Army worries about ‘toxic leaders’ in ranks

[alp227]

Source: The Washington Post

A major U.S. Army survey of leadership and morale found that more than 80 percent of Army officers and sergeants had directly observed a “toxic” leader in the last year and that about 20 percent of the respondents had worked directly for one.

The survey of some 22,000 Army leaders was conducted by the Center for Army Leadership and comes during a year when the Army has removed or discipline three brigade commanders who were en route to, or returning from. war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Selection to command a combat brigade, which consists of about 5,000 soldiers and is commanded by a colonel, is highly competitive in the Army.

The survey also found that 97 percent of officers and sergeants had observed an “exceptional leader” within the Army in the last year.

The Army defined toxic leaders as commanders who put their own needs first, micro-managed subordinates, behaved in a mean-spirited manner or displayed poor decision making.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/army-worries-about-toxic-leaders-in-ranks/2011/06/25/AGThw4kH_story.html

[Posteritatis]

1. Ugh. Also, I'm curious as to how that compared to leadership roles in other fields. (nt)

[bemildred]

2. Maybe less polarized terminology would help them think about this better.

"Toxic" is just not the right word; something like "immature" or "incompetent" or "too authoritarian" would be better. Humans ought not be compared to diseases or poisons.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. In a boardroom, that would be true. In the military, toxic leaders KILL people.

They are bad for the military, they are bad for the troops, they are bad for international relations.

The term is totally appropriate.

[bemildred]

8. I was not suggesting it's not a serious issue.

I'm suggesting that it will be dealt with better with less polarized language. I refer you to one of Napoleon's Dicta:

"Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice" — Napoleon Bonaparte

[boppers]

17. Napoleon's version was about competence.

Same underlying premise, though.

http://tinyurl.com/6hy78j

[bemildred]

20. Getting your subordinates killed (without good reason) IS incompetent.

It's about the most incompetent thing an officer can do.

[Hissyspit]

10. James Cagney as Captain Morton in Mister Roberts

[bemildred]

11. Well, he's the problem, I'm suggesting that Henry Fonda as Mr Robert's is the solution. nt

[Suji to Seoul]

15. Bogie as Captain Queeg in The Caine Mutiny

Strawberries!!!!

[nebenaube]

12. Certainly describes WI's leaders. n/t

[MADem]

25. It could very well be that they aggregated the data first, and came up with

the "toxic" definition when presenting the results. I would not be surprised if the word "toxic" did not appear anywhere in the actual survey.

I've taken surveys of this sort--they usually ask and re-ask the same questions, slightly differently, to try to cut down on the BSing and lying.

[bemildred]

29. Most likely.

I'm talking about the story about the study, not the study. I would assume the study, under the pretense of being objective, would avoid transparently loaded language.

Edit: However the OP does give an Army definition for "toxic leaders", so it's not just the OP misrepresenting the Army.

[MADem]

30. Heh heh! If they told the truth in the headline, no one would read the article!

I'm sure the Army did indeed come up with the "toxic" word, but my guess is that the word was inserted in the "post-production" process, after the survey had been sent out and the results returned.

It is not unusual for military personnel preparing reports that go to the Big Wigs in DOD and Congress to "sex up" the summaries, in order to pique the interest of the readers of these generally boring documents.

[bemildred]

33. Ya, all true. nt

[Old Troop]

34. The phrase "toxic leadership" has been around for awhile in the

Army. Probably 6 or more years. Obviously it can destroy the effectiveness of a unit by causing subordinate to refrain from bringing controversial issues to a leader's attention. It also applies to the civilian leadership within the Army.

[MADem]

36. Probably introduced by some general's aide who was a Britney Spears fan!

They used to be called Type A assholes, micromanagers, martinets, bully bosses....but it's all the same thing...a jerk who won't let his subordinates develop their leadership skills, who uses put-downs, fear, intimidation and threats to keep people in line. These guys expect to be disliked, and they're unable to develop any sort of trusting relationship with their subordinates.

I've worked for jerks like that. They taught me great lessons. I learned what not to do from the jerks, and what to do from the ones who led by very good example. I never had any problems with my personnel not watching my back, but that kind of relationship is one where you have to give as good as you get.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

3. Agreed. We've had a leadership crisis in America for decades.

There's worthