What do I do now? (Thesis Summary)
Leadership decision-making when a complaint of emotional harm is made against a team member the leader oversees.
The following is a summary of my research exploring the obstacles, motivations, supports and gaps leaders encounter when making decisions around complaints of emotional harm.
Click here to read my full thesis.
You might be coming to this blog with any of the following experiences:
You may have experienced emotional harm in a church/christian context and haven’t had the words to explain or understand your experience. I hope that these words make you feel less alone and make you feel seen.
You may be a leader or decision-maker that has faced the incredibly difficult predicament of responding to a complaint of emotional harm. I hope you feel the empathy, and possibly some support as you navigate the challenges in front of you (or as you reflect on what is behind you).
You may have walked with someone who has experienced this level of harm, but could never understand why it was so painful for them. Maybe this article can give words to their experience or spark further conversation with them.
And if you haven’t experienced harm from a faith community, then praise Jesus. If you’re a curious observer looking in, welcome. We’re all here to learn together.
My hope is that amidst the rubble you find the hope. My brain knows the hope found in Jesus, but sometimes my heart needs time to catch up. While it might feel discouraging to read some of these things, I have found the greatest hope when sharing truth. Jesus is continuously exposing the darkness through His light (John 3:18-21). As an image bearer of Christ, I hope to do the same, even if its uncomfortable.
Let’s Begin
I have spent the last two years (January 2021-January 2023) exploring the question of how leaders make decisions when a complaint of emotional harm is brought to them about someone they oversee. While this research is fairly recent, the question was motivated many years earlier from personal experiences, as well as patterns I was seeing play out in the greater church. The problem being that far too often, people in positions of authority and influence misuse their power in ways that can cause emotional harm. I felt that this was troubling, one, because of the harm that this caused individuals, two, because of the negative impact this has on the witness of the church, and three, because churches are meant to be communities marked by safety, sanctuary and healing, not responsible for perpetuating harm (not to mention how costly this harm can be to institutions).
The following provides a quick scan and summary of the findings of my research. If you would like to read or reference my research in its entirety, you may do so here.
Patterns of Behaviour
Identifying the problem is not that simple, in fact, it’s quite complicated in the ways that it can be subtle, nuanced, while also presenting in overtly abusive ways. The challenge in diagnosing the behaviour that causes harm is a large part of the challenges that come with decision-making in response to a complaint of emotional harm. Common patterns of behaviour exhibited by these individuals in positions of power and influence could include any number of the following: manipulation, coercion, angry outbursts, arbitrary decision-making, overemphasizing their authority, gaslighting, making sarcastic remarks, erratic responses, among others. To diagnose the problem, one must recognize that the experience of harm comes from the patterns of these behaviours over a period of time. This is where many complaints are dismissed when observed through isolated events or seen as overreactions.
What are your options?
So what can be done? You may try and confront the individual. This will only be successful to the extent that the individual is willing to humbly receive correction or critical feedback (see the wise, the fool, the evil). If that is unsuccessful and the individual is unwilling to take ownership, apologize and express remorse and empathy for the impact of their behaviours on others, then the next option is to reach out to the leader who oversees this individual.
Point of Leverage
To change the patterns of harm being caused by the team member in question, the greatest point of leverage is with the leader who has authority over the team member, the leader most likely receiving the complaints. When this leader receives the complaint they suddenly inherit the responsibility to respond to something they most likely have no specific training to deal with. They are left asking, “What do I do now?”
Why is this decision-making so challenging?
The majority of leaders who receive a complaint of this nature are overwhelmed around how to proceed. They are tasked with understanding a problem that is overwhelmingly complex, they may experience their own sense of threat, there are always competing priorities to attend to, not to mention the myriad of dilemmas that arise from processing this concern in a church/christian context. I will address each of these in the following:
Complexity of the problem
Church leaders are tasked with making decisions when a complaint of emotional harm is made, but how they respond is challenged when the problem is not clear to the church leader, it is not clear to the team member (in question), and additionally, the problem is not so easily articulated by the complainant experiencing the harm.
Many who witness or experience these patterned harmful behaviours themselves have trouble articulating exactly what is wrong (Mullen, 2020). The psychologically damaging behaviours in some cases are subtle but powerful, in other cases are overtly abusive but dismissed as a one-time episode. They include lying, manipulation, gaslighting, isolation, angry outbursts, sarcastic “jokes,” ignoring people, invasion of personal space, threats or intimidation, uninvited physical contact, emphasizing authority and status, rigidity and inflexibility, arbitrary decision-making, and placing blame (Ashforth, 1994; Mullen, 2020; Sutton, 2007).
In addition to the challenge of identifying the behaviour, in many cases the team member in question is not overtly malicious. Leaders making decisions find it very challenging to carry out disciplinary actions on a team member who did not intend to cause harm (Intent vs Impact article forthcoming).
Perception of threat
Not only does the complexity of the problem present a challenge in diagnosis, additionally, there are physiological, psychological and social influences that inhibit decision-making when a complaint of emotional harm is brought to a leader.
Terrible thinkers under threat
The leader’s physiological reaction to the stress of receiving a complaint about a team member may compromise their capacity to respond non-defensively in the moment to the complainant’s concerns. When our brains detect a threat, they release a stress response that provides the energy we need to survive (M. Price, 2019). We are grateful for this automatic response when our survival depends on it, but in the face of perceived or real social threats this response hinders clear thinking as our prefrontal cortex is blocked (M. Price, 2019). Responsible for higher-order thinking, the blockage of information to our prefrontal cortex disrupts our ability for critical thinking, seeking new information, problem solving and effective decision-making (M. Price, 2019). In this inhibited state, these ‘survival’ responses display as a fight, flight, freeze or fawn response, which the Insight approach categorizes as conflict behaviours (Insight article forthcoming). A church leader’s decision-making capacity can be significantly constrained if a complaint of emotional harm fosters a sense of threat in their own performance, triggering conflict behaviours that limit response and exacerbate the issue.
Willful Blindness
Compounding a leader’s physiological response to the threat of a complaint regarding a team member is the psychological and social dilemma of “willful blindness” among leaders. Heffernan (2011) defines “willful blindness” as a response to information that you could know and should know, but somehow you manage not to know, which leaves you willfully blind. This tendency for individuals to blind themselves to unwelcome truths is a reality that can threaten any institution, family, culture, or church community. Mullen (2020) argues that this kind of response among church leaders is particularly problematic, because a church leader has assumed a position of authority in the lives of others. He therefore contends that church leaders must be properly equipped and prepared to exercise authority within abusive situations (Mullen, 2020).
Competing priorities
If a leader manages to diffuse their own sense of threat, and can engage with the complaint consciensciously, they are still challenged with a myriad of competing priorities. While a complaint is raised, the needs of the ministry do not dissipate. Within the complaint itself, the role of a leader making a decision is accountable to the outcomes related to the organization, the accountability of the team member, the care for the complainant, the holder of the process, and the future patterns of interaction. Meanwhile, additional responsibilities of the leader include, but are not limited to, staff accountability, building operations, budget, preaching/teaching, and sustaining the mission and vision. Decision-making around a complaint of emotional harm is challenging enough without the ongoing relentless demands of the ministry competing for attention.
Church Context
The difficulty of decision-making around a complaint of emotional harm is compounded when it takes place within a church context. While the relational emphasis in church communities is most often an attractive feature, in cases of decision-making it can present a challenge in holding individuals accountable. Additionally, a complaint of emotional harm raised, and the subsequent decisions made, can have significant impacts on the wider community of congregation members, staff and, especially, those who are implicated in the complaint. Another aspect within a church context is the tendency to rely “in-house” for answers that should turn leaders to experts or external resources. When a complaint is raised, many church leaders proceed to treat this as a “conflict.” Where their predetermined response is to employ Matthew 18 principles, which is not only inappropriate for the nature of the complaint, but fails to accurately apply Scripture to this context (Matthew 18 article forthcoming). A complaint should signal an investigation into the issue before seeking reconciliation processes. A church context can also have the tendency to “prevent gossip” which stifles the issues (Gossip article forthcoming) and churches have limited women in these roles of decision-making which influences the interpretation and processing of complaints of emotional harm. (Comprehensive description in full thesis).
