View Full Version : Army worries about ‘toxic leaders’ in ranks
BMT (RIP)
06-26-2011, 05:13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/army-worries-about-toxic-leaders-in-ranks/2011/06/25/AGThw4kH_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines
BMT
GrumpyMedic
06-26-2011, 22:38
This is an interesting article. We were given a writing assignment using this article in the Warrant Officer course. Our papers made for some good conversations among the students.
Seems to have started under Klinton and the way he downsized the military.
Common sense and the historical record tell us otherwise.
Richard :munchin
Surgicalcric
06-27-2011, 06:32
I had a long diatribe written about this but that fact is no one who can do anything about it really cares...
If a commander wants to know how one of his subordinates are doing ask those under that guys charge to write his leadership evaluation. Not sure why everyone is afraid to say what needs to be said...
Crip
I had a long diatribe written about this but that fact is no one who can do anything about it really cares...
“We are looking at the command selection process asking how can we introduce 360-degree evaluations,” Dempsey said in a meeting with reporters this spring.
Might change if GEN Dempsey is serious about the idea of implementing "360 degree evaluations."
As a private school, we used to do them for staff and faculty, and they were used to both evaluate your effectiveness and potential, as well as identifying weaknesses and developing individual professional development plans.
For example, in my case, I received survey evaluations from both the Head of School and Board of Directors, as well as several randomly chosen board members, staff and faculty members, recent alumni, parents, and students.
As the Head of the Upper School (high school), the Head of the Lower/Middle School and I also did survey evaluations of the Head of School, Board Chairman, and every staff and faculty member. For some, it was a scary change to implement, but once we started it and everyone saw us using it to honestly evaluate our effectiveness and implement viable changes, it proved to be a very useful program and worth the effort it took to use.
However - all that changed with the hiring of the current Head of School, a text book toxic leader type, and...well...:(
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
I think this dichotomy is an intricate part of the process of selecting leaders..
Type "A" (read ego trip) leadership traits do shine in some eyes. Typically the ones that have these traits are also the ones that do the selecting.
Hence the dichotomy. How do you tell someone that the traits they admire in themselves are not what they should select in their future replacements??
There are many more MacArthur's than there are Bradley's..
:munchin:munchin:munchin
The problem isnt always toxic leadership...
...some folks are just poor followers.
Leaders make poor choices. Sometimes in self-interest sometomes because they are human. Sometimes what "looks" like a bad choice only looks bad because it is unpleasant.
Not everyone is in charge; I see a shit-ton of younger generation soldiers that seem to think they are smarter than everyone else and as such dont need to follow instructions but the minute they see a counseling staement, or get a poor NCOER, they are quick to point out how fucked up everyone else is.
I have seen SF NCOs bitch and whine like infantry privates because the company SGM told folks they could not wear civilian hiking shoes around BAF when they were in ACU's.
"The company SGM sucks!"
"All that M-Fer cares about is bullshit"
"Why cant we wear our shit"
"That guy is a backstabbing SOB"
Is that SGM really a toxic leader?
If so, I may need to rethink my career and start looking at retirement.
I had guys flip out when we had a mandatory class A inspection a few years ago...
...the first one in over a year.
I had a few guys complain like the CDR was asking them to come in on a saturday morning and GI the team room in Class-A's
It was actually because there was a dining out just around the corner and the boss wanted to make sure everyone 'remembered' what dress uniforms looked like so folks wouldn't show up at a formal event looking like they hadn't worn dress clothes in 2 years.
Was that a toxic leader?
The survey bold prints that we have a problem with toxic leaders, but they only gave a few words to the statistic that 97 percent of those queried stated they have had "exceptional leadership" in the last year.
smoke and mirrors....
mojaveman
06-27-2011, 09:19
The problem isnt always toxic leadership...
...some folks are just poor followers.
Leaders make poor choices. Sometimes in self-interest sometomes because they are human. Sometimes what "looks" like a bad choice only looks bad because it is unpleasant.
Not everyone is in charge; I see a shit-ton of younger generation soldiers that seem to think they are smarter than everyone else and as such dont need to follow instructions but the minute they see a counseling staement, or get a poor NCOER, they are quick to point out how fucked up everyone else is.
I have seen SF NCOs bitch and whine like infantry privates because the company SGM told folks they could not wear civilian hiking shoes around BAF when they were in ACU's.
"The company SGM sucks!"
"All that M-Fer cares about is bullshit"
"Why cant we wear our shit"
"That guy is a backstabbing SOB"
Is that SGM really a toxic leader?
If so, I may need to rethink my career and start looking at retirement.
I had guys flip out when we had a mandatory class A inspection a few years ago...
...the first one in over a year.
I had a few guys complain like the CDR was asking them to come in on a saturday morning and GI the team room in Class-A's
It was actually because there was a dining out just around the corner and the boss wanted to make sure everyone 'remembered' what dress uniforms looked like so folks wouldn't show up at a formal event looking like they hadn't worn dress clothes in 2 years.
Was that a toxic leader?
