Churches depend on people serving together with humility, trust, and a shared commitment to their mission. Yet even in healthy ministries, leaders will encounter difficult behavior: chronic negativity, unresolved conflict, poor communication, resistance to change, unreliability, gossip, controlling conduct, or repeated boundary violations.
Drawing on general principles associated with Amy Cooper Hakim and Muriel Solomon’s Working with Difficult People, this article offers a church-specific framework for addressing such challenges with both grace and accountability.¹ The goal is not to label people as “difficult,” but to identify damaging patterns and respond constructively.
Important distinction: Difficult behavior is not always misconduct, and misconduct is not merely “difficulty.” Allegations involving abuse, harassment, discrimination, threats, financial impropriety, child safety, or illegal conduct should immediately follow the church’s safeguarding, reporting, and legal procedures.
Address Behavior Rather Than Attacking Character
A productive conversation focuses on observable conduct and its effects—not assumptions about motives or sweeping judgments about personality.
Avoid statements such as:
“You are divisive.”
“You do not care about the ministry.”
“You always cause problems.”
“You are impossible to work with.”
Instead, be specific:
“You interrupted three team members during Tuesday’s meeting.”
“The volunteer schedule was not completed by the agreed deadline.”
“Concerns discussed privately were later shared with people outside the leadership team.”
“When instructions are repeatedly challenged during worship setup, the team becomes confused about who is responsible for decisions.”
This approach reflects a central lesson in working with challenging personalities: leaders are more effective when they remain composed, describe the problem accurately, and choose a deliberate response rather than reacting emotionally.
A simple framework is:
When [specific behavior] occurs, it creates [specific effect]. Going forward, I need [clear expectation].
For example:
“When schedule changes are made without notifying the ministry leader, volunteers arrive without knowing their assignments. Going forward, all changes need approval and must be communicated through the scheduling system.”
Discern What Kind of Problem You Are Facing
Not every challenging situation has the same cause. Before responding, ask what may be underneath the behavior.
Possible causes include:
Unclear expectations
Insufficient training
Personal stress, illness, or grief
A mismatch between the person and the role
Confusion about authority
Interpersonal conflict
Resistance to change
Burnout or overcommitment
A desire for recognition or control
A persistent pattern of unhealthy conduct
A legitimate concern being expressed poorly
Listen carefully before drawing conclusions. A frustrated volunteer may have noticed a genuine problem. A defensive employee may not understand the standard being applied. Conversely, hardship may explain harmful conduct without excusing it.
Useful questions include:
“How do you understand what happened?”
“What obstacles are affecting your ability to fulfill this role?”
“What outcome are you hoping for?”
“What support or clarification do you need?”
“What responsibility can you take for your part in this situation?”
Good discernment combines compassion with evidence.
Church conflict often grows in ambiguity. Volunteers may not know who has final authority. Staff may receive conflicting instructions from a pastor, board member, and ministry director. Long-serving members may exercise informal influence that is not reflected in the organizational structure.
Every staff and volunteer role should have, at minimum:
A written role description
A named supervisor or ministry leader
Defined responsibilities
Appropriate decision-making authority
Expected hours or time commitment
Communication standards
Behavioral and confidentiality expectations
Safeguarding requirements
A review process
A clear explanation of how concerns are raised
Leaders should also distinguish between consultation and decision-making. A person can be heard respectfully without being given veto power over every decision.
4. Do Not Reward Disruptive Behavior
Leaders sometimes avoid conflict because they fear losing a volunteer, upsetting a donor, or creating tension in the congregation. Unfortunately, avoidance can teach people that disruptive behavior works.
Examples include:
Allowing angry outbursts to reverse decisions
Giving a controlling person more authority to calm them down
Ignoring gossip because the person serves faithfully
Reassigning other team members rather than confronting the source of conflict
Excusing repeated unreliability because “we need every volunteer”
Permitting influential members to bypass normal processes
Short-term peace may produce long-term dysfunction. Healthy ministry requires the same core behavioral standards for everyone, regardless of tenure, generosity, popularity, or spiritual gifting.
5. Hold Difficult Conversations Privately and Promptly
Corrective conversations should normally occur in private, as soon as sufficient facts are available. Waiting too long permits resentment and confusion to grow.
A useful conversation structure is:
State the purpose. “I want to discuss what happened during Sunday’s volunteer briefing.”
Describe the behavior. “When the coordinator gave the assignments, you called the plan incompetent and left the room.”
Explain the impact. “Several volunteers became uncertain about whether to follow the assignments.”
Invite the person’s perspective. “Please help me understand what was happening from your point of view.”
Acknowledge valid concerns. “You are right that the schedule was distributed later than promised.”
Reaffirm the standard. “Even when you disagree, concerns must be raised respectfully and without undermining the coordinator publicly.”
Agree on next steps. “In the future, bring urgent concerns directly to the coordinator or to me.”
Document and follow up. “We will meet again in two weeks to review how things are going.”
Calmness is crucial. Do not match aggression with aggression, sarcasm with sarcasm, or gossip with gossip.
6. Establish Boundaries and Consequences
A boundary without a consequence is merely a request. Leaders should explain what behavior is required, what support will be provided, and what will happen if the pattern continues.
A proportionate process might include:
Informal coaching
Verbal warning with documented expectations
Written improvement plan
Temporary removal from particular duties
Reassignment to a more suitable role
Suspension from volunteer service or employment action
Termination of the role when necessary
The response should reflect the seriousness, frequency, and impact of the behavior. Some conduct may require immediate removal rather than progressive correction—especially when safety, abuse, threats, harassment, or financial integrity are involved.
For paid staff, consult applicable employment law, denominational requirements, contracts, bylaws, and qualified professionals before taking disciplinary action. Volunteers should also be managed under written, consistently applied policies.
