Why are we still shooting our own people?
‘Toxic leadership’ is a phrase which buzzed around the mission world a few years ago, and then went away. I haven’t heard it mentioned in a member care context for some time. Perhaps we got bored with the issue. Perhaps we thought talking about it for a bit resolved the problem. Yet a number of incidents that have recently been brought to Syzygy’s attention remind me that, like Chernobyl, the fallout from one critical incident continues to have a devastating effect for many years.
- Broken and hurting mission workers dealing with the pain of bullying and abuse, often for many years after the original incident.
- Agencies losing good personnel for utterly avoidable reasons.
- Churches grappling with supporting wounded mission partners who can’t easily be ‘fixed’.
- People dismissed from their roles in circumstances that would count as unfair or constructive dismissal if they were UK employees.
- Mission workers who have original or different ideas being victimised for challenging the status quo.
One influential member care agency uses the tagline “Because we don’t separate the Great Commission from the greatest commandment”. Yet it seems that all too frequently in our eagerness to do the first, we don’t adequately care for our people, particularly if they have strong personalities or are not afraid to express their opinions.
A misguided model of leadership seeks to impose unity on a disparate group of mission workers by demanding conformity, rather than building unity by valuing and affirming diversity. Weak leadership imposes authority through domination rather than winning followers through serving. Reluctant leadership abdicates, leaving the team without direction. And people who speak out, complain, or even make constructive suggestions can be tagged as rebels, unfairly targeted, and removed from service.
In most cases, these situations result from structural weaknesses in our organisations rather than merely one or two poor leaders. Often it’s not the result of deliberate;y abusive leadership but more to do with neglect of mission workers’ needs, lack of support or failure to intervene in difficult situations. As Rob Hay wrote in 2012, “Mission is full of specialists and empty of trained, skilled and experienced leaders and yet up to 80% of people who go into mission not expecting to lead end up in some kind of leadership position.” Sadly, it seems nothing much has changed in the last 5 years.
How do we resolve this situation which seriously impedes our efforts to fulfil the Great Commission? First, sending agencies have to be committed to valuing the people they partner with. Mission partners need to be seen as valuable yet often fragile people who need to be nurtured and developed. They are not an expendable commodity to be exploited. Agencies invest so much money in the early years of mission workers – recruitment, training, support, language learning – that it is also economically foolish to ignore these issues. If the agency were an international business, high attrition levels would not be tolerated. These need to be monitored closely as they are often a sign that something is wrong.
Second, churches need to understand the difficult dynamics of cross-cultural mission and be proactive in supporting their mission partners and working with agencies. They need to be willing to ask difficult questions, and challenge agencies when problems arise. One of the most encouraging things I ever saw was a group of church members haranguing an agency leader at a public meeting because they felt the agency was letting down their mission partners. I thought “I want those people on my support team”!
Third, mission partners need to be honest with their churches and agencies about the real issues. Misguided loyalty to failing leaders and leadership structures needs to be exposed, or it will merely be covered up and somebody else will get hurt further down the line. People who have been hurt by an agency can be tempted to slip away quietly and lick their wounds – but they need to be supported and helped to fight their corner so that they expose bad leadership and force organisational change. And agencies need to determinedly debrief workers (preferably with the involvement of a third party) and be committed to frank exit interviews – the ostensible reason people give for leaving is often not the whole story.
Finally, agencies need to be committed to addressing the problem Rob raised, by committing to proactively developing the character development, leadership ability and management skills of all their leaders. Often they appoint people to leadership who have strategic vision and fruitful ministries but little interest in pastoral care. They don’t have to be pastors themselves, but do need to understand the need for in-field member care and take steps to facilitate it.
Resources that Syzygy recommends for dealing with the fallout from toxic leadership issues include:
- The books A Tale of Three Kings and Honourably Wounded for mission workers wounded in action.
- A personal debrief for mission workers still struggling with injuries inflicted in the field. Email firstname.lastname@example.org for more information.
- Space to rest and reflect while receiving love and acceptance. Syzygy can provide several options for this, and also recommends Ergata and Le Rucher.
- Mentoring by Rick Lewis for leaders in mission. A completely confidential, personal service aimed at developing godly character at the highest level in churches and agencies.
- Reading Rob Hay’s 2012 paper on the Global Connections website and the associated reading list.
- Bespoke consultancy aimed at identifying specific issues within an organisation and tackling the causes of it. Email email@example.com for more information.
Being shot by one’s own side does not necessarily mean the end of a life of mission. Given the right support, many people make a full recovery and are able to resume their lives and ministries, as I have done. But wouldn’t it be better if we didn’t wound our own mission workers in the first place?