When You Need to Confront a Leader With the Truth

Listen to this article (BETA)

Preparing the reader…

Your progress: Not started

Mark Complete Start Over Reset History

▶ Listen

[NB: This is a long read—around 25 minutes. BUT… it is well worth it to help you understand the Biblical approach to confronting a leader. Take the time.]

Let me begin with a composite story. The details come from more than one real situation, but the pattern will probably feel familiar.

I want you to meet Daniel and Pastor Andrew. Their names have been changed, and a few details have been drawn from similar situations, but the pattern itself is very real.

Daniel had worked closely with Pastor Andrew for several years. He loved him, respected his gifts, and believed deeply in the ministry they shared. Andrew was intelligent, decisive, productive, and unusually capable. He could see what needed to be done and move an organization toward it faster than almost anyone around him.

But something else had been happening.

Staff members had become increasingly careful around Andrew. People rehearsed what they were going to say before entering his office. Disagreement was interpreted as disloyalty. Questions were sometimes answered with irritation, sarcasm, or a lecture about submission. When decisions produced poor results, responsibility moved downward. When they produced good results, credit moved upward.

Several staff members had quietly left. Others remained but had stopped offering honest opinions. Meetings were peaceful, but they were not healthy. People had learned that silence was safer than candor.

Daniel finally decided that someone needed to tell Andrew the truth.

He prayed briefly, scheduled a meeting, and went in determined to be courageous.

“I need to talk with you about your leadership,” Daniel began. “I have watched what has been happening, and I think I finally understand it. You intimidate people. You do not listen. You are controlling, defensive, and unable to receive correction. People are afraid of you, and you are hurting the church.”

Andrew’s expression changed immediately.

“Who is afraid of me?”

“I do not think I should name names.”

“So you are bringing me anonymous accusations?”

“They are not accusations. This is a pattern.”

“According to whom?”

“According to several people.”

“Who apparently preferred talking about me to talking with me.”

The conversation deteriorated from there. Andrew defended each incident, questioned the motives of those involved, explained the pressures he was carrying, and eventually turned the conversation toward Daniel’s own shortcomings.

“You have always had difficulty with authority,” Andrew said. “I think you need to examine your own heart before accusing your pastor of abusing people.”

Daniel left bewildered, angry, and ashamed. He had entered the room believing he was obeying God by speaking truth. He left wondering whether he had caused more harm than good.

---

What went wrong?

The easy answer is that the pastor was defensive. That may be true, but it is not the whole truth. The man also entered the conversation with a conclusion instead of an invitation, labels instead of specific observations, unnamed witnesses instead of verifiable evidence, and an implied diagnosis rather than a carefully established biblical concern. He may have been right about the pattern, but being right about the problem did not make his approach wise.

He had courage, but courage by itself is not enough.

He needed love, humility, evidence, patience, self-control, biblical clarity, and a process suited to the seriousness of the concern. He needed to know not only what to say, but when to say it, how to say it, whom to involve, and what to do if the leader refused to listen.

He needed truth in love.

Not Truth Versus Love

Whenever we speak about confronting harmful leadership, people tend to move toward one of two errors. Some emphasize love in a way that leaves truth unspoken. Others emphasize truth in a way that no longer resembles love.

Scripture allows us neither escape.

“Speaking the truth in love,” Paul says, we are to grow into Christ in every way (Ephesians 4:15). Truth and love are not competitors. Truth gives love moral substance, and love gives truth a Christlike purpose and manner.

Truth without love can become a weapon. Love without truth can become permission. Biblical love tells the truth because the good of the other person matters too much to remain silent. Biblical truth is spoken lovingly because the person receiving it bears the image of God and is not our enemy.