7. Distinguish Reconciliation from Restoration to Leadership
Churches rightly value repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation. However, forgiveness does not automatically restore a person to every position of authority.
These are related but distinct:
Forgiveness releases personal vengeance.
Reconciliation involves truth, repentance, and rebuilding trust.
Restoration to service requires demonstrated readiness and suitability.
Restoration to leadership may require a higher standard, additional time, supervision, and evidence of sustained change.
A person may be welcomed in the congregation while being restricted from a staff or volunteer role. Protecting the ministry and those it serves is not incompatible with grace.
8. Adapt Communication Without Becoming Manipulative
Different patterns call for different responses.
The chronically negative person
Ask for specific concerns rather than broad complaints.
Require proposed solutions.
Redirect repeated venting toward constructive action.
Do not allow negativity to dominate meetings.
Response:“You have identified three concerns. Which one is most important, and what practical solution do you recommend?”
The controlling person
Define decision-making authority.
Offer appropriate choices, not unlimited control.
Avoid lengthy arguments about settled matters.
Enforce boundaries consistently.
Response:“I welcome your recommendation, but the ministry director is responsible for the final decision.”
The passive-aggressive person
Address discrepancies between words and actions.
Use written follow-up.
Ask direct, neutral questions.
Avoid accusing the person of hidden motives.
Response:“You agreed to the plan in the meeting, but afterward you advised volunteers not to follow it. Help me understand the difference.”
The explosive person
Remain calm and lower the emotional temperature.
End the conversation if communication becomes abusive.
Resume only when respectful dialogue is possible.
Treat threats as a safety matter.
Response:“I want to hear your concern, but I will not continue while you are shouting. We can pause and meet again when we can speak respectfully.
The unreliable person
Clarify commitments, deadlines, and consequences.
Reduce responsibility if the pattern continues.
Do not repeatedly rescue the person at the team’s expense.
Response:“This role requires arriving by 8:30 every Sunday. If that commitment is not workable, we need to find a different role.”
The gossiping person
Refuse to discuss absent people unnecessarily.
Direct concerns to the appropriate person or leader.
Address confidentiality breaches explicitly.
Document repeated incidents.
Response:“Have you spoken directly with that person? If not, I cannot participate in discussing the issue this way.”
9. Care for the Whole Team
A leader’s responsibility extends beyond the individual whose behavior is causing concern. Difficult conduct may exhaust faithful volunteers, reduce psychological safety, increase turnover, and distract the church from its mission.
Leaders should:
Check in with affected team members
Correct misinformation without disclosing private details
Reaffirm reporting pathways
Prevent retaliation
Provide pastoral care where appropriate
Avoid asking harmed team members to “just forgive and move on”
Review whether systems or leadership failures contributed to the situation
Confidentiality should not become secrecy. Share only what people need to know, but do not use confidentiality as a reason to leave teams unprotected or uninformed.
10. Examine Leadership’s Contribution
Sometimes the difficult behavior is real, but leadership has made the situation worse through:
Vague communication
Favoritism
Inconsistent enforcement
Last-minute decisions
Failure to train volunteers
Ignoring concerns until they become crises
Public correction or humiliation
Overloading reliable people
Confusing pastoral care with supervision
Using spiritual language to silence disagreement
Leaders should ask:
“Were our expectations clear?”
“Did we provide adequate training?”
“Have we applied this standard consistently?”
“Did we respond promptly?”
“Is there a safe, credible way to raise concerns?”
“Are we calling someone ‘difficult’ simply because they disagree?”
Humility strengthens accountability; it does not weaken it.
11. Create a Written Ministry Process
A church should not invent its response during a crisis. Adopt written procedures covering:
Staff and volunteer conduct
Complaints and grievances
Conflict resolution
Harassment and discrimination
Safeguarding and mandatory reporting
Confidentiality and data protection
Social media
Discipline and appeals
Whistleblower protection
Emergency and security concerns
Documentation and record retention
Policies should identify which matters may be handled pastorally and which must be referred to HR professionals, safeguarding officers, denominational authorities, insurers, attorneys, or law enforcement.
Biblical reconciliation practices should never be used to pressure victims into private meetings with alleged abusers, suppress legally required reports, or keep serious misconduct “inside the church.”
A Sample Improvement Plan
Behavior of concern: Repeated public criticism of the ministry coordinator and unauthorized changes to the volunteer schedule.
Required standard: Concerns must be raised privately with the coordinator or supervising pastor. Schedule changes require prior approval.
Support provided: A meeting to clarify authority, access to scheduling training, and biweekly check-ins for six weeks.
Review period: Six weeks.
Evidence of improvement: No unauthorized schedule changes; concerns communicated through the agreed process; respectful participation in meetings.
Consequence if the pattern continues: Removal from scheduling responsibilities and possible reassignment or suspension from the volunteer role.
Conclusion
Managing difficult volunteers and staff is not about winning arguments or protecting institutional comfort. It is about preserving dignity, truth, safety, and the church’s ability to fulfill its mission.
The most effective approach combines:
Careful listening
Specific descriptions of behavior
Clear expectations
Calm, direct communication
Appropriate boundaries
Consistent consequences
Protection for affected people
Humility and self-examination
Documented follow-up
Grace does not require leaders to tolerate harm. Accountability does not require cruelty. Churches serve people best when they practice both.
Reference
Amy Cooper Hakim and Muriel Solomon, Working with Difficult People: Handling the Ten Types of Problem People Without Losing Your Mind, revised edition (TarcherPerigee, 2016).
Note: This article summarizes and applies broad interpersonal-management themes to church settings; it does not present direct quotations or chapter-specific claims from the book. Churches should consult the book itself for the authors’ full framework and seek legal, safeguarding, or human-resources advice when appropriate.