The survey bold prints that we have a problem with toxic leaders, but they only gave a few words to the statistic that 97 percent of those queried stated they have had "exceptional leadership" in the last year.
smoke and mirrors....
Good points.
While in the Army I served under some Officers and senior NCOs who would have been described as 'toxic' but they were actually good leaders. It's the people who are in positions of leadership that are poor leaders and who are also 'toxic' that cause morale problems.
I was just introduced to the term "toxic leader" a few months ago. I asked a bud of mine for some references, and he sent me a couple articles from the BN PCC he just attended. It was interesting. Of course there is a ton of other stuff out there.
Attached for your reading pleasure:
19324
19325
This isn't really about that one time event, a couple of ass chewings, or displaying one of the "symptoms". This is a multi-symptom, chronic disease.
Please tell us more.
To think there have not always been "toxic leader" issues is naive at best - it just didn't start "under Klinton and the way he downsized the military" (which was a choice his administraton made to continue the reorganization begun by the previous administration).
I would argue the records of the likes of a North, Burnside, Hooker, McClellan, MacArthur, and Custer would certainly fit one or more of the traits of 'bad leadership' described by Barbara Kellerman - incompetence, rigidity, intemperance, callousness, corruption, insularity, evil - as would many others at all levels of command back through the annals of US military history.
A problem I think many reformers struggle with when discussing such a topic is what I think BLB was talking about in his post - the difference between leadership and command. As experienced soldiers know, they are not the same thing, for not all commanders are good leaders, and not all leaders are good commanders. George McClellan, for example, was a truly inspirational leader who won the total devotion of his troops, yet consistently failed to achieve decisive victory in battle and politically challenged his CinC (a career ending move if there ever was one). On the other hand, U.S. Grant was an excellent combat commander to whom few in his command showed any great affection.
Here's my last boss in the Army before I retired - I was his WHNS SPOC for the BW (TKN and TKS) and Luxembourg - he walked the walk, and his staff meetings were < 30 mins and ended with a short Three Stooges episode for those who could stay the extra 15-20 mins:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F40d3aRCeYw&feature=player_embedded#at=44
We had a running joke - he used to refer to me as a "leaf eater" (I'm tall and he's short) and I used to tell him it was easier to see what was going on from up there.
I think 'toxic leadership' is an issue which has plagued the military throughout History and always will.
"Now...everyone not committed to any other details go report to the Group CSM NLT 0900 for area beautification." ;)
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Please tell us more.
Although I was not familiar with the term "toxic leader(ship)" until a few months ago, after careful consideration I was personally exposed to this type of leader (read the articles I linked for how I defined it) in 1987 (Reagan), 1988 (Reagan), 1990 (Bush), 2003-4 (Bush Jr.), and currently 2009-2011 (O-Ba-Ma). Noticeably absent was most of my time in Group (save for COL Parker). The president doesn't have anything to do with it. The principles and ethics of of the organizational leadership do.
I will concede the point, however, that troop draw-down periods "could" (possibly/theoretically) result in short term goal oriented personalities surviving the cut in less than ethical organizations. Because that environment is the only way a less than ethical personality can survive in a position of authority. Generally speaking, a dick is a dick...and everyone knows it.
To think there have not always been "toxic leader" issues is naive at best - it just didn't start "under Klinton and the way he downsized the military" (which was a choice his administration made to continue the reorganization begun by the previous administration).I'd be interested to learn how the argument that downsizing the armed forces in the post Cold War era turned into bad leadership works. (Such an argument would be more convincing were it applied to the Carter administration.)I would argue the records of the likes of a North, Burnside, Hooker, McClellan, MacArthur, and Custer would certainly fit one or more of the traits of 'bad leadership' described by Barbara Kellerman - incompetence, rigidity, intemperance, callousness, corruption, insularity, evil - as would many others at all levels of command back through the annals of US military history.MOO, I would add GEN W.T. Sherman to this list for his post-Civil War career. His cynicism towards politicians and his belief that military policy should be determined by warriors alone have played a deleterious impact on civil military relations to this day.
SpikedBuck
06-28-2011, 02:43
A problem I think many reformers struggle with when discussing such a topic is what I think BLB was talking about in his post - the difference between leadership and command. As experienced soldiers know, they are not the same thing, for not all commanders are good leaders, and not all leaders are good commanders. George McClellan, for example, was a truly inspirational leader who won the total devotion of his troops, yet consistently failed to achieve decisive victory in battle and politically challenged his CinC (a career ending move if there ever was one). On the other hand, U.S. Grant was an excellent combat commander to whom few in his command showed any great affection.
