Why Not Criticize Leaders?

Reflexzero, one thing I feel I should add is that 1) leaders are pretty far removed from us so there is no real opportunity for criticism to become feedback in a real and meaningful way, and 2) anyone who leads an organization that large does not need to be protected from feedback. They wear big boy and big girl underpants. (Really big underpants in Mormonism.) When members rally around leaders against a critic, IMO they totally don’t get it. They act as though someone just punched their grandfather in the face, which is ridiculous. Let’s not infantilize the elderly nor vilify the critics! And criticism demonstrates investment on some level. Lack of criticism can also equal irrelevance.

I understand the “volunteer” comment. I am and have always been much more lenient when it comes to local leaders than the people at LDS, inc. which of course is where this thread originated. …DHO is NOT a church volunteer. He is making a lot of money in his current position.

Interesting comments.

Let me ask a question. At the risk of violating Godwin’s Law, is there ever a time it is okay to “criticize” the organization or the leaders of an organization? Example, is it okay to criticize ISIS and it’s leaders? Is it okay to criticizes Warren Jeffs and the Fundamentalists churches? Is it only the LDS church that gets this “get our of jail free” card that we cannot criticize it’s organization or it’s leaders? Is this a case that members of the organization give up the right to criticize their own leaders, and the only way it can ever be done is if it comes from an outside source?

Here is how I see it. Having gone through the primary system and understanding forgiveness and repentance as taught and practiced by the LDS faith, I think what DHO said is repulsive. absolutely repulsive.

We do not seek apologizes. Nor do we give them.

I understand that some of you are perfectly okay with this comment. Fine. But humor me. Lets just assume this is an egregious statement, we all agree, or most of us agree. This is, whether it is a church policy or a personal opinion, hurtful and quite possibly damaging comment to the masses. I see this as a responsibility to members to speak up to prevent more damage from happening, not as just and attack on the church because im bitter. How does someone like me go about voicing that concern? How do the members act to make sure this does not become a part of the culture?

I’m asking in regards to church membership, this and a few other threads, as well as the entire StayLDS website.

Can I speak. Or do I need to just shut up and sit in the corner.

This is, whether it is a church policy or a personal opinion, hurtful and quite possibly damaging comment to the masses. I see this as a responsibility to members to speak up to prevent more damage from happening, not as just and attack on the church because im bitter. How does someone like me go about voicing that concern? How do the members act to make sure this does not become a part of the culture?

I struggle with this as well. The solution seems to be “let it run it’s course, they’ll eventually get it right” but what of the people suffering in the interim?

I’m thinking of the more recent comment about “counterfeit and alternative lifestyles.” People are hurt by those comments and sometimes even just the act of extending a helping hand to people that are negatively impacted by dogma is enough to cause some people to question the healer’s faith, devotion, etc. In this case people were very quick to publicly call Perry out on some of the statements he made in GC. I don’t know whether calling out messages shared during GC was commonplace in the past but lots of people are now aware that there is criticism… of course for some the criticism serves as a rallying call to support Perry. Point is, the criticism is happening and in the social media age people will see that others are being critical. With time seeing those examples might help people realize that they may not be alone in their initial reaction to messages that don’t follow their convictions.

My thoughts when reading these posts reminds me how I wish the Brethren would be more proactive in compassion, in teaching, in clarifying history (maybe even apologize). I am tired of defending my religion, I am tired of my religion constantly defending itself, I wish there was more of an effort to be more proactive in dealing with change. Be more proactive with fixing culture and tradition that is hurtful and damages many relationships with others of different faith or those who criticize the leaders.

cwald: When DHO said “We do not seek apologizes. Nor do we give them” my own opinion is that he was channeling Fox News. I mean, who says stuff like that? Bill O’fricken Reilly. It’s not the kind of thing you normally hear from spiritual leaders. He’s a politically keyed in guy. It was incongruous (IMO) with his role as an apostle. Could I see one of the original 12 apostles doing or saying something like that? Sure. What about the guy cutting the guy’s ear off with a sword? That’s the kind of exuberance apostles are known for, all in “the cause.” I wouldn’t go so far as to call it repugnant. It seems incongruous to his calling IMO. Generally, Oaks comes off harsher than he really is under it all, and that is my firm opinion of the man. He has a crisp style of communication. He was going for a sound bite there, and he got one. It was just a dumb one. Que sera, sera.

But hey, I don’t personally feel that disagreeing is unacceptable, even here. I tend to think Peter in the NT was frequently too harsh for my taste. Sometimes Paul is offensive or simply arcane. Everyone’s got their thing.