Dr. Brené Brown puts the practical side of this plainly: “Clear is kind. Unclear is unkind.” Her leadership research found that avoiding difficult conversations does not preserve healthy relationships. It often produces backchannel conversations, passive aggression, diminished trust, and poorer performance. We tell ourselves we are being kind when we are sometimes protecting ourselves from discomfort.¹

Simon Sinek makes a similar observation: “If we want people to speak to us honestly, we must be willing to honestly listen.”²

That sentence applies to the leader, but it also applies to the person confronting him. If we want him to hear us honestly, we must be willing to hear him honestly. We may know what we observed. We do not yet know everything that happened, what he intended, what pressures were operating, or what information he possessed.

Proverbs warns, “He who answers a matter before he hears it—this is folly and disgrace to him” (Proverbs 18:13). The person who approaches the leader must obey that verse too.

What Are We Actually Addressing?

Before approaching a leader, we need to distinguish among four things that often become tangled together: personality, situational failure, sinful conduct, and an established pattern of harmful leadership.

A forceful personality is not a sin. Decisiveness is not domination. Confidence is not pride. Urgency is not automatically impatience. A leader may communicate bluntly, make decisions rapidly, or possess a low tolerance for unnecessary discussion without being spiritually corrupt.

Personality influences how weakness appears, but personality does not excuse sin. A naturally forceful leader may be more tempted toward control, harshness, impatience, or intimidation. A more reserved leader may be tempted toward avoidance, passivity, concealment, or manipulation through silence. Every personality brings strengths that can serve others and weaknesses that must be sanctified.

We must therefore avoid saying, “He is a strong personality, so this is simply how he leads.” We must also avoid saying, “He is a strong personality, so he must be dangerous.”

Then there are situational failures. A faithful leader may respond badly during a particularly difficult season. He may be tired, grieving, frightened, overextended, physically unwell, or carrying pressures unknown to us. None of those conditions make harmful behavior harmless, but they may help explain why an otherwise humble leader acted in an uncharacteristic way.

One bad meeting does not establish a pattern. One sharp answer does not prove a leader is habitually harsh. One poor decision does not demonstrate corruption of character.

At the same time, explanations must never become automatic excuses. Fatigue may explain why I spoke harshly. It does not repent for me. Pressure may explain why I became controlling. It does not repair what my control damaged.

Situational failure becomes a character concern when the conduct is repeated, correction is resisted, responsibility is displaced, and those affected are expected to absorb the damage without acknowledgment or repair.

Then we come to sin.

Scripture gives us clear categories for leadership conduct. An overseer must be self-controlled, respectable, gentle, and not quarrelsome (1 Timothy 3:2–3). An elder must not be arrogant, quick-tempered, or overbearing (Titus 1:7). Shepherds are commanded to lead willingly and eagerly, “not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:2–3).

Jesus explicitly contrasted His leadership with the leadership of those who “lord it over” others. “It shall not be this way among you,” He said. Christian leadership is expressed through service, sacrifice, and care (Mark 10:42–45).

When a leader repeatedly intimidates, humiliates, controls, silences, retaliates, shifts blame, punishes disagreement, or uses spiritual authority to protect himself, we are no longer discussing a communication preference. We are entering biblical categories such as pride, anger, partiality, deceit, self-protection, harshness, and domineering leadership.

Finally, there is a pattern.

A pattern is not simply the same accusation repeated by people who have spoken with one another. A pattern is a recurring kind of conduct appearing across time, settings, and relationships. It is strengthened when independent people describe similar experiences, when the behavior can be connected to specific incidents, and when the leader’s response to correction repeats the same underlying problem.

The issue is not whether the leader has ever failed. Every leader fails. The issue is what he does when his failure is brought into the light.

A healthy leader may initially feel hurt, surprised, embarrassed, or defensive. Those are human reactions. But after the emotion settles, he becomes curious. He asks questions. He examines himself. He returns to people. He confesses what is true. He seeks forgiveness. He accepts appropriate consequences. He works to repair trust.

A harmful leader consistently moves the responsibility away from himself. He attacks the messenger, demands names, minimizes the behavior, exaggerates the faults of the injured person, spiritualizes his authority, claims persecution, or makes the cost of speaking so high that others learn not to try again.

