When Leaders Disappoint and Why I Remain Hopeful
As a young leader, I had naive assumptions that every person in a position of authority would know what to do when a problem was presented to them. It’s a nice concept, is it not? To believe that those "in charge" will readily provide solutions when inevitable issues surface. As you can guess, this theory has been tested and sorely disproved. In any leadership role, there can be individuals tasked with making decisions for which they lack unique qualifications to address.
Now, this does not have to be a disparaging thought, in fact, this is quite normal that leaders encounter a challenging scenario. The disappointment occurs when leaders move into unchartered territory with certainty and a reliance on their assumptions. I believe this phenomenon is more common than one would assume; that a concern being raised is challenging enough that a leader making decisions struggles to know what to do. A challenge that I simultaneously researched and experienced firsthand.
In my research, I interviewed church leaders across Canada about their experiences of decision-making around a complaint of emotional harm. Specifically, when someone within a church setting experiences emotional harm, and then brings the concern forward to a church leader who oversees the individual in question. This type of reported harm is an area of “uncharted territory” for most leaders. Understanding the issue requires a curiosity that many leaders find uncomfortable, as they must bridge the divide between their existing paradigm for an individual and the dissonant accounts alleging harm.
When someone raises a concern about emotional harm, leaders often struggle to understand the intangible nature of the concern, as it cannot be easily measured, observed, or evidenced. The behaviours are typically patterned, and can be subtle, or outright aggressive. Leaders can often note that the actions of someone they oversee are unfavourable, but rarely can they comprehend the emotional impact that occurs from persistent, detrimental actions from a source in power over them. Individual encounters that are “off-putting,” or “aggressive” rarely warrant intervention from a leader, but when experiences are described as “manipulative,” or “abusive,” they can be minimized as extreme classifications. So how can a concern accurately reach the definitional threshold to prompt action?
Unable to grasp the depths of the concern and mystified by what to do, leaders can criticize the process in which the complaint was raised (“follow Matthew 18 and confront the individual”), leaders can altogether ignore the reported behaviours (willfully blinding themselves to the unwelcome truths), or deny the individual’s perception of reality (effectively gaslighting the person who has raised the concern). These disappointing responses are far too common when leaders act with certainty, rather than a curiosity to understand more.
From Disappointment to Disillusionment
My own naivety gave way to disillusionment as I grew more and more misunderstood through one leader’s response of certainty. I expressed concerns to a leader about recurring patterns of emotionally harmful behaviour from someone in a position of authority over me, which had considerable impact on me. At first, I received empathy and concern, and the leader affirmed my decision to bring the issues to light. But this sense of hope proved premature. The initial relief quickly dissipated when the leader struggled to handle the complexity of the situation. Rather than holding the responsible party accountable, I was unjustly cast as the problem in their lazy effort to diffuse the issues. Ironically, this occurred while I was working on my initial thesis draft exploring the very issue of leadership decision-making around complaints of emotional harm. This left me feeling bewildered but also fuelled my motivation to comprehend the complexity and to offer greater support to leaders tasked with responding to such situations.
For those who have not experienced this phenomenon (of decision-making around a complaint), I believe it’s important to note that raising concerns of unfavourable behaviour is not in and of itself such a notable experience. I believe that in healthy workplaces or church environments there should be a consistent cycle of: experience, accountability and feedback, reflection, and change. What sets an experience of reporting harm apart from others is how the person being held accountable responds. Being receptive to feedback is critical for any leadership position, and many, when confronted, are remorseful and take it as an opportunity to grow.
But my experience deviated. The response of denial from the confronted led to the reversal of the accusations. No longer were we discussing their harmful behaviours, instead, we were discussing how I was acting “upset” and that I may want to consider a different workplace.
My once hopeful posture towards repentance, reconciliation, and redemption, gave way to disappointment and disillusionment. While this disappointing response took its toll on me, it was through my research and the grace of God that I have found depths of empathy and forgiveness for those navigating these complaints.
