There are many who have personal authority but not positional authority. Personal authority is all about the influence one has with others and it can be very powerful indeed. 

Through personal authority, anyone in any position in an organization can have significant influence. In fact, in many cases, people who are not in positions of positional authority have more influence than those who are.

Healthy leaders lead from personal authority first and positional authority second. They are truly servants of those they lead which gives them huge credibility. Their lives and commitments give them influence with others and the respect of others.

All of us can develop personal authority and influence regardless of the position we hold or the titles we have. In fact, in healthy organizations only those who have personal authority are put in roles of positional authority.

TJ Addington of Addington Consulting has a passion to help individuals and organizations maximize their impact and go to the next level of effectiveness in both the for profit and non profit sectors. He can be reached at tjaddington@gmail.com

The Five Dysfunctions of Ministry Organizations

1. Ambiguity. 

Lacking clarity around who we are, what we are about and how we are going to get there. Job one of leaders is to provide maximum clarity to those they lead. Job two of leaders is to ensure that there is alignment throughout the organization around that clarity and job three is to ensure that there are results based on that clarity. Lack of clarity (ambiguity) is at the heart of much ministry dysfunction since in the absence of clarity, people will fill the hole with their own individual clarity withe the end result of competing agendas.

2. Control

Permission withholding organizations (you cannot do it without my permission) are dysfunctional organizations. Healthy organizations have great clarity and empower people within certain parameters. In unhealthy organizations leaders or boards feel they must control what happens. Of course if you don't have clarity, you don't know what you can and cannot do without permission. So lack of clarity feeds the need to control and control feeds the next dysfunction of bureaucracy. 

3. Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy is control gone amuk where permission, assent or funding must be negotiated with multiple individuals or groups (committees, boards) in order to get something done. This is the way many churches operate. And staffs, where there are endless reports to be made, forms to be filled out, permission to be gotten or forgiveness to be asked for (when the prior requirements were not kept). Bureaucracy is a means to control when one has not clearly defined the boundaries for a permission granting structure, or when a leader or group of leaders (boards) feel they need to control through creating multiple toll booths.  Bureaucracy is not to be confused with structure which every ministry needs. Bureaucracy is control gone amuk where order is kept by creating many checks on what can or cannot be done in a permission withholding culture.

4. Mistrust

It should come as no surprise that mistrust is the result of the first three dysfunctions. In fact, the need to control and put in place bureaucracies has at its core a mistrust of staff to make their own wise decisions (based on clarity and boundaries). Lack of clarity creates mistrust because the end result becomes competing agendas. Control breeds mistrust because it is obnoxious. Bureaucracy breeds mistrust because it is onerous. Dysfunctional organizations have a great deal of mistrust - the very system creates mistrust. Permission withholding cultures create mistrust. And, lack of trust, destroys healthy team dynamics. 

5. Professional Ministry

Professional ministry is the result of a failure to develop, empower and release others in ministry. Rather than hiring staff to develop others, we hire staff to do ministry for others. It is the subtle or not too subtle message that God has an A team and a B team, those called into full time ministry and the rest who are not. Qualifications for real ministry reside in theological education (never confuse education with ability). The dysfunction of  professional ministry is largely the reason that the church has so little influence in the community at large. 

If your team or organization suffers from any of these five, or all of  these five, two of my books, Leading From the Sandbox and High Impact Church Boards will help you escape from the dysfunction trap.

When the bodies pile up

I am not one who normally gets excited when people leave a church or a ministry when change comes. The truth is that when change comes, some folks (good folks) decide that they don't want to stay on the same bus anymore. I am OK with that. I write about this in my book High Impact Church Boards. I understand the dynamics of change. There are clearly times when people need to leave a church or ministry in order for that ministry to move forward.  The issue is not whether people will leave but which people will leave! 


And, when leaders together chart a new course for the church, there will be those who leave and others who come. This is normal and to be expected.


However, when the pile of bodies reaches a critical mass behind a leader there need to be questions asked. People who have found reason to move on, people who have been marginalized and choose to leave, people who have been hurt and decide to quietly disappear to other churches or ministries! At some point when the body count becomes high enough, wise individuals ask questions! Especially when the common factor becomes the leader himself! Is the fallout from needed change or is the fallout from a toxic leader? This is a critical distinction because change will often bring fallout (sometimes necessary fallout for the church to move forward).


There are toxic leaders who hurt people. Boards who allow those leaders to hurt others at some point become accountable for their choice to not hold senior leaders accountable. The church is by definition a place of grace, healing, compassion, and mercy. When leaders in the church allow it to turn into a place of hurt and alienation the purpose of the church has been compromised. 


Most folks alienated by a church leader will not make a scene. They quietly leave. Sometimes they leave because they no longer fit and need something different. But, when the list accumulates and leaders do not pay attention, ask questions or seek to determine why folks are leaving, they do a disservice to their responsibility as leaders. They may agree that it is not an important issue, but at least they know what the issues are. Too often they are simply negligent in even trying to know. Or, negligent in doing anything about it.


I am saddened by people who have been hurt by church and ministry leaders. I am more saddened by leaders who do not hold their own leader's accountable for their actions that hurt others. 

Angry leaders

Consider this scenario. A ministry leader walks up to one of his staffers in a group of individuals, points his finger at his chest and says,  "I am in charge here and don't ever tell (name withheld) what they can or cannot do." 


What has just happened? The leader has used his anger as a means of power, control and intimidation and done so in a public manner. Whether or not he had reason to confront the other staff member is not the issue. The way he did it was wrong.


There are a segment of leaders in ministry and business who lead out of anger. Those who work for them know that if they cross them, they will face the wrath of the leader. It may be in the form of a threat (I could fire you), in the form of an angry response (Don't ever cross me again), in the form of marginalization (those who are not for me are against me), or in the form of embarrassment (like the example above where there is a public rebuke). Raised voices, high emotion, inability to dialogue, pronouncements of what you will or will not do, clear anger and implied threats are all part of leading by anger. There are many other examples but the key principle is that the leader is using anger as a means of holding power over others, controlling others or intimidating others.


Often times staff members are not immediately aware that their leader is using anger to control them. What they feel is an uneasiness with the leadership style they are experiencing. Here are some of the warning signs that their leader is leading out of anger.


Staff feel like they are walking on eggshells around their leader. Fear of a leader's response is a clear indicator of leading by fear. Staff members are careful about what they say, how they say it and often simply keep silent because they don't want to be the subject of the leader's wrath. Often in these situations staff do not know which of their leader's personalities will show up on any given day.


A leader often lets staff know who is "in charge." Those who lead from anger often use their leadership "authority" to control and manipulate their staff. Subtle or not so subtle reminders of their authority communicates to the staff that they better "toe the line" of whatever the leader desires or become the subject of their anger. 


Anger surfaces when one tries to discuss with the leader behaviors that are unhealthy or issues that the leader feels strongly about. It is not uncommon for staff members to try to talk with leaders who lead out of anger about behaviors that hurt them or the team. What they typically get is a predictable angry response along with a reminder of who is in charge or, defensiveness tinged with irritation. If this becomes a pattern, you know you have a very unhealthy leader on your hands.


A leader divides people into two categories: those who are for them (friends) and those who are against them (enemies). Those who lead from anger, by nature see people as either for them or against them. By definition, those who are for them agree with them and don't cross them while those who disagree with them and cross them are moved to the "enemy" camp. Thus angry leaders build two camps: friends and enemies and you are in one or the other and there is no in between. Often, a staff member who starts out as a friend ends up as an enemy when they find their voice and start to stand up to their leader.


There is a bully factor to the leader. Angry leaders need to have their own way and will use whatever tactics they need to in order to achieve it. It can be a tactic of power (I can fire you) or a tactic of manipulation (I should just resign) or something else but it is manipulation to achieve their ends. Sometimes it is ingratiating (I am so glad I can trust you unlike the others) or the opposite (I am starting to question your effectiveness and loyalty). Whatever the tactic, staff members leave their interactions with a vague feeling that they have been used, manipulated or bullied into line.