The primary evidence of the condition of a leader’s heart is not that he never needs correction. It is what he does when correction comes.

Why This Conversation Is So Difficult

Talking with a leader is not the same as talking with a peer.

Power changes the emotional and practical stakes of a conversation. A pastor may influence a person’s membership, ministry opportunities, reputation, friendships, employment, or sense of belonging. An employer can affect income and career. A ministry director can control assignments, access, and advancement.

That does not mean the leader intends to use those powers badly. It means the person approaching him has legitimate reasons to consider risk.

Psychologists use the term psychological safety to describe an environment in which people can raise questions, concerns, mistakes, or disagreements without expecting humiliation or retaliation. Harvard professor Amy Edmondson’s research has shown that psychological safety is essential to honest communication and organizational learning. It does not mean everyone feels comfortable or that difficult standards disappear. It means candor is not punished.³

A team can appear unified because its members trust the leader. It can also appear unified because its members have concluded that disagreement is unsafe. From the platform, those two conditions may look remarkably similar.

This is why the leader’s repeated statement, “No one else has ever told me this,” proves very little. Silence may indicate satisfaction. It may also indicate fear.

Before You Go

Not everyone who sees a problem is automatically prepared to confront it. Seeing something may create a responsibility, but wisdom must help determine the form that responsibility takes.

Before approaching the leader, ask whether you possess firsthand knowledge. Scripture treats accusations against elders seriously: “Do not entertain an accusation against an elder, except on the testimony of two or three witnesses” (1 Timothy 5:19). This protects elders from rumor, personal vendettas, and careless allegations. It does not protect them from substantiated correction.

If your entire concern rests on what someone else told you, you may need to help that person determine his own responsibility rather than carrying the accusation for him. There are exceptions, especially where fear, vulnerability, abuse, or serious power imbalance is involved, but “several people are saying” is not a responsible substitute for evidence.

Ask whether you have observed an incident or a pattern. Write down the specific situations you personally witnessed. Record what was said or done as accurately as possible. Separate observable behavior from your interpretation of it.

“He humiliated Robert in the meeting by saying, ‘Any competent person would have understood that,’ in front of the staff” is an observation.

“He is a narcissist who enjoys humiliating people” is a diagnosis of motive and personality that you may not be qualified to make.

The terms we use privately to organize our thinking can become dangerous when we begin treating them as clinical conclusions. We are not trying to win agreement with our diagnosis. We are trying to help a brother see conduct and fruit that may require repentance.

Ask whether your motive is restoration or retaliation.

Galatians 6:1 says that if someone is caught in a trespass, those who are spiritual should restore him “with a spirit of gentleness,” watching themselves lest they also be tempted. The word restore carries the idea of putting something back into proper condition. The goal is not exposure for the sake of exposure. It is repentance, repair, protection, and, where possible, restoration.

But restoration does not mean preserving the leader’s position at any cost. Sometimes restoring a man requires reducing his authority while his character, conduct, and relationships are examined. Protecting a title while people remain endangered is not restoration.

Ask whether you have examined your own heart. Jesus tells us to remove the plank from our own eye so that we can see clearly to remove the speck from our brother’s eye (Matthew 7:3–5). Notice that Jesus does not say to ignore the speck. He says to deal honestly with ourselves so that we can help our brother clearly.

Have I contributed to the conflict? Have I spoken about him more than I have spoken to the appropriate people? Am I angry because he sinned, or because he crossed me? Am I trying to protect others, or prove that I was right? Have I interpreted every disagreement through the lens of one painful incident?

Our own sin does not make another person’s conduct righteous. His sin does not make our response righteous. We must hold together what Scripture holds together.

Ask whether direct conversation is safe and appropriate. Matthew 18 is sometimes reduced to “You must always go privately first,” but the passage is not a command to place a vulnerable person alone in a room with someone who has abused, threatened, coerced, sexually exploited, or repeatedly retaliated against people.

If there is possible criminal conduct, abuse, threats, financial misconduct, sexual misconduct, risk to a child, or credible danger to yourself or others, involve the appropriate civil authorities and responsible organizational oversight. Do not treat serious harm as a private interpersonal misunderstanding.

If you are the subordinate of a leader known to retaliate, you may need a witness, mediator, elder, human-resources representative, denominational officer, board member, or other person with legitimate authority present. Wisdom is not cowardice.

Finally, ask whether you are willing to follow through. Do not begin a serious confrontation unless you are prepared to document the conversation, receive an uncomfortable answer, participate in a proper process, and accept that the relationship may change.

How to Begin

Begin with prayer, but do not use prayer as a way of sanctifying a conclusion you have already made.

Ask God for truth, wisdom, courage, gentleness, and freedom from self-righteousness. Ask Him to show you where you are mistaken. Ask Him to prepare the leader’s heart and yours. Ask Him to protect the people affected and to bring what is hidden into the light.

Then request a conversation rather than ambushing the leader after church, in a hallway, or at the end of an already difficult meeting.

You might say:

“I would like to talk with you about several things I have observed in our work together. I care about you, the people involved, and the ministry we share. Some of this may be difficult for me to explain, and I may not see everything accurately. But I believe the conversation is important. Could we set aside enough time to talk carefully?”

Simon Sinek suggests beginning a difficult conversation with an acknowledgment such as, “I might say the wrong thing, but bear with me because this conversation is more important than me doing it perfectly.” That communicates humility without abandoning responsibility.⁴

When the meeting begins, reaffirm your purpose.

“I am not here to attack you or challenge your position. I am here because I care about you, I care about the people you lead, and I believe there may be something important that you are not able to see from where you sit.”

Then invite correction before offering correction.

“I may be missing information. I may have interpreted parts of this incorrectly. I want you to help me understand. But I also need to be honest about what I have observed and what it appears to be producing.”

This does not weaken the truth. It places the conversation under the truth.

Talk About Conduct Before Character

One of the most useful psychological tools for these conversations is called Situation–Behavior–Impact. The Center for Creative Leadership recommends describing the particular situation, the observable behavior, and the resulting impact, followed by a question about intent. This reduces assumptions and gives the other person something concrete to consider.⁵

The structure is simple:

“When this happened…”

“You did or said this…”

“This was the effect…”

“What were you hoping to accomplish?”

For example:

“In Tuesday’s staff meeting, when Mark questioned whether the deadline was realistic, you interrupted him and said, ‘This is not the time for negativity. If you cannot support the direction, perhaps you should reconsider whether you belong on this team.’ After that, no one raised another concern. Two people later told me they no longer felt safe questioning the plan. What were you hoping Mark and the team would understand?”

That is much more useful than saying, “You are controlling and everyone is afraid of you.”

The leader may say, “I was trying to stop Mark from derailing the meeting.”

Now you have something to explore.

“I understand that you were trying to protect the meeting and keep the team moving. I am not questioning whether you had a legitimate concern. I am asking whether the way you addressed it communicated that disagreement itself was disloyal. Whatever you intended, that appears to have been the impact.”

Intent matters. Impact also matters.

We should not assume evil intent merely because an action caused harm. Neither should a leader use good intent to erase harmful impact. “I did not mean to hurt anyone” may be true, but it does not end the conversation. It helps begin the right one.

Move From Incident to Pattern Carefully

After discussing one or two specific events, explain why you believe they may represent something larger.

“I would not be bringing this to you if I were concerned about one difficult meeting. I have seen similar responses on several occasions. When someone disagrees, you seem to become sharper, more forceful, and less curious. People then withdraw. I am concerned that the team is learning to tell you what you want to hear rather than what you need to know.”

Notice the language: “I have observed.” “It seems.” “I am concerned.” Those phrases do not communicate uncertainty about everything. They acknowledge appropriate limits on what you can know.

Then ask questions.

“Have other people ever told you that they feel unsafe disagreeing with you?”

“What happens inside you when someone challenges your judgment?”

“Do you believe the people around you can tell you that you are wrong without experiencing relational or professional consequences?”

“When was the last time someone under your leadership corrected you and you publicly thanked him?”

“What do you think former staff members would say about your response to disagreement?”

“What patterns do you see in the people who have left?”

“How would we know if your leadership had begun producing fear?”

Questions can reach places that accusations cannot. But questions must be genuine. A question used only to trap someone is an accusation wearing a question mark.

Bring Scripture as a Mirror, Not a Hammer

At some point, the conversation must move beyond leadership technique. If the conduct is sinful, love requires us to say so. But begin with the behavior and allow Scripture to name it.

“You have explained why you believed the decision was necessary. I can understand the organizational concern. What I am asking you to consider is whether the manner in which you treated the people involved was consistent with the qualifications Scripture gives for a shepherd.”

Then open the Bible together.

Read 1 Peter 5:2–3 and ask, “What would lording authority over people look like in our setting?”

Read 1 Timothy 3:2–3 and ask, “How should gentleness and self-control appear when a leader is challenged?”

Read Titus 1:7–9 and ask, “Is there any way that anger or arrogance has begun influencing these conversations?”

Read James 3:17: “The wisdom from above is first of all pure, then peace-loving, gentle, accommodating, full of mercy and good fruit.” Ask, “Does the fruit of our leadership resemble that description?”

Read Proverbs 12:1: “Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates correction is stupid.” That is unusually blunt language, but it reveals how seriously God regards teachability.

Read Proverbs 28:13: “He who conceals his sins will not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them will find mercy.”

The purpose is not to stack verses until the leader surrenders. The purpose is to place all of us beneath the same authority.

R.C. Sproul once corrected a younger pastor who referred to preaching from Sproul’s pulpit: “That’s not my pulpit. That’s not your pulpit. That’s God’s pulpit.” The same truth applies to leadership. These are not our people. They belong to God. Authority in Christ’s church is entrusted authority.⁶

Leadership is faithful stewardship applied to people. The leader is not the owner. He is responsible to care for people according to God’s purposes, in God’s manner, for God’s glory.

John Maxwell has often said, “Everything rises and falls on leadership.” That is true not only of productivity, attendance, finances, or organizational growth. People also rise and fall under leadership.⁷

A shepherd is responsible not only for accomplishing the mission but also for the condition of the sheep.

Listen to the Response

After presenting the concern, stop talking.

Do not rescue the leader from silence. Do not continue adding examples because you are nervous. Give him time to think and respond.

Listen for more than immediate agreement. Listen for curiosity, grief, ownership, and concern for those affected.

A healthy response may sound like this:

“I did not realize that was happening. I can see how my words would have communicated that. I need time to think and pray, but I want to understand. Who have I harmed, and what would it look like for me to make this right?”

An unhealthy response often moves quickly in another direction:

“Who else have you talked to?”

“Why are you bringing this up now?”

“You do not understand the pressure I am under.”

“People today are too sensitive.”

“This is spiritual warfare.”

“You have always had a problem with authority.”

“No one else has ever complained.”

“Look at everything God is accomplishing here.”

Some of those statements may contain truth. The timing may be unfortunate. People may be sensitive. The leader may be under immense pressure. Spiritual opposition may be real. God may be accomplishing wonderful things.

None of those realities answers the concern.

Fruitfulness is not innocence. Giftedness is not godliness. Growth is not proof that every method used to produce it honors Christ. God has always been able to draw straight lines with crooked sticks, but the stick should not cite the straight line as evidence that it is not crooked.

Tim Keller wrote that the gospel tells us we are so sinful that Christ had to die for us and so loved that He was glad to die for us. That produces “deep humility and deep confidence at the same time.” A leader rooted in that gospel does not need to destroy the messenger in order to survive the message. He has nothing to prove and no righteousness of his own to protect.⁸

This is where the gospel must become more than the content of the leader’s sermons. It must become the safety of his soul.

The leader who knows that his standing rests in Christ can say, “I was wrong.” He can lose face without losing his identity. He can confess sin without believing that his whole life has become a fraud. He can accept consequences without interpreting them as rejection by God.

What Repentance Should Look Like

If the leader recognizes that the concern is true, do not settle for a sorrowful meeting and a promise to “do better.”

Biblical repentance produces fruit.

The leader should name what he did without softening it through excuses. “I spoke harshly and used my position to silence disagreement” is confession. “I am sorry that some people misunderstood my passion” is image management.

He should confess to the people affected, not only to the person who confronted him. The circle of confession should ordinarily correspond to the circle of harm. Private sin may require private confession. Public humiliation may require public acknowledgment.

He should ask what damage was done and what repair may be possible. Forgiveness does not automatically restore trust, and confession does not immediately restore leadership credibility. Trust is rebuilt through truth, humility, changed behavior, accountability, and time.

He should welcome appropriate oversight. A leader whose conduct has caused repeated harm should not design and supervise his own restoration process. Wise elders, board members, denominational leaders, counselors, or other qualified people may need to assess the situation and establish safeguards.

In some cases, responsibility or authority should be temporarily reduced. This is not necessarily punishment. It may protect the people, remove pressure from the leader, clarify the seriousness of the conduct, and provide space for repentance to become visible.

C.S. Lewis warned that pride is especially difficult to recognize in ourselves. We are often most offended by the pride of others when pride has become deeply established within us. The answer is not humiliation imposed from outside but humility born from seeing God rightly and ourselves honestly.⁹

The goal is not to crush the leader. The goal is to bring him into the light where grace, truth, repentance, and change are possible.

What If He Refuses to Listen?

A failed conversation does not always mean the process is finished.

Jesus gives an expanding process in Matthew 18:15–17: personal conversation, then the involvement of one or two others, and finally the responsible community. The purpose is not to build a campaign. It is to establish truth carefully and pursue repentance faithfully.

When the concern involves an elder, 1 Timothy 5 protects both the elder and the church. Accusations must be supported, but leaders who persist in sin are not to be protected through secrecy or partiality (1 Timothy 5:19–21).

If the leader refuses to listen, write a calm summary of the conversation. Include the date, the specific concerns raised, his response, and any agreed next steps. Avoid editorializing. Documentation serves truth when memories later differ.

Then determine the proper level of oversight. In a church, this may be fellow elders, the session, governing board, presbytery, denomination, or another structure named in the church’s constitution. In a business, it may be human resources, the owner, board, or executive leadership. In a ministry, it may be trustees, governing directors, or an external accountability body.

Bring facts, not a character assassination. Bring witnesses, not a crowd. Bring concerns about conduct and impact, not a collection of disliked personality traits.

Do not recruit people to your side. That is coalition-building, and it can become gossip even when the original concern is legitimate. Speak only with people who have a rightful role in helping establish truth, protect those involved, and guide the process.

If the governing authorities refuse to act, you may eventually face difficult questions about whether you can continue serving under that leadership. Remaining is not always faithfulness, and leaving is not always disloyalty. Sometimes departure is avoidance. Sometimes it is wisdom. Sometimes it is the only remaining way to stop participating in a system that continually harms people.

Those decisions should be made slowly, prayerfully, and with wise counsel.

The Courage We Are Really Asking For

We often imagine that the greatest courage belongs to the person entering the leader’s office. That does require courage.

But there is another kind of courage.

It is the courage of a leader who listens without retaliating.

The courage to say, “Tell me more.”

The courage to hear the same concern from several people without dismissing them as a conspiracy.

The courage to separate intention from impact.

The courage to confess without qualification.

The courage to step back from authority if necessary.

The courage to repair what influence has damaged.

The courage to become a learner again.

Dr. Brené Brown describes the greatest barrier to courageous leadership not as fear itself, but as the armor we put on when we are afraid. Leaders become “knowers” instead of learners. They use blame and shame to protect themselves rather than combining accountability with empathy.¹⁰

A leader’s strength is not demonstrated by how difficult he is to confront. It is demonstrated by how little armor he needs when truth comes near.

A Final Word to the Person Who Must Go

You do not need to know everything before you speak. You do need to know what you have personally seen, why it concerns you, what Scripture says, and what you are asking the leader to consider.

You do not need to diagnose his heart. You need to describe conduct and fruit.

You do not need to prove that he is a bad man. You need to help him see where his leadership may be producing bad fruit.

You do not need to enter angrily in order to be courageous. Gentleness is not weakness. “A gentle answer turns away wrath” (Proverbs 15:1), but gentleness is not silence. Jesus was gentle and lowly in heart, and He also spoke with astonishing clarity.

You do not need to promise the leader that there will be no consequences. Mercy does not require pretending that trust has not been damaged. Forgiveness, reconciliation, restoration, and restored authority are related, but they are not identical.

Go slowly. Pray deeply. Write down what you know. Separate observation from interpretation. Examine your own heart. Seek wise counsel without building a coalition. Consider the power difference and the safety of everyone involved. Bring another person when wisdom requires it. Describe particular situations, behaviors, and impact. Ask sincere questions. Open Scripture as a fellow sinner under its authority. Listen carefully. Ask for concrete next steps. Follow through.

Above all, remember whose leader he is and whose people they are.

Christ is the Chief Shepherd. He does not crush the bruised reed or extinguish the smoldering wick. His authority does not make wounded people smaller so that He can appear greater. He lays down His life for the sheep.

Any leader can lose sight of that. Any of us can begin using strength to protect ourselves rather than serve others. Any of us can mistake compliance for unity, silence for agreement, productivity for health, and position for authority.

That is why loving confrontation is not an act of hostility. Properly done, it is an act of stewardship. It seeks the good of the leader, the protection of the people, the health of the organization, and the glory of God.

You may enter the room trembling. Your words may not come out as smoothly as you rehearsed them. The leader may listen well, or he may not listen at all.

Your responsibility is not to control his response.

Your responsibility is to tell the truth, in love, with humility, courage, clarity, and faithfulness—and then entrust both the leader and the outcome to God. You may enter the room trembling. Your words may not come out as smoothly as you rehearsed them. The leader may listen well, or he may not listen at all.

Your responsibility is not to control his response.

Your responsibility is to tell the truth, in love, with humility, courage, clarity, and faithfulness—and then entrust both the leader and the outcome to God.

---

Endnotes

¹Dr. Brené Brown, “Brené on Armored Versus Daring Leadership, Part 1 of 2,” Dare to Lead podcast, April 5, 2021. Dr. Brené Brown.

²Dr. Brené Brown, “Clear Is Kind. Unclear Is Unkind,” October 15, 2018. Dr. Brené Brown.

³Simon Sinek, “Best Quotes by Simon Sinek,” The Optimism Company. Simon Sinek.

⁴Harvard Business School, “Four Steps to Building the Psychological Safety That High-Performing Teams Need Today,” June 14, 2023. Harvard Business School.

⁵The Optimism Company, “The Surprising Skills Your Team Needs Most,” February 25, 2025. Simon Sinek.

⁶Center for Creative Leadership, “Use Situation–Behavior–Impact to Understand Intent,” November 18, 2022. Center for Creative Leadership.

⁷Burk Parsons, “A Shepherd of God’s People,” Tabletalk, special issue honoring R.C. Sproul. Tabletalk.

⁸John C. Maxwell, “Announcing the John Maxwell Company,” February 21, 2011. John Maxwell.

⁹Matt Smethurst, “50 Quotes from Tim Keller,” The Gospel Coalition, May 19, 2023. The Gospel Coalition.

¹⁰Robert C. Roberts, “Pride and Humility,” C.S. Lewis Institute, December 4, 2011. C.S. Lewis Institute.