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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Six common misconceptions about Teamwork - From the Harvard Business Review

Six Common Misperceptions about Teamwork

Letter of apology to two staff members who where unfairly let go from a group of present and former elders. Worth reading

I was fascinated by a letter of apology from current and former elders at Mars Hill Church to two members of their staff who were put on trial some years ago, found guilty without due process and publicly humiliated them by their communication to the entire church which included "rejection and disassociation" from the church and members of the church. Now, members of the board at that time and new members are calling their actions sinful and asking the forgiveness of these two former staff members. As I read their letter it raised some issues for me.

First, when you shut down legitimate discussion in an organization and take dissenting viewpoints as "sinful" or "disloyal" or "causing division" and shut those voices down with threats, intimidation or termination we create a toxic workplace where candid dialogue is not allowed. Ironically, the issues that these two men were raising, were the very issues that allowed the church to get into trouble and eventually led to the downfall of the church.

As the elders wrote to them, "you each had every right as an elder to openly express your strong concerns about the bylaws and to influence our thinking so that we might have made the most informed decision possible. You also had good reason to contact the church’s attorney about those bylaws. These were not sinful acts of mistrust on your part, but reasonable acts of due diligence. We needed to learn from you at that time and we should have trusted you and respected your spiritual authority as elders of the church to educate us about potential problems with those bylaws. Instead, we silenced your voices through our complicity in your terminations and our decisions to remove Paul as an elder and keep Bent on probation instead of examining the issues more closely."

Any leader that tries to shut down discussion by intimidation is a toxic leader and it is their toxicity that needs to be addressed rather than legitimate discussion over legitimate issues. In our organization we allow "Robust Discussion" on any issue with the exception of personal attacks or hidden agendas. If your organization practices any kind of intimidation for candid discussion, take heed. Often it is the senior leader who leads the charge because they are threatened by voices that disagree with them.

Second, there are thousands of church leaders who owe an apology to staff members that they have treated unfairly, badly and without due process. I was saddened by friends of ours who were fired from their pastoral position without any due process or even conversation around the reasons for the decision. I suspect the senior leader was threatened and led the charge. He had stated he did not want them there. Then when the same was done to him by the elders he wined about what had happened to him. They had simply done to him what he had done to others.

There are many deeply wounded staff who have been unfairly treated by their senior leader and boards have allowed it to happen. If you are guilty of this, please don't ignore the pain you caused, the lack of due diligence you allowed or the actions you were a party to. Make things right. Jesus will one day hold us accountable for how we have treated those entrusted to us. One friend who read this letter from Mars Hill wept because of the pain they had experienced and wished someone would reach out and make it right. Sadly it probably will not happen.

Take a few moments and read this letter of apology 

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

God's meta story and a tale of two kingdoms

Fundamental to understanding the meta story of God is to recognize that with the fall and God’s redemptive story there are now two kingdoms at play on our planet. There is the kingdom of evil and the Kingdom of God and the two are at war with one another.

Consider the names given to Satan and his minions: “rulers, authorities, powers of this dark world, the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 6:12). Satan is the prince of one Kingdom. Jesus, however is the king of another kingdom and He defeated Satan on the cross once and for all, even though Satan continues to fight a rearguard war until Jesus returns to rule over all things. But make no mistake, he is defeated but not yet silenced.

Peter puts this in perspective for us when he writes that we are “strangers in the world” (1 Peter 1), and “aliens” (1 Peter 2:11). We were born into this world, but through our “new birth” (1 Peter 1:3) we are now “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, people belonging to God” (1 Peter 2:9) who once lived in “darkness” (the kingdom of this world) but now live in “his wonderful light” the kingdom of God (1 Peter 2:10). We were born into one world – that ruled by Satan but are now citizens of a different world, that ruled by Jesus.

When Peter uses the word “darkness” to describe the world ruled by Satan and “his wonderful light” to describe the Kingdom of God he is contrasting the utter darkness of Satan and his rule and the magnificent righteousness of Jesus and His rule. As God’s people we live in the light but remain physically in a broken world.

Here, of course is the challenge. Jesus did not take us out of this world when He rescued us. This was intentional. As Jesus said in John 17:15-18, “My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world.” 

We were born into one world – that ruled by Satan but are now citizens of a different world, that ruled by Jesus, who has sent us back into the world with His message of hope, redemption and mercy. We are now called to join Jesus in the re-imaging of hearts gone bad and a world gone bad.