I agree with Richard...There is no greater honor than to lead, in my opinion. Leaders have to be both accountable and responsible…some leaders are not comfortable with these concepts…and focus on their own survival in lieu of concentrating on their people and the mission, exhibiting these “toxic” traits. We don’t always select the right folks to advance and/or lead our people…I have seen plenty of Commanders here that could not lead someone out of a brown paper bag…folks that would be considered my peers. There are only a hand-full of leaders in my career that I have worked for that I look up to…what made them great was what they left behind and their impression they made on their people; they were accessible and approachable. I think where we are weak as an Army is in our mentorship program, or lack thereof. Most of you know and served with my mentor and I was fortunate to have many years of his advice/knowledge…a couple of good beatings from the Bulldog definitely gets you on the right path. :D But most Officers I know, if you ask them, have very few positive role models/influences in their career. Not sure how to fix the problem of mentorship…other than 1 Soldier at a time. Most of you on this site are extraordinary mentors, whether you realize it or not…
As a current Commander, I often wonder why I was selected to lead over others. I am leading a rather large unit (2,220+) in a mission I have very little experience with and that is definitely outside my comfort zone. (Sometimes the Army does have a sense of humor.) One of my biggest concerns was the “how”…how was I going to lead this large group in unfamiliar territory. But I quickly realized it all comes down to taking care of people… If you take care of your people, the mission takes care of itself. Make decisions, trust your team, allow you people to latitude/flexibility to do the job, defend them at all costs, and don’t ask them to do anything you haven’t done or are not willing to do right alongside them…take point. Really rather simple…
Dan
A very interesting, on-going discussion of the topic over on the Small Wars Journal blog.
"...if you sit around in a circle of people who were chosen to lead under a system that is producing toxic leaders, you are not likely to find many who think it is directed at them. Kind of like holding an AA meeting at a bar."
Army Worries about ‘Toxic Leaders’ in Ranks
SWJ Blog
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/06/army-worries-about-toxic-leade/
Richard :munchin
From Richards link this is my view in many ways.A question that follows is: To what extent was the dynamic in the 1990s a direct result of Clinton's leadership as commander in chief or did it also reflect other contemporary factors (e.g., the end of the Cold War and the armed forces collective search for a mission) and historical issues (e.g. Americans' ambivalence towards professional warriors and a reliance on a tradition of wartime mobilization)?
Utah Bob
07-02-2011, 18:23
Common sense and the historical record tell us otherwise.
Richard :munchin
Dan Sickles comes to mind.
Pre-Clinton for sure.;)
Second he commander and chief used the end of the cold war etc and gutted our military. He did the realignment so that combat arms are all NG and CS and CSS are all reserve. At that time is where they integrated Reserve and NG units to take on more of the load than the cold war days. Prior to then the Reserve and NG main goal was to back fill after the AD guys left and replace depleted and deployed units in a major world war. That is an over simplication but you get the gist of it.
I was there (AmEmbassy-Bonn and OACSCMO-21st TAACOM) when this took place. It was a policy shift which was made and began to be implemented at the end of GW1 (1991) as a result of the fall of the Wall, the enactment of the CFE treaty, the economic issues of the time, and the performance of the allied coalition in the GW. This was done under the GHWB administration prior to WJC's election and taking office, but was completed during the WJC administration.
During the realignment the idea was we would be able to fight two reginol wars and the reserve and NG take on a much larger part from day one.
The two regional war scenario was the old Cold War policy; the post GW1 shift was based on the premise that the efficiency of our military and the foreseeable world situation would not lead to us becoming engaged in two major simultaneous conflicts any longer, but if we did our restructured forces would be capable of what was called a "fight-hold-fight" scenario; having to fight a major regional action while retaining a reserve force capable of engaging and holding in another such action until we could disengage enough forces from the first to fully commit to the second fight.
Under Klinton the check box system that was always there to some extent became bumer one way to get rid of people. An example is if you got to a point in your carrear I think 12 years and did not get to E-6 or above you were kicked out. The idea was we were getting rid of the dead wood. In combat arms that may have been the idea but other areas where promotion was tight if not near impossable such as medics or maintance it got rid of some good people. Thet needed a benchmark and they looked and any excuse. If you got an article 15 in basic they may kick you after you are an e-7 12 years later. One guy I heard about got a general discharge in the 80's. Came back in on a waver, was an exellant NCO and at the 15 year mark was refused reenlistment because his original general discharege he never botherd to get it changed.
Interesting. I remember the QMP you're talking about beginning in the mid-70s as a part of the post-RVN era. During that time we had a number of NCOs in Group which had been SF NCOs, then commissioned officers and who opted to revert back to being NCOs vice being RIF'd. One example of the QMP I remember quite well then was during my PCS in March 1976 from the 7th SFG at Bragg to 1-10th SFG in Bad Tolz. I was in-processing at USAREUR in Frankfurt prior to continuing on to Tolz and was in the mandatory Headstart class. I was a 91B3SW7TH SSG (SF Medic) with 5.5 years of service, 2.5 years time in grade, a prior overseas tour in SEA, a number of specialized schools and Honor Grad of both the USARSUPTHAI BLDC and 18th Airborne Corps NCO Academy, and had a language skill. There was a 76Y3 SSG (supply sergeant) in the class with me who had 12 years time in service, less time in grade than I did, looked as if he'd never done PT after AIT, and had never been to any schools other than BCT and AIT. He was complaining and worried because his records had just been flagged for the QMP due to his not being 'promotable' at the time. I remember thinking, "Well...." :rolleyes:
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin