By: Eric Betts
In the upper reaches of organizational leadership, where vision is meant to converge with collaboration and strategy should be rooted in trust, a quieter and more corrosive force often goes unnamed: jealousy. Not the surface-level envy of titles or perks, but a deeper, more existential fear—the fear that another’s brilliance might eclipse one’s own. This fear, when left unexamined, can metastasize into sabotage: subtle, strategic, and often cloaked in professionalism. And in a tragic twist, it is often the saboteur who suffers most.
The emergence of a gifted peer in upper management can trigger a primal response. Instead of recognizing the colleague’s strengths as complementary, some leaders perceive them as competitive. This misalignment distorts the lens through which talent is viewed. What could be seen as reinforcement of the team’s collective strength is instead interpreted as a threat to individual standing. The result is a series of quiet maneuvers—opportunities withheld, ideas undermined, credit redirected, and friction introduced—all designed to preserve one’s perceived dominance. These acts of sabotage rarely announce themselves; they masquerade as strategic decisions, managerial discretion, or institutional protocol. But beneath the surface, they erode trust, stifle innovation, and fracture the very culture that leadership is meant to steward.
True leadership, however, is not threatened by excellence—it is fortified by it. The most effective teams are not built on uniformity but on the strategic interplay of diverse strengths. When leaders embrace this truth, they amplify collective capacity rather than diminish individual brilliance. They model humility, showing that leadership is not about being the smartest in the room but about making space for others to shine. They build legacy, not just resume lines—creating cultures where talent is nurtured, not neutralized. Jealousy, by contrast, is a short-term emotion with long-term consequences. It blinds leaders to the possibility that the very person they fear might be the one who helps them fulfill their vision more fully.
What’s often overlooked in these dynamics is the emotional toll on the saboteur. Sabotage rarely ends in triumph. Instead, it breeds isolation, as trust erodes and allies become wary. It breeds regret, when the realization dawns that collaboration could have led to shared success. And it breeds stagnation, as the institution suffers from the loss of synergy and innovation. Many leaders, in hindsight, recognize that their actions were not only harmful to others but self-defeating. They mourn the missed opportunity to build something greater together.
Redemption, however, is possible—but it requires courage. Leaders must acknowledge the harm, both publicly and privately. They must reinvest in trust, through transparency and consistent support. And most importantly, they must reframe their mindset, seeing peers not as threats but as co-laborers in a shared mission. This shift is not merely personal—it is cultural. Institutions must cultivate environments where excellence is celebrated, not feared; where leadership is measured by how well one lifts others, not how effectively one protects their turf.
Leadership, at its core, is not a solo act. It is a communal calling. And when jealousy is replaced with generosity, when sabotage gives way to synergy, institutions flourish—not because one person prevailed, but because many rose together.
By: Eric Betts
Learning As A Lifestyle
Assistant Director, Curtis Coleman Center for Religion Leadership and Culture at Athens State University
June 20, 2025
