Toxic leaders work to promote themselves at the expense of their subordinates, and usually do so without considering long-term ramifications to their subordinates, their unit, and the Army profession. One in five Army leaders who responded to the CASAL 2010 survey suggested that they work for a toxic leader.
-Why do we allow toxic leadership to occur?
-Who do you think is responsible for fixing a toxic leader environment?
-What are some useful strategies for correcting this behavior before it becomes a problem?
If you’d like to respond anonymously instead of blogging you may also write us at:
Center for Army Leadership, LRADD
C/O Constructive & Toxic Leadership Research
290 Stimson Ave, Unit 4
Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-1293
Please note: CAL will not identify anyone and will not investigate claims,but rather is trying to examine patterns from the aggregate information. If there are any significant issues please use the official Army channels provided to you such as: CoC, EEO, IG, etc. All data are considered for research purposes only.
25 Comments on "Why do we allow Toxic Leadership to occur?"
I think that the reason toxic leadership continues to occur amongst our ranks is due to the fact that in most instances, supervisors believe that the benefits outweigh the costs which is only going to become worse (or at least remain at the current level) with the down-sizing of the Army and increasing competition for promotion and command. A toxic leader’s results at the NTC in a DA rotation (which will once again become the Super Bowl event for a command tour) will overshadow the method used to reach training objectives and mission accomplishment. I believe that leaders need to focus on how their subordinates actually lead their formations versus the results they achieve. We focus on leadership styles in PME but do we ever really evaluate what our subordinate’s leadership style is once we get to our units and if it is effective? I would argue that in most cases we don’t. When leaders counsel their subordinates (usually at the OER out brief if at all which is another issue we have especially at the FG level) the focus is on results achieved and possibly on major upcoming events as well as future career aspirations/goals. Leaders must focus on their subordinate’s leadership style and how they achieved or failed to achieve results.
Until we focus on subordinate’s leadership styles versus results, this trend will continue.
MAJ Mark Gunther
SG 10D
This is an excellent blog to discuss but like some of the previous comments on this blog I don’t think it will change toxic leaders in the military. One reason why I say that the need and use of toxic leaders will not go away is because we have always had them throughout military history, they get results, and you will always have someone in a higher position that feels that is what is needed to accomplish their mission. I was just a Ft. Bliss and for the first time I seen an actual attempt to stop or at least minimize the toxic leadership that we had. Still the fear of reprisal helped to keep allot of officers in our unit from speaking out about the toxic leadership we had. That was mainly because we had an IG inspection on command climate after the return from a deployment that basically required further investigation of our leadership and it was found that our higher headquarters was very toxic and needed to be replace. So we a third investigation meeting was set up officers and senior NCO was less willing to speak because we had received a backlash from the two prior meeting. For this all to make a difference we all must want to change and be willing to take a risk in what happens when we try to enforce that change.
I believe the leadership training that officers receive in the Intermediate Level Education (ILE) course should also be taught to junior officers in Officer Basic Course (OBC) as well as the Captain Career Course (CCC). It is essential that we provide to our junior officers the skills such as team building, change management, critical thinking, and creative thinking. This will help strengthen our Junior Officers foundation and help prepare them to become agile, adaptable and competent leaders ready to take on challenge that may lay ahead in the future operating environment.
The first skill that I believe would be beneficial to be added to the officer basic course curriculum is team building. Some officers first time leading a team or group is when he or she is placed in charge of a platoon or a company. A select few of our Junior Officers are born leaders and are able to take on this challenge with limited to no difficulties; however there are those officers whose leadership style needs to be developed. For the Majority, this skill set can help provide options when faced with Team building challenges. Team building skill is art in which can help these officers take traditional or nontraditional teams and build synergy amongst the members to accomplish the mission. This helps a future platoon leader or company commander, which are in charge of a team of teams, be successful.
The next skill is change management. A future platoon leader or company commander may come into situation in which the platoon or company environment may not be ideal. Changes must be made, however the way one goes about addressing those changes can the difference between a toxic environment compared to one that is filled with high morale and pride on getting things done. Another suggested leadership skill set that should be added to the junior officer military education curriculum is critical and creative thinking. As the Army continues to downsize, Officers are expected to do more with less and this includes a brand new lieutenant operating at the organizational level or higher. The thinking level of a staff officer at the battalion level or higher is much different than that expected at the company level. At the company level you are expected to know what to do in order to execute an order given to by your battalion. At the organizational level you are expected to know how to think, assess and plan in order to provide the commander the necessary information so he or she can make an accurate decision in a timely manner. We owe it to our commander to provide them the most competent staff officers we can provide.
In summary, we owe it to our junior officers to help develop their foundation while it’s still wet and acceptable for input. Senior officers have usually built their leadership foundation off of past experiences (good and bad), personnel belief and values. Even though it may be challenging to directly effect someone’s personnel beliefs or values; providing our junior officers the above set of skills may provide less bad experiences and a better perspective on looking at things. So I believe providing 2-3 additional days to our junior officer’s professional military education is beneficial in developing the foundation our junior officer in becoming agile, adaptable leaders instead of a toxic leader that graces the cover of the Army Times.
The above words are my personal believes and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Major Christopher Dickinson student, Command and General Staff College, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, Fort Gordon, Georgia
I agree with almost everything stated before. I would like to add a little on the previous comment about being political and placing the mission first. Those leaders will push their subordinates until they have nothing left to give. I think that mission should be placed first, but there needs to be a balance with social life/family and the mission. In order for our Army to succeed, leaders must demonstrate genuine compassion for their subordinates. Unfortunately, I’ve seen it where leaders don’t care anymore. The Army is based on people and the proper motivation of its members.
Everyone is responsible for toxic leadership. However, there is only so much you can. I listened to someone the other talk about their experiences as an S3 and working for a micromanaging jerk. I asked him how he mitigated that and shielded the companies. He told me he had a ‘roger out’ style. When receiving a task he would reply with, “roger out” and then execute the way he wanted not how he was dictated. Fortunately, he was never caught. I think you do the best that you can and try and shield your subordinates from those above.
I’ve identified a few toxic traits of my own, fortunately, I had subordinates that addressed me and we fixed them. I know I’m not the smartest person in my unit or my shop. I have an open mind and I accept constructive criticism. In order to fix this problem, leaders must be open minded.
MAJ Paul Bublis SG 29D
This statement in no way represents the views of the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, or the Command and General Staff College.
Toxic leadership occurs because the Army’s senior leaders covets those characteristics. Toxic leadership is nothing new, it has existed as long as the Army has. I have seen General Officers mentor, coach, and guide the career of a known toxic leader. Who is responsible? Senior leaders are 100% responsible for toxic leaders, they label them as type A personalities that get results. This approval from senior leaders allows these toxic individuals to act as though they have the mandate of an elected official to abuse and demoralized his subordinates.
I know the Army is implementing the MSAF 360 and integrating it into OERs. The 360 only works if senior leaders take them into account and take them seriously. In addition to the MSAF 360 there needs to be a code of conduct for how leaders are allowed to treat subordinates, everyone is a human being and the Army rank structure does not void that.
MAJ David Taylor, student CGSOC Section 33B, Redstone Arsenal
As students in the Command and General Staff College, Majors are required to take a block of classes on leadership with the inherent belief that after spending a miniumum of ten years in the Army we will take away lessons that will prevent us from being a toxic leader as a senior field grade officer. However, leaders who are toxic at the O5/O6 level were more than likely toxic when they were a LT, CPT and MAJ. A key question we must also ask is why don’t we as an institution attempt to teach young officers the right way to lead at the tactical level instead of when they have a minimum of ten years of life experience and are basically who they will be when they are LTC’s/COL’s. The question should be; do we do enough at BOLC and the CCC to instill not only tactical level leadership skills, but instill in our young officers how to lead without being toxic.
Next, we can study why we allow toxic leadership to occur? Very simply, toxic leaders are able to hide it from raters and senior raters. They may be their go-to man because they will simply do anything to accomplish what he/she thinks the boss wants, irregardless of how it affects peers or subordinates. Until be begin official peer and subordinate evaluations this will continue and we will never see the end of toxic leaders in the Army.
