Leading Beyond Insecurity

Part 1

According to Mott's insecurity model, when sin and insecurity are present, a personal quest for power is usually adversely impacted by exploitation. This exploitation may occur in regards to establishing control over others or when an individual allows themselves to be exploited. The story of Stephen in Judges 6-8 provides insight into the various effects that sin and insecurity can have on one's personal quest for power. Due to his insecurities, Gideon immediately responds to God with doubt (Judges 6:13) and makes an excuse for his weakness. Passivity is observed in Gideon's quest for power, as he is indecisive and afraid of making a wrong choice. He not only second-guesses God but also second-guesses himself. Gideon demands more signs from God and also showcases delicacy in how he deals with idolatry (Judges 6:27). His insecurities concerning his position and identity adversely influence him in his acceptance of the power that is being given to him. Insecurity and sin also result in the form of legalism, in which an individual decides to lead by rules, as opposed to establishing relationships. While conducting a team project, my insecurity concerning my ability to lead made me guide the group based on legalism as opposed to establishing and building constructive relationships with those around me. As leading by relationship calls for vulnerability and the threat of rejection, I was unable to form connections with my team members, limiting the level of creativity and innovation involved. Therefore, insecurity and sin limit my personal quest for power instead of empowering it. 

Part 2

There are various types of authority that can be undermined if individuals feel insecure. Legitimate authority can be defined as a form of authority obtained from a position that one holds in the organization (Yukl, 2009). The subordinates would comply as they believe that the position is legitimate. While subordinates value strong leaders, they also want to be heard and appreciated. If there is insecurity, an authoritative leader may have excess power, which may make employees feel less empowered. 

Coercive authority is often conveyed through fear of being demoted, being terminated, and losing projects. This power can be achieved through threatening others and can be utilized to set high expectations for employee performance. In coercive authority, insecurity can result in the form of bullying, which manifests in the form of inappropriately harsh words and actions towards subordinates. In trying to assert a level of control that an individual does not hold, their authority is undermined.

Reward authority is conveyed by providing individuals with rewards for complying with one’s wishes. This authority is mainly based on positive reinforcement and can be utilized to incentivize people while working (Yukl, 2009). Due to insecurities, an individual may place excessive focus on small tasks, which results in the form of micromanaging. This results in excessive stress on employees and is observed as a form of insecurity that undermines authority. 

Expert authority comes from the experiences, skills, and knowledge that an individual possesses in a certain area. As one gains experience in specific areas and becomes good leaders in these areas, they can gain expert authority that can be utilized to meet the objectives that have been set. Despite expertise and skills, insecurity can result in a lack of confidence within the leader, affecting their ability to express and demonstrate their competencies. This results in a lack of confidence by subordinates in the ability of the leader to deliver. 

Referent authority comes from being trusted and respected. When subordinates trust what individuals do and respect them for how they handle situations, then referent power is obtained (Goncalves, 2013). Due to actions such as yelling at team members, even leader with referent authority can have this form of authority compromised. As insecurity can show a loss of control, the trust and respect that has been earned can be lost. 

Part 3

Insecurity has several effects on the behavior of an organization. One of these effects is the disengagement of the individuals involved. Due to the presence of insecurity and sin, there is a sense of distrust between leaders and employees, which affects the quality of interactions. Other leaders are more likely to withhold information and ideas as openly expressing themselves will only add to their insecurities. The organizational behavior then becomes characterized by a lack of collaboration and ineffective communication. Due to insecurity, individuals may hold the view that that the sharing of their ideas may reveal the lack of knowledge that affects their position within the organization (Gagne et al., 2019). There is also a sense of low motivation and satisfaction among the employees in an organization. Despite a desire to work in the organization, the presence of sin results in a level of anxiety concerning their roles, responsibilities, and position within the organization (Yukl, 2009). Therefore, a culture characterized by minimal satisfaction and motivation is created. The presence of sin and insecurity within an organization results in a culture that supports low performance, poor collaboration, ineffective communication, and a lack of satisfaction by employees in their duties. Hence, there is a clear relation between the existence of sin and insecurity and toxic organizational behavior. 

Part 4

A biblical approach to power is rooted in the importance of serving others. As opposed to oppressing and overpowering others as a result of insecurities, utilizing a biblical approach would help approach others with respect. One of the aspects of this approach would be the carrying out of power through love. Those in power, when driven by their love of God and their love for others, are able to lead others in a way that is healthy and further empowers them to be better. As opposed to misleading o exploiting others, a biblical approach to power will also be focused on motivating others. This includes laying out a vision with positive outcomes for the organization and the individuals involved. When a leader is insecure, they at a higher chance of engaging in the manipulation and exploitation of those that follow them. However, a leader whose power is guided by love will be more likely to call individuals for a greater purpose, which makes them motivated. A biblical approach to power is focused on stewardship and obtaining a proper understanding of others. This supports greater performance within the organization while also resulting in a highly motivated multitude of individuals. Therefore, a biblical approach to power would be more beneficial to organizational behavior as compared to the power that is influenced by sin or insecurity.

Part 5

Based on the above discussion, it is clear that my insecurities will not only affect my behavior but also how I wield any power that I possess. To focus on providing true service and care to those around me as opposed to being motivated by insecurity, I will engage in providing service rather than holding back. Insecurity may often result in the form of individualized leadership where I focus on my own needs first as opposed to the needs of others. Instead, I will focus on placing others first without neglecting my own needs, which will require being guided by the concepts of love and stewardship within my management activities. My core value, therefore, will be glorifying God in my leadership. I expect that this core value will not only help me to reconcile my insecurities and engage elements such as integrity and excellence in the activities I engage in.

References

Gagne, M., et al. (2019). Why employees don’t share knowledge with each other. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/07/why-employees-dont-share-knowledge-with-each-other

Goncalves, M. (2013). Leadership styles: The power to influence others. International Journal of Business and Social Science,4 (4), 1-3.

Yukl, G. (2009). Leading organizational learning: Reflections on theory and research.  The Leadership Quarterly ,  20 (1), 49-53.