Professional Soldiers ® - Army worries about ‘toxic leaders’ in ranks

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- General Discussions (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=46)

- - Army worries about ‘toxic leaders’ in ranks (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34144)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard (Post 401025)

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/201...t-toxic-leade/

Richard :munchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brush Okie (Post 401851)

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)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard (Post 400956)

Common sense and the historical record tell us otherwise.

Richard :munchin

Dan Sickles comes to mind.
Pre-Clinton for sure.;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brush Okie (Post 401881)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brush Okie (Post 401881)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brush Okie (Post 401881)

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