I am a third culture kid (TCK). I grew up on Hong Kong until I was 15 and then came back to the United States. I grew up in a culture that was not my home culture and then came back to my home culture which was not the one in which I grew up. I feel most at home in Asia but my home is not there. I live in the United States but it is not my heart culture. Thus the designation, a third culture kid. At 58 I still live with the ambiguities of growing up in a culture not my own and coming back to one not my own. I am torn between the two and like many others who grew up in a country not their own, I have to negotiate the two dissimilar cultures.

This is a picture of our own lives as we negotiate the culture in which we were born (the kingdom of darkness) and the culture into which we have been adopted (the kingdom of Jesus) and must negotiate the two until the day in which we see Christ face to face. It is not easy negotiating the two and yet this is one of the things Jesus showed us how to do in the incarnation. He demonstrated what it looked like to follow the Father while living in the Evil One’s world and in doing so how to be salt and light in that darkness. Jesus engaged the world as He shared the Good News of the Kingdom but he lived by the values of His Father rather than by the rules of a fallen world. He engaged with people but not with the mores of the world.

When Peter wrote his letter to Christians who had been scattered by persecution and called them “strangers in the world,” (1 Peter 1:1), he was acknowledging the difficulties of living as God’s people in a fallen world. He was also acknowledging the clash of the kingdom of evil and the kingdom of light and challenges of negotiating these two very different kingdoms. 

Some Christians over the ages have chosen to withdraw from the world and to see the world as evil. Jesus on the other hand showed us what it is like to engage the world and to see people as His image bearers however tarnished and what it means to join Him in ReImaging images gone bad. Jesus is not in the business of hiding but in the work of engaging and restoring.

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

Cracks in the atheist edifice in China - a very encouraging update from the Economist Magazine

Economist article on Christianity in China

A short article that every married man ought to read: It is profound

This article from Gary Thomas's blog is a must read for all married men. One simple thought that can change your relationship with your wife forever.

Father-in-Law

Ministries are either built to last or built to fail - think about Mars Hill

It was fascinating but not surprising news this week that one of the famous ministries of our day is dissolving with the resignation of its founder, Mark Driscoll. Come New Year's day, 2015 the Mars Hill Church of Seattle will cease to exist although some of their satellite locations may choose to become independent churches.

There are some lessons to be learned from this. The first is that it is always perilous to build a ministry around one individual rather than a team that is in Jim Collin's terms "Built to Last." Any ministry dependent on one individual faces a crisis if that individual dies or leaves. Such ministries often revolve around a single leader because that leader is fundamentally unwilling to delegate responsibility and authority to others. In my view, no local church should be organized this way and when it is it often reflects a narcissistic leader who needs to control. Clearly there was not a healthy culture at Mars Hill which almost always reflects the DNA of its leader.

Well built ministries have leadership teams not a single leader and they are designed to function well even if the senior leader for some reason leaves that ministry. That structure reflects a greater concern for the mission and the ministry while structures built around an individual reflect a greater concern for the wishes and control of that individual. The first is reflective of a kingdom mindset and the second of a egotistical mindset (with a few exceptions). All ministries built around one individual are fragile entities!

My second observation is that Mars Hill lacked what every good church should have and that is local leadership that is empowered to hold its senior leader accountable and to rein in problematic behavior. Certainly in a church that size there are many highly qualified leaders, yet in the main the board of overseers was from the outside with neither the ongoing context or the ability to shepherd the pastor, let alone ensure that the church was healthy. 

For current leaders to make the decision they have made indicates clearly that they had few good options which is a reflection of the damage Mark did in the past several years, the lack of a structure that was built to last and of a strong leadership team that should have been able to weather the storm. And in case you think this is piling it on, think of the hundreds of staff and thousands of congregants for whom the church was their livelihood or place of worship and you start to understand the enormity of the corporate pain that must be present this week at the news that your church will disappear in two months. Not because there was a planned transition but because the leadership of the organization was so poor there were no good options left.

I also hope, thirdly that all of us in ministry take heed of the lessons of this sorry tale. Our character as leaders counts. Our words, attitudes, decisions and treatment of people matter a lot. I am amazed at how many people responded to Mark's behavior as OK (after all we are all human). Yet the Scriptures are clear that those in Christian leadership bear a far higher level of responsibility for their behaviors and character than others. It is one thing to have a bad day - we all have them. It is another to have a pattern of behaviors that violate Scriptural guidelines and not be called on it. To give Mark a pass because he built a large organization misses the point that success (defined by the world's definition) is never an excuse for not living up to the calling we have in Christian leadership. 

Taken together, the decision this week goes to a failure of leadership by Mark and leaders, a failure to build a healthy organization and a willingness to overlook important issues because people came in large numbers and gave generously. The speed at which it came apart in the end is indicative of deep fissures and a poor foundation. 

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