What do I do now?
The above evidence makes it very clear that decision-making in response to a complaint of emotional harm is incredibly complex. So what is a leader to do? The first thing to note, is that there is no easy formula to process a complaint of emotional harm. Every context, situation, individual is different and each with a level of nuance and complexity that should make us pause and suspend our certainty. The hope is that a leader can engage curiously, to end the cycle of harm. Before a leader can engage, they must first attend to themselves.
“There is no easy formula to process a complaint of emotional harm.”
Diffuse the sense of threat
In receiving a complaint, a leader may experience their own sense of threat from the complaint. The leader may feel a threat to her sense of self in the performance of her role; he may be concerned about how he has demonstrated his leadership in a way that has allowed for harm to take place. Practically, a leader may wonder about how this complaint will conflict with his ongoing demanding tasks and responsibilities. A leader may experience a complaint to be signalling a relational threat, where she believes that a complainant coming forward is violating the expected norms to maintain harmony and to not detract from the mission of the church. Before a leader can take take action, he or she would be wise to notice the conflict behaviours in themselves. Asking themselves, “Has this complaint triggered a sense of threat to something important to me?” By noticing in themselves first, this will engage their conscious brain and help to dissipate the sense of threat so that the leader does not reactively respond, clouded with cognitive deficiencies (Cognitive Deficiencies article forthcoming).
Engage curiously
Once the personal sense of threat is diffused, a leader can begin to engage curiously. This depends on the situation, but some of the following questions might help a leader to think expansively:
What process am I to engage to begin working through the complaint?
What do I still need to understand before I can make decisions?
What is at stake for the complainant? The team-member in question? What is at stake for the church or organization?
How might I gain a better perspective of what the complainant has experienced?
What outside support might I need to reach out to?
What assumptions have I made? Are these true? How could I confirm or disconfirm these?
How can I use Scripture to guide my decisions? What is the original intention of this text? How does this Scripture apply to this current scenario?
How can I ensure the complainant has support in this process?
What boundaries need to be put in place in the midst of this process?
How can I empower the complainant in this process?
What supports are available to me as I make decisions?
The Tension
While these considerations seem to provide a way forward, processing a complaint and actually making decisions in the midst of a complaint of emotional harm is much more complex. The tension lies in the reality that the “solution” to the problem requires extensive work, long term investments and a curious posture from leaders. In the midst of this uncertainty and nuance, leaders most often crave certainty, control and “handles” that can guide them and protect them against the critiques and the possible shame that may be associated with not knowing what to do. What I hope to present to leaders is the need to intentionally disrupt their sense of certainty, to encourage a posture of humility, a commitment to be faithful to what God has called them to, and a curious attentiveness to the Holy Spirit.
In no way am I able to offer quick and easy solutions, because this is not quick and easy work. The work of decision-making when a complaint of emotional harm is made, is long, arduous, emotional, life-transforming work. I pray that leaders commit themselves to this worthy call and steward the responsibility they have been given well.
This post offers a summary of the findings of my research and provides a quick overview. If you would like to read or reference my research in its entirety, you may do so here.
Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47(7), 755-778. https://ezproxy.royalroads.ca/login?url=https://search-proquest- com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/docview/231461665?accountid=8056
Heffernan, M. (2011). Willful blindness: Why we ignore the obvious at our peril. Doubleday
Canada.
Mullen, W. (2020). Something's not right: Decoding the tactics of abuse and freeing yourself from its power. Tyndale Momentum.
Price, M. (2020). The practical value of linking the personal and the social in efforts to change complex social conflict. Theoforum, 50, (pp. 283-300). doi: 00.0000/TF.50.2.0000000
Sutton, R.I. (2007). The no asshole rule: Building a civilized workplace and surviving one that isn't. Grand Central Publishing. Ebook.