Where I suspect you venture into the gray area for our taste at StayLDS (you or anyone) is when you do more than express hurt or frustration and throw out the baby with the bathwater or encourage others to vent spleen about leaders. Oaks gets called on sound-bites in the media with some regularity. I suspect that’s going to continue to be a problem for him. Maybe he thinks those are great quotes. Maybe he thinks he came off wrong. We’ll never know.

What is absolutely unhealthy IMO is when being a sycophant or yes man/woman is the only qualification to be heard. Good leaders understand the need to value feedback. I suspect Oaks in fact does value it (that’s what I see when I read the entire text of his oft-quoted talk about not criticizing leaders). Personally, I think McConkie was the one who wouldn’t brook any criticism, and his quotes on the subject are much more unsavory if you ask me. But taking exception to this quote of DHO is certainly understandable.

Let me ask a question. At the risk of violating Godwin’s Law, is there ever a time it is okay to “criticize” the organization or the leaders of an organization?

I think there is a definite place for criticism.

1. There are times when you get REALLY BAD leaders, and it can affect people’s health, self-esteem, inner peace, and activity. In those times, it helps to have a support group who can help you cope, and this often means sharing leaders’ misbehavior.

We see it here on StayLDS when people come to us after a harsh interview, for example. In fact, one of my first posts here was called “having trouble feeling positive about local leaders” where I shared some woes. The shared stories from others — of bad leadership, empathy and coping mechanisms really helped me.

2. When leaders need feedback.

Sometimes there are repeated, prolonged periods of bad leadership, and the leader needs it.

Example — once, a man I respected did a “hit and run” criticism to me, face to face. I had a habit at the time, of looking to the side of people, and not in their eyes when I was talking. I am not sure why I did it. But it was a habit that my wife pointed out. One of the members of my HPG said “it looks like you aren’t listening to me when you do that”. And then he turned on his heels and he left.

I think I needed the feedback, and I find myself occasionally doing it even now. To hear it directly was helpful — particularly since I respected the man and had a good relationship with him.

Is it only the LDS church that gets this “get our of jail free” card that we cannot criticize it’s organization or it’s leaders? Is this a case that members of the organization give up the right to criticize their own leaders, and the only way it can ever be done is if it comes from an outside source?

I’ve been reading an author who I love — his name is Max Dupree and he’s written some great, nearly scriptural books called The Art of Leadership, Nurturing the Non-Profit Board, Leading without Power, and Leadership Jazz.

He believes that adults have the right to criticize their leaders. He didn’t really justify it, but it’s made me feel better about receiving such criticism when I am a leader myself.

Here is how I see it. Having gone through the primary system and understanding forgiveness and repentance as taught and practiced by the LDS faith, I think what DHO said is repulsive. absolutely repulsive.

I’m not OK with the statement as a blanket principle. I think it’s arrogant, closed minded, and unrepentant. I think it’s unbecoming of an organization that expects so much of its its members, and claims to have a divine commission no other church has.

If it was in relation to a specific issue, then I think it would be OK. The fact is, DHO did apologize on the PBS.org documentary on Mormonism, which actually elevated the man and the church (a bit) in my eyes.

How does someone like me go about voicing that concern?

Where possible, do it privately with the person who needs correct, and do so only after there is a strong enough relationship to withstand the criticism. Gallup says that engagement with ideas and good relationships prevail when the ratio of positive to negative experiences is in a 5:1 ratio.

When such criticism is not possible, (such as when the person is a public figure and inaccessible, like DHO) then I think public criticism in a forum like this is OK, but not on a repeated, prolonged basis. At some point, everyone says their piece and then we move on to other discussion. I am not saying this topic has been repeated and prolonged yet, as these are good questions — but in general, dwelling on the topic long after people have responded to it is an indication the criticism is misplaced.

How do the members act to make sure this does not become a part of the culture?

They should object to it when they hear it. They should give reasons, but also be judicious about the audience to which they object. It’s where you need to really choose your words carefully.

I once had a Bishop who, after I read the MIracle of Forgiveness, and felt like dirt, told me that book was “a pretty hard treatment of sin and forgiveness” and that I should take it with a “grain of salt”. He was disagreeing with an Apostle! I think we can do that — and we can couch our language in respect, while also recognizing the person, even if a leader may have made a mistake.

The church did that in the Priesthood Ban Disavowal Essay, basically repudiated what BY said. If anyone ever objects to my gentle, carefully worded criticism of a leader, I will cite that article as a case in point — that sometimes, it’s necessary to correct mistakes, even when they occur from higher ranking officials.