Toxic or Allergic Leadership

If we are trying to distinguish between a leadership situation that is toxic and one that is demonstrating an allergic response in one or more people, we need to better understand what is present in toxic situations that is not in allergic ones. [1]

To review:

Allergic response language is much more nuanced in its usage (knowing something will create a mild allergic response helps us understand how to respond to it; something that is mildly toxic is still toxic).
Allergic response language leaves room for reflection on the interaction between two leaders
Allergic response language allows for proactive or responsive steps we take to minimize its impact
Allergic response can help to describe why two people in the same situation do not respond in the same way
Allergic response language can extend and broaden the reflection process without preventing the process to eventually land on the toxic label

First it is important to note that this reflection is not formulaic, it needs to be engaged with Spirit guided discernment. [2]

In my consulting work I am frequently asked how you can tell if someone is toxic or not. The best answer I have come up with is that toxic leaders will always demonstrate consistent entitlement. Entitlement is best understood as the belief that I deserve something based on who I am or what I do. It can lead the entitled leader to feel they deserve unquestioned obedience; the privilege to use physical force to intimidate; or to be physically/sexually inappropriate with someone. This entitlement will express itself in different ways, but it will be clear and consistent. *Again, it is important to remember that while the bulk of this behavior travels from supervisor to subordinate, we are seeing more examples of this going from subordinate to supervisor.

You can have entitlement without toxicity – we all struggle with being servant-hearted enough to never feel entitled to anything – however, it is not possible to have toxicity without consistent demonstrable entitlement. Notice here that I am saying consistent entitlement, but not comprehensive. This distinction is important. It is not necessary for a toxic leader to be toxic with everyone, or that this leader would always respond in an entitled manner with a particular person. It is only in the most significant toxic situations that this is the case. However, the difficult behavior will be consistent. This consistency will be one way we can work to discern is the situation toxic or are you having an allergic response to a particular leader or leadership practice.

In my next post I will give a brief test that will help you see if you are in a toxic situation vs one that is eliciting an allergic response.

[1] It is also important to clarify that toxicity is not always an upper-tier leader/leadership problem. It is very possible for someone at a lower rung of the org chart to be toxic as well.

[2] It is important to keep in mind that if you are feeling physically unsafe or someone is being sexually inappropriate, further reflection is not necessary. A supervisor needs to be told (police if the behavior is sexual).

< Older Post

A man is walking past a blue food truck on the side of the road.

Toxicity conversations are becoming toxic, there is a better way

By Jim Pace • November 6, 2022

In my consulting role, a question (or more likely a diagnosis) that comes up is, “What do I do in the toxic environment I am in?” The language of toxicity has spread to most areas of our lives, life within the church included. And this language is helpful. It pushes back against the idea or model that has been so prevalent until recently that the pastor(s) or leader(s) are almost always right-so if there is a problem, it must be with me. While pastors and leaders certainly are right in some cases, the almost unquestioned authority that was often wielded, that goes along with that perspective, can be extremely harmful; and actually, get in the way of what the Spirit is trying to do in our churches. So, I am all in for the conversations around toxicity. But I do not think toxicity is actually the best word to use as widely as it is. It has become a word that means so many different things, my fear is that its usefulness as a diagnostic term in church life is waning, which means it now is primarily used as a label. The word toxic comes to us through Greek and Latin routes which referred to poison, the Greek more commonly meaning poison used on arrows. Which seems like a great descriptor of someone who is genuinely toxic, they can poison from a distance. In today’s usage it more technically means something that contains or is made up of poison that can cause serious debilitation or death. Again, as a descriptor for what a toxic person can do within a church, not too far off. My issue with the word is that it is a better label than an analysis tool. And what we need in the church is help in analysis of toxicity. For that reason, I would offer a term more easily used to diagnose the situation or people that might be toxic around us. The language of allergic response is overall much more helpful. Allow me to explain. Even though there are different levels of toxicity that are used medically, in our common vernacular there are not. Something is toxic or non-toxic. Poisonous or safe. No parent would feed their child something that was “mildly toxic.” In the same way, a person is toxic, or they are not. Allergies, on the other hand, are different. Even though very few of us know the technical distinctions between levels of allergic response, we are aware they are there. We don’t fully understand why some people can eat peanuts all day and be fine, but others can go into shock from the dust; but we are aware that happens. Most of us probably do not understand fully why certain treatments work (Flonase, inhalers, EPI pens), but we are aware that they can. We carry around a much more nuanced level of understanding of allergic response. We know that a bee sting will cause almost everyone to have some swelling, some pain, while others need immediate medical attention, or they could die. Here, a single action (the bee sting) will hurt almost everyone, but some will have a much more significant response. To push this idea further, the average person, if stung ten times instead of once, will have a different reaction as well. So, what we look for is not just the incident, but the number of similar incidents, and what an individual carries with them that would cause a very mild to a very significant response. This is much more helpful language. Everyone in the church world is going to get “stung,” regardless of where you sit on the org chart. In the language of toxicity, the conversation can easily shift to, “It didn’t bother this person at all, why does it bother you?” It’s all or nothing. The language of allergic responses looks more readily at the number of stings, and whether the individual has experiences that cause a more significant reaction. It is a much more nuanced conversation at that point. So, if we are interested in trying to discern the questions of “Why is this situation eliciting this response in me or those around me?” this is a more helpful direction. Over the next few weeks I will work to flesh these distinctions out and give a tool that will hopefully help those that are in situations that are triggering an allergic response, or those who have been accused of generating that response.