This time I would like to elaborate on a certain phenomenon linked to the theme of authority, something I refer to here as Director G.(1)
Today, we highlight the significance of servant leadership, reflecting the character of Christ, who “did not come to be served, but to serve” (Mark 10:45). However, it is important to acknowledge that pressure, intimidation, and control have historically proven “effective” in various contexts, including some churches and Christian educational institutions. These rather authoritarian traits often generate quick obedience, enforce a clear and firm hierarchical structure, and ensure results.(2)
This raises some difficult questions: If coercive forms of authority appear to work or produce efficient outcomes, does that make them legitimate? Can a domineering leadership style ever be justified if it delivers results? And are there any clear criteria by which one can assess whether a leadership approach has crossed the line into control or manipulation?
1. Raised by Control
This type of leadership is often deeply ingrained, especially in regions with authoritarian pasts, such as the former Soviet Union. Many of those who now lead through control were themselves brought up and shaped by systems rooted in manipulation, submission, and fear. Thus, the cycle continues: one controlling leader grows another, passing on management techniques that ensure efficiency through dominance. What’s more, in such cultures, people often expect, internally justify, or even find reasons for leaders to be commanding, sometimes even intimidating.(3) Fear becomes the invisible architecture or “ethos” of authority, reinforcing the strength of the structure. Those who lead in this way often fear the loss of control, believing it could lead to the collapse of the entire system. Those who are led, in turn, fear losing the favour or disposition of their superior and therefore strive to meet or exceed expectations.
Furthermore, as the saying goes, “If it works, why fix it?” In other words, if the approach has proven effective, why risk changing it? - some would think.
2. The Man with No Critics
This brings me to a real-life example of a rather unique manifestation and exercise of authority. I am not concerned with analysing a person (psychological or character type, etc.); I am rather interested in the exploration of a recurring occurrence and a particular style of leadership that left an emotional imprint on many.
There was a man in a senior managerial position at our Bible College in Ukraine. Over the years, I have heard people, including graduates, staff, and missionaries, refer to him as a man of imposing authority and silent pressure. Interestingly, even after two decades, his surname remains for many a synonym for power, dominance, and control.
I need to be cautious here, as this is not an attempt to “demonise” or belittle the man. Director G's contribution to theological education in Ukraine was undoubtedly significant. Under his leadership, one of the largest Pentecostal Bible colleges in Eastern Europe was built. Yet I also feel there is a need to honestly attempt to frame the psychological and emotional gravity that such leadership and authority carry and, hopefully, to initiate a broader discussion aimed at understanding this phenomenon. Perhaps, in doing so, others may be able to develop and articulate clearer guidelines for assessing such style of leadership.
3. At the Table
When I sat in front of him at the desk, I felt tense, uneasy, almost out of place. I was not sure how to put my hands, how to make eye contact, or which words to use in my responses. It was not easy to relax and therefore think straight.
He was a tall, physically imposing man, and in those moments, a seemingly tangible tension filled the room. His non-verbal gestures, posture, presence, and silence often communicated more than his words, and somehow dictated who you were. He would look straight into your eyes, slightly from above - not to understand or hear you, but as if to reduce you, to make you feel seen through, exposed, diminished, or even guilty. I could not quite grasp what exactly caused that feeling, but it was undeniably sensible. Others felt it too. One alumnus named him “a tyrant.” Another staff member once said he was “the Godfather figure” of the denomination.
4. Behind the Crematorium
One particular moment still lingers in my memory. I was pastoring a small village church in Malya Ofirnaya when his father, a respected former bishop, attended a service. It was an ordinary service. After a prayer of repentance, a song was chosen. Following the service, a mild disagreement arose between the elder and my theology teacher from Australia, who was also present. He stood up for me, assuring the former bishop that I had done nothing wrong in the procedure. As far as I can remember, there was just a difference of opinion about the kind of song that should be used after someone prays in repentance. Unexpectedly, the issue was brought up again at the Bible college the next day, where I was asked to explain what had happened.
Shortly after, I was helping at a funeral. Director G asked me to walk with him behind the crematorium. Coincidentally, he wore a long dark coat, and the overall atmosphere was hardly conducive to a warm-hearted discussion. His voice was low and firm. Looking at me from above, he asked, “Do you have a problem in Malya Ofirnaya, or something?”
Honestly, I could not expect that. I assured him, of course not. It actually took me some time to process. Somehow, in some short phrases, he made it precisely clear where my place was. There was no attempt to understand, to explore the situation, or to hear from me what had actually happened. There was only a message, which had to be heard and accepted. Still, what struck me most was not so much what he said, but how he said it - the emotional charge behind words, the tone, intonation, posture, eye contact, and the atmosphere – everything seemed attuned to demonstrate one’s undisputed authority.
5. How it Affected Others
Director G could publicly intimidate people while preaching or in prayer. Remarkably, he never raised his voice or threatened, or displayed any form of physical aggression; rather, he spoke with a soft, measured tone and a smile. Yet something in the atmosphere was deeply unsettling, something that made you tense inside. He had a masterful, almost surgical ability to subtly and delicately make people feel unclean, guilty, belittled, or inadequate. Sometimes you would walk away relieved that the meeting with him was over, yet convinced you were not good enough, that there was something wrong or shameful about you. It left a rather bitter “aftertaste”.
6. The Questions
To this day, Director G remains a personal phenomenon for me. Before him and ever since, I have never witnessed the kind of authority I saw in him. He had gravitas, no doubt. He definitely had demonstrated and exercised authority in a particular and unique way. He built something significant and reached substantial results. However, it is difficult to say that his leadership empowered others, rather than instilled fear and ensured submission. His authority did not invite collaboration, not even remotely; rather, it demanded compliance. Few dared to speak critically about him, even in his absence. His “aura” somehow extended beyond his office. It felt almost sacred, as he became, in some sense, untouchable. I cannot recall anyone ever saying that he made a mistake or did something wrong.
Again, this is not about vilifying a person. It is more about recognising a pattern; an attempt to name a type of authority that is rarely questioned or identified, but deeply felt.
Overall, it taught me that there are basically two kinds of leaders. Some carry light, bringing hope, encouragement, and vision. Others carry weight, imposing shame, guilt, and tension. Both types may bring results.
In light of this, a number of questions remain open to further discussion. Your insights would be most welcome.
1. Is this type of authority right or wrong? If it is indeed problematic or unhealthy, what exactly makes it so? Is it the absence of empathy, the emotional manipulation, or the atmosphere of fear that surrounds it?
2. If he had been truly empathetic and relational, and if he had close friends (I never heard of any), would he have remained as effective and successful as he was?
3. Is this type of authority inborn or developed? Can it be learned? Is it “contagious” within hierarchical systems or cultures shaped by fear and submission?
4. How did he manage to instil such a deep sense of reverence, or awe, among the entire student body? Was it a result of intentional influence, cultural conditioning, or something else?
5. Should this kind of authority be addressed more openly? Should it be recognised, named, and addressed by elders or other leaders?
References:
1. To maintain ethical integrity and preserve the individual's anonymity, I have chosen to refer to him by the pseudonym Director G.
2. Pizzolitto, Elia, Ida Verna, and Michelina Venditti. “Authoritarian leadership styles and performance: a systematic literature review and research agenda.” Management Review Quarterly 72 (2022) - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11301-022-00263-y
3. Fog, Agner. Warlike and Peaceful Societies: The Interaction of Genes and Culture. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers, 2017. https://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0128