From Disillusionment to Empathy
My early disillusionment around the capacity of leaders to make challenging decisions has expanded to a greater posture of empathy for the exhaustive processes and relational pressures leaders may experience in responding to complaints. As my understanding of the complexities grew, so did my ability to suspend judgment and hold empathy.
Through my research interviews, I was grateful to have shared space with real leaders, navigating real decisions, that would impact real lives. With this increased understanding my contracted assumptions of leaders lessened. Although, while I empathized with leaders, I still believed that there was a gap in navigating the complexity that comes from complaints of this nature. A gap I knew all too well. Which left me wondering, what are leaders supposed to do when they encounter these reports of harm? How could leaders be better supported?
From Empathy to Motivation
My motivation to support leaders through these complex decisions had been sparked. When faced with a complaint of harm beyond their personal understanding, a leader needs curiosity to bridge the gap. Unfortunately, many approach it with a certainty that’s limited to their own experiences. Leading in uncertainty demands humility. One must admit, "I don't know," seeing the unknown as a chance to explore and carefully discern the way forward and not as a shortcoming of their leadership capabilities.
Recognizing a crucial need, I observed that aiding leaders in exploring their own interiority concerning a complaint was essential. When operating from a perceived threat, leaders tend to adopt a defensive posture, limiting cognitive performance and relying on certainty. In this contracted state, problem-solving, receiving new information, and expressing empathy become challenging. The threats a leader perceives can vary—from a personal challenge to their identity in that context, to practical threats in daily operations, or disruptions to the perceived relational "peace" or "harmony."
A “method of discovery” involves investigating this perceived threat with curiosity. Leaders can reflect personally, asking, "Has this complaint triggered a sense of threat? What is at stake for me here?" Noticing, self-verification, and fostering curiosity can alleviate the perceived threat, enabling leaders to navigate with greater openness to complexity and uncertainty.
With the personal threat diffused, leaders can embark on a curious engagement, transitioning from "judging the validity of the complaint" to "exploring the intra-personal, interpersonal, and systemic dynamics" that led to the complaint.
To discern a process, leaders could reflect on any of the following questions:
What is taking place surrounding this complaint? How does the complainant understand the patterned behaviours of the team member?
What supports might the complainant, as the less powerful person, need in the process forward? What supports might the team member, as the more powerful person, need?
How do I balance all the different roles I am called to perform (pastoral, financial, operational) while performing this role as conflict engagement specialist?
What is the danger of not acting, or deferring my action, or acting too quickly?
How am I equipped to lead this process of understanding? 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 decisions, considering the original intention and its relevance to the current situation?
From Motivation to Hope
I grow hopeful when I encounter leaders who recognize their limitations and are curious to advance their understanding and approaches to complex decision-making. It is unlikely that a church leader overseeing staff, or shepherding a congregation, will be able to avoid a complaint of emotional harm throughout the duration of their role. While many obstacles can obscure effective decision-making, leaders can increase in reflection and self-awareness, while developing processes that prioritize discovery through targeted and curious questioning. Rather than holding to a “technique” of concrete steps to be followed, leaders can use conscious discernment to instigate an expansive process that seeks to understand what all is taking place.
As a follower of Jesus, I am also hopeful for the transcendent power of the Holy Spirit to support expansive thinking in complex circumstances. Church leaders can experience and engage with the Holy Spirit through their spiritual consciousness, fostered through practices of silence, solitude, prayer, fasting, and meditating on Scripture. As faith leaders increase their attentiveness to the Holy Spirit, expansive decision-making and curiosity follows.
I hope to urge leaders to disrupt their certainty, embrace humility, remain faithful to their calling, and be attentively curious to the Holy Spirit. The work of addressing emotional harm can be frustratingly complex, but it has the potential to be beautifully transformative. I would contend that the process of engaging this work is not a distraction to a leader’s calling to Kingdom work, but an active participation in Kingdom work.
Stay curious,
Jodi