Angry leaders are are very hard to please. Angry leaders are often driven leaders whose primary concern is how they look, how their ministry succeeds and when  their expectations are not met you know it! Because life and ministry is about them, anyone who does not contribute to their success by their definition is marginalized, criticized or even discarded. Whenever there is high staff turnover one needs to turn over the rocks and look underneath to determine why. When there is a history of staff leaving or being terminated it is a clue that not all is right. 


Angry leaders lack humility and often display arrogance. Angry leaders are rarely collegial but believe that they have the answers. They often make strong statements about people (often unkind) and situations. Because they are not open to feedback and dialogue when it does not agree with their conclusions it is difficult if not impossible to change their minds. Anger and arrogance are twins.


Here is what one needs to know about leaders who lead from anger. They are deeply unhealthy individuals who create a toxic environment for staff and therefore for the church or organization they lead. Their anger stems from deep and unresolved personal issues and at their core they are deeply insecure people who get their security from their ability to control others. It is a no win situation for staff because they will not change the equation by confronting the behaviors - in fact confrontation brings out the worst. And, the lack of emotional health in the leader will infect the rest of the organization.


The obvious question is what does one do? If you are a board member who sees these kinds of behaviors you have a responsibility to ensure that your leader gets help. Your responsibility is to ensure health in the organization and this is a major sign of dishealth. Even though boards like to give their senior leader the benefit of the doubt, unacceptable behaviors must be dealt with.  If you are a staff member caught in this situation and see no hope of change, I would leave before the dishealth of the leader creates discouragement and cynicism in you that compromises your future ministry. If those who have the authority to act (boards) do not, take charge of your own life before you are hurt and compromised.


I am always puzzled why boards, who often know of deep issues in a senior leader do not confront them, require them to get help and if the behaviors continue fire them. We allow behaviors in the church and in Christian organizations that even the secular world would consider unacceptable and beyond the pale. There are toxic workplaces that exist right under the noses of boards who either are clueless or choose to ignore it. In the process they hurt staff, ministry effectiveness and the constituency they serve. 

Who threatens us and who are we envious of?

Two interesting questions to ponder. Who are we threatened by and who are we envious of? The answers to both reveal a great deal about us, our hearts and our insecurities.


Usually we are threatened by someone who we perceive to have more influence and power than we do. Thus the pastor who resents a strong layman in the congregation who others look up to. Or a former leader in a church whose influence has waned and is threatened by other strong leaders who have emerged. Those in the secular workplace know all too well the subtle power struggles that take place as people jockey for influence and power - against others who are a threat to their influence and power. Even the closest disciples of Jesus were not immune to these petty jealousies.


Another way of framing the question is "Who am I envious of?" Usually we are envious of those who see more "success" than we do, by whatever measure we are using, and those who have more perceived favor and status in the eyes of others.


Those who we are threatened by or envious of are important to us. Not because of who they are but because of what they reveal about the state of our hearts, motivations and drive. In short, they reveal deficiencies in our hearts and psyche! They reveal an incompleteness in us that must be made up for by competing with others and often hurting others in order to build ourselves up. For the only way to trump those who threaten us or we are envious of is to outdo them - to demean them in order to elevate us!


And here is the heart of the matter. This is all about us! It is not about our calling or humbly serving where God has us. It is about pride and personal elevation which inevitably means someone else suffers at our expense. The Apostle Paul never played this game and he never competed with those who competed with him. In fact, he ignored those who he called "super apostles" who were jockeying for power and influence and he simply stayed the course of the ministry God had called him to which was harder, more costly with fewer accolades of others but played to an audience of One. He knew that at the end of the day, it was God's evaluation of his life that counted, not the evaluation of others.


Pay attention to those you are threatened by or envious of. The message is not about them but about us!