Who is responsible for fixing a toxic leader environment? It is a problem that will take the whole force to solve. We MUST be honest on evaluations, toxic leaders must be counseled on their lack of leadership abilities, and the institution must have the strength to move these leaders out, regardless of how well they “kick down doors”
MAJ Metcalf, CGSC Student, SG 33B, Redstone Arsenal
Toxic leaders exist in our organizations because we let them exist although we do not condone their existence. We are notorious for giving birth to these leaders by selecting them to lead, nurturing them by allowing them to lead, and finally letting them flourish through promotions and greater responsibility. Why do we do this? This is because we are a rank based organization. I agree with all the comments within this blog but still have the opinion that we as an Army, need to look in, before we look out at this growing problem. As most of us progress through the ranks, we find that we are not only working with Green Suited leaders in the Army, but also Civilian ones too. I have had the opportunity to work with both. It only took six months before someone with higher rank than the toxic leader to realize something was wrong. When the discovery was made, the change came quick and was inevitable. In the case of the civilian though, the individual was asked to leave from a previous position but was sent to the next position that required greater responsibility. The toxic leadership style continued to grow to a point where being disgruntled was being the norm. When approached with recommendations, the answer was almost like John Binkley’s blog above, “ I do not think I am toxic and I was acting with best intensions.” So nothing changed and morale within the organization continued to decline to a point where work was being done because there was work, not because anyone wanted to do it. I ask myself where I am in the blame process and feel I could, and should, have done more. But the fact remains that I am just as to blame for contributing to the situation. I became a follower along with the others which made up the conducive organizational environment to complete the toxic leader. So, we have only ourselves to blame.
MAJ Jey Jeyasingam, student, CGSOC, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama
Part of the problem for toxic leaders is that their rater or senior rater does not realize that their subordinate is toxic. The toxic leader punishes their subordinates to “get the mission done” and is rewarded for the subordinates work no matter the cost. The Army has created the MSAF 360 as tool to help leaders realize in hopefully a non-attributional way strengths and weaknesses but in reality it helps no one. Regardless of what is said on there it is up to the individual to fix him or herself which cannot be enforced. HRC now directs all OERs to have the blurb “Officer has completed MSAF 360 assessment” which also does nothing. However, if the results of this were given to the leaders rater or senior rater it would force them to fix themselves. This is like the ranger school peering system. If you are peered you go see the boss and are counseled what you need to do to fix yourself. Failure to comply can get you kicked out. I think this would have the same effect if the MSAF 360 was treated that way.
MAJ Andre Yee
I believe that in order to answer the question one has to define toxic leadership. In some organizations, there is a need for a certain type of leadership in order to effect change. This leadership in some cases may be viewed as toxic but in other venues may be exactly what is necessary in order to implement change. Again, I go back to what makes a leader toxic, is it the taking advantage of the subordinates? or does it have to do with the character of the person which lead to a dysfunctional organization. I have to say that the army does not condone toxic leadership, but we allow this pattern of behavior. We are afraid to speak up for fear of ruining our careers, especially if we are in a subordinate role. It is everyone responsibility to stem this problem in our organization, it is incumbent on every individual within the DOD to raise awareness of this issue and highlight it when it occurs, we must also have a process to deal with it, other than shifting these individuals to other jobs. In order to fix I would suggest a process in which subordinates have a say on their superior’s report card, anonymously of course. It is the followers who for the most part feel the effects of toxic leadership.
Toxic leadership has turned into such a buzz phrase in the past couple of years. Many state that there are just as many so-called toxic leaders in today’s Army then, let’s say, 20 years ago. So what’s the difference? I would contend that a major difference in this perspective is the ‘advertisement’ of toxic leaders. I use the term ‘advertising’ in a way suggesting that we now use case studies and vignettes to ‘gauge’ and ‘measure’ a toxic leader. Toxic leadership has a few definitions and indicators but at the end of the day, a toxic leader is someone who displays very poor emotional intelligence and awareness. Stated another way, someone who just doesn’t care about how their speeches and gestures affect a subordinate.
‘Allowing’ toxic leadership is a tricky statement. Stating that it is allowed seems like saying we condone it, but that is most certainly not the case. It continues because those that ‘are’ toxic (but don’t think they are) have not been told they are. Of those people/leaders, they probably run an organization where no one wants to approach the subject due to reprisal. I have never heard, who I thought was a toxic leader, talk about the topic itself. Furthermore, those toxic leaders tend to talk about themselves and their own experiences rather than seeking the same from those around him/her. Those that talk about the topic of toxicity among our formations are generally those that have high emotional IQs and awareness. I would ask the blog board to state if their experiences have seen a toxic leader discuss about that very subject. My initial answer would very few, if none at all…
Additionally, I feel toxic leadership persists due our responsibility as peers and comrades to clean up our own. From my experience, the most toxic of leadership has been at the O6/BDE level. It’s difficult for subordinate staff officers/NCOs to approach a BDE Commander about alleged toxic styles and climate. I do not think toxic leaders just turn toxic at a certain point; they most likely had that type of attitude and personality throughout their career. So to that point, I would proffer that it would be his/her peers that should point out the person’s shortfall.
The contributors below articulated several ways that might measure or indicate a person aligned as that as toxic, but I think it’s our own observations that can get this out in the open. So to spare redundancy of more assessments and surveys, I feel we that as a profession of arms have to be more open about toxic leaders. But as Dave states, the big Army is not going to be able to flush out toxic leaders as long there is are real world missions that discriminate for and incur promotions.
MAJ Sean Troyer; CGSG student; 12-03; Redstone, AL.
Part of the problem for toxic leaders is that their rater or senior rater does not realize that their subordinate is toxic. The toxic leader punishes their subordinates to “get the mission done” and is rewarded for the subordinates work no matter the cost. The Army has created the MSAF 360 as tool to help leaders realize in hopefully a non-attributional way strengths and weaknesses but in reality it helps no one. Regardless of what is said on there it is up to the individual to fix him or herself which cannot be enforced. HRC now directs all OERs to have the blurb “Officer has completed MSAF 360 assessment” which also does nothing. However, if the results of this were given to the leaders rater or senior rater it would force them to fix themselves. This is like the ranger school peering system. If you are peered you go see the boss and are counseled what you need to do to fix yourself. Failure to comply can get you kicked out. I think this would have the same effect if the MSAF 360 was treated that way.
We allow toxic leadership to occur simple because we are afraid to standout to and be considered an outcast. We are afraid of the consequences that may follow if we confront that certain leader. What will they think of me? How will standing out affect my career? Am I the one that is not thinking straight? Are my leadership traits faulty? These are just some of the questions that arise and crates hesitance to follow through. Bottom line, some subordinates are unsure on how our leaders will react to our proposal.
Leadership, toxic or otherwise in some cases is a learned but more importantly, an accepted trait. If we allow our peers to provide a toxic environment then we are at fault. At times, certain leaders may not know that the leadership they are providing is harmful to the unit and creates leadership gaps through the army. It has a snowball effect, much similar to that of parent and child. The child, in this case the subordinate will only act as instructed or by what they have seen. Leadership should start ASAP, before they are leaders, before they have the weight on their shoulder and must react to a situation that can be potentially harmful.
What we see is what we learn. We learn our leadership styles by emulating a myriad of leaders (and some subordinates). We then take that style and hone it to become ours. Useful strategies may be leveraging the command climate against your leadership style. Listen to what peers, subordinates and superiors are saying. Enable confidence in peers and subordinates so that they are more receptive to receive criticism. Allow failure in subordinates, in order to promote learning and corrective actions. But most important is to lead by example.
MAJ Michelle Glenn
Eliminating toxic leadership is next to impossible because it blurs the lines between equal opportunity and an IG complaint. Toxic leadership in my opinion is not limited to Commanders, but of anyone that holds a position of influence in the Army. Toxic leadership is also a matter of opinion that can or may be based on the perspective of the race, gender, age, and position of the person in the organization. The toxic leaders want you to get the job done, but do not give you the tools or resources to succeed. In addition, we try and improve or address the situation you get shut down or dismissed. The Army will need to address this, because in any organization we have two types of people those that we do not want to deal with or the person that gets it done. So the go to guy gets overworked and constantly tasked, while the unapproachable ones attitude and level of entitlement continues to grow. I do believe that toxic leaders are not aware that they are toxic, due to the evaluation ratings they have received and a personnel belief in their own standards.
Why do we allow Toxic Leadership to occur?
Toxic leadership occurs because no one wants to be the bad guy. No one wants to take the take time to assess, counsel and make recommendations for someone that is toxic. We rather try to avoid the situation and do nothing about it. The only way to remove toxic leadership from the ranks is by counseling where one will know their strengths and weaknesses and held accountable to improve those weaknesses. Many toxic leaders may not know that they are toxic so to them they think that they are doing a great job but unless it’s stated and facts are shown why one might be toxic then how do we expect for someone to change.
We allow toxic leadership to occur because we do not want to highlight our own flaws. Over the past 10 years or more, we have allowed the critical skills of counseling and mentoring to atrophy. Because many leaders do not find the time to properly observe and counsel subordinate leaders, they eventually find it self-critical when it comes time to write the leader’s assessment report. By that point, the superior leader will feel he cannot give a below standard or “relief for cause” report because it will highlight his past lack of counseling’s. Thus, toxic leaders are allowed to remain in service and progress up the ranks.
All leaders are responsible for fixing toxic leader environment. Be it subordinate, peer, or superior. Of course, the first line of responsibility lies with the superior in their duties of counseling. We all can play about in honest feedback to that individual. The MSAF/360 is one of those feedbacks that we all must provide honest and true feedback to individuals being assessed.
I believe the creation of senior rater user profiles for CPT and above has been a useful strategy to implement honest evaluation of Soldiers. I would also like to see Command Climate surveys required more frequently and shared with superior leaders so that extreme cases of toxic leadership can be identified and addressed.
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
MAJ John Spencer, student, Staff Group 30-A, Command and General Staff School, Ft. Belvoir, VA.
John is correct from above that toxic is a subjective topic of discussion within the ranks of our Army and one that needs some codification. Currently if asked for definitions there are many sources that people will refer to. However; the current edition of the Army’s Field Manual for Leadership (FM 6-22; Army Leadership) does not define the term. We are asking members of our profession to prevent “toxic leadership” but have not taken the stand to produce an Army definition that is common throughout our ranks.
Additionally, I believe the real root of the problem of “toxic” leadership is the lack of counseling that occurs in the ranks. If you were to place 100 FG officers in a room and ask them when was the last time they were counseled the return on that question would be eye opening and quite frankly rather depressing. Some of us have had tremendous leaders who communicated effectively through counseling and also had a grasp of the “art” of counseling.
There have been a few accounts of some leaders who have been labeled as toxic and the background is that now it seems plausible based on their past. “Toxic” leaders are not born overnight. It is an evolution in a person’s leadership style that left unchecked by superiors, or peers it will manifest into a leadership style that makes the cover of the Army Times. Put the command emphasis on routine counseling and leader development to identify the problem with enough time and space to course correct for future opportunities.
Doctrinally we have to define what the problem is and then enforce the current mechanisms that will enable leaders to identify potential issues. Also, these two corrections will provide for some to self actualize and take some corrective action on their own.
Toxic leadership is often hard to define and it has occurred for several reasons. One potential source of the problem has been the promotion system. The extremely high promotion rates amongst the field grade ranks over the last decade were necessary to sustain the fight. However, it allowed officers to be promoted when in normal circumstances they would not have been. Additionally, promotions are dependent on a top down view of how person performs. During a promotion board each OER receives about a minute of attention. As a result, the primary inputs to the system are the opinion of your boss and how your achievements look on paper. The Army has instituted the first step in helping to fix this system by requiring a 360 degree survey. However, there is no direct feedback loop to the superior. I don’t believe subordinates or peers should provide direct input into the evaluation system because I believe it would undermine the chain of command. There are also almost always circumstances beyond the purview of peers and subordinates that only a superior may know. If feedback was given to the superior, it would at least allow them to make an informed opinion and it would help in creating the development plan for the subordinates. It is always the responsibility of the leader to fix a subordinate toxic leader.
The Army espouses that it wants leaders with a high emotional intelligence quotient or “EQ.” However, it could be argued that leaders with high EQ take on the stress of their organizations (either consciously or unconsciously). As they do well in Army they are often rewarded with another hard job for a job well done. Over time this extra organizational stress may build up. As a result they may experience either emotional fatigue or emotional burnout. They are then faced with one of two choices. They can seek greener pastures and a job that allows them to decompress even though it may not be beneficial to their career (or the leave they service). Alternatively, they become callous and “lose” some of their EQ. At its worse extreme you could potentially take someone who was going to be a great leader and unwittingly turn them into a toxic leader as they continue to serve. I believe this has been exacerbated over the last decade of combat because the emphasis has been on getting as much operational experience as possible. The opportunities that allow you to take a knee and reflect are seen as having a potential negative impact on your career. With below the zone and double below the zone promotions there are leaders who have been working in operational units from company command through battalion command. The only break they received was the one year off here at CGSC. To help solve this problem, leaders should be afforded the opportunity to take assignments that allow them to reset and reflect in between KD jobs. The mindset shift that the Army is making by re-emphasizing non-operational experiences is going to help restore a balance to leader development that has been lacking because of the OPTEMPO of the last decade. However, promotion practices have to reflect this shift. If not, then operational experience will remain the predominant metric for getting promoted that is where the force will remain fixated.
Toxic leaders are prevalent at every rank in the Army, but the toxic leaders that continue to move up the ranks have one very specific trait in common- they are very political. By the time a service member reaches the rank of Major, he/she typically has already had a leadership style attached to their name. Toxic leaders that are identified as such by both their subordinates and superiors tend to be curtailed into certain jobs; it is the toxic leaders that superiors cannot identify as being toxic that the rest of the force must be wary of. These toxic leaders that move up the ranks possess a seemingly split personality, displaying an over-friendly, motivated aura to higher-ranking individuals, while demeaning their subordinates. Very rarely do these types directly confront their subordinates, but degrade people with snide remarks and talking behind their back. If you met this type of toxic leader, you may classify them as one of the friendliest individuals you have ever met, but in reality, they are the ones who are the worst to work for. The risk to a subordinate in reporting this type of toxic leader is high because they may not be believed; so many times, they just choose to wait the person out until one of them PCSes. I have worked directly for one of these toxic leaders and in the close proximity of two others. I personally closely monitor their careers and make sure I do not PCS to a location where I may end up working for them again- regardless of how great the location may be. I agree with the previous bloggers that the Army will never fully rid itself of these types of toxic leaders, however, we can continue to treat people with respect ourselves, and hopefully these toxic leaders will eventually be exposed.
Well I am a DA Civilian but I am also an Army veteran since 2006, and I would say that all the above posts have good points I would like to add this comment. When I was in the military I would have labeled myself as a good leader for military standards but since then I have had the opportunity to lead civilian, let me make this very clear leading civilians is a totally different ball game plus if they have no prior military background as well. Since I have gotten out of the military I have been a civilian leader and had leaders that where veterans and non-veterans a like and it has been a challenge to adjustment my thinking/style on how to lead them or be lead by them in a fair and even matter daily. I am sure if you asked all of my co-workers one of them would label me as a toxic leader. But I don’t see that as a failure on my part I have room for improvement in that one persons mind which I welcome the opportunity. To my point I would say that leadership in my opinion boils down to environment, co-workers, and mission. Because all those things must me weighted when you are a leader it is more important that as a leader you can adjust to those conditions rater then labeling yourself or other as toxic. Yes, leaving dead bodies behind your path is not to me a sign of good leadership but as a leader you will have to hurt some feelings from time to time.
Toxic leadership is a very subjective thing. The leader themselves do not think they are toxic, and if questioned on the issue, they would more than likely say, they were acting with best intensions. Subordinates opinions on the same leader depend on their individual interactions and results. A leader loved by some is hated by others. Every leader at one time or another has been labeled openly or in private as toxic. A simple look through history at some of our most celebrated Military Leaders would show all of them toxic when measured by today’s standard. If we are going to remove toxic leadership from our ranks, the definition has to be significantly narrowed.
I tend to agree with the above posts. One man’s toxic leader is another’s superstar. Unless that person is acting unethical or unlawful not much will be done. No senior rater out there is going to hamstring his or her hard charging subordinate commander with a bad OER for “toxic Issues” as long as the tough missions are being accomplished. The real issue is just what is a toxic leader? Ask 100 people and you will get 100 answers. This allows every Rater and Senior Rater to create his or her own definition and protect those that he or she sees fit. Until some sort of standard is established the term is subjective and the only way to identify a Toxic Leader will be at the point something bad happens.
The Army will never completely rid toxic leaders from its ranks because the Army is a mission based organization, and as long as a leader is successful his faults will be overlooked.
I, like most everybody in the Army, have worked for a toxic leader (several in-fact). These experiences were far from enjoyable for me or my peers, but every time the toxic leader received a successful OER and moved to the next level of command. Why did they continue to move forward in the Army although they failed in every basic leadership skill taught since ROTC/West Point? Because they successfully accomplished their mission and gained the trust of their Rater/Senior Rater. From what I saw; unless the toxic leader was unmoral, unethical, or conducting illegal activities, then the morale of the organization was not important.
Looking back overtime it is easy to see that toxic leaders have made it to the upper levels of command. Look at General Patton or General Schwarzkopf. General Patton is famous (if not celebrated) for his hard-nosed attitude, but was far from loved by his subordinates. Likewise, General Schwarzkopf admitted to getting his temper while serving in Vietnam and kept it throughout his Army Career (see Rick Atkinson’s Book: Crusade). But this personal leadership flaw, which made being a subordinate in his organization difficult at best, did not stop him from becoming CENTCOM Commander and leading a ticker tape parade in New York City.
The idea to rid the Army of toxic leaders is noble and just, but ultimately is unrealistic as long as Mission comes first.
I have a DA Civilian that qualifies for a TOXIC Leader! We should do Army 360 for them as well…hold them accountable…make it an option on this survey…we do have military that are rated by them….perhaps the military should not.
On the whole, both military and DA civilians uphold the Army Values….but we need to watch out for these Toxic Leaders at all levels and all ranks Military or Civilian.
The Army does not condone toxic leadership. However, due to today’s operational environment and tempo, eliminating toxic leadership is difficult, challenging and somewhat impossible. We all see the term toxic leadership from our own stand point, most likely related to personal experience and/or the knowledge we have gathered on this term. But, I invite you to place yourself in the position of those you call toxic leaders and try to go through the thought process of that leader; what do you think influences, motivates or directs your toxic leader to performed unsatisfactorily as you assessed he has done. I do not rule out the existence of toxic leadership, since I have personally experienced toxic leadership, directly and indirectly, in my 10 years of service. I would always remember that humans are not perfect and, in this profession of arms, our leadership is always experiencing new situations that challenge their knowledge, emotions/self-control, and beliefs.
Leadership is a subject taught at any military school, but, as individuals, it takes time to mature as a leader. The Army provides 25 percent of the leadership education and the other 75 percent relies on the individual self-assessment and the application of effective leadership skills. Today’s operational tempo is not helping this matter. Junior leaders deploy to a combat environment right after school and it is expected they perform according to their leadership position. Senior leaders are overwhelmed with combat operations, limiting their time to mentor subordinates. This bond between leadership education and senior mentorship is critical to the development of current and future leaders; it is a continuous process across all ranks and positions that will not only make us better but will also allow us to identify and prevent toxic leadership.
The above words are my personal believes and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Major Harley Rodriguez, student, Command and General Staff College, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, Fort Gordon, Georgia
This is a great discussion, but I highly doubt anything will change. For one thing, the “toxic leader’s,” Senior Rater, thinks and rates the “toxic leader,” as his #1 “go-to-guy.”
I also wonder do the real “toxic leaders,” know or care about the trail of blood and bodies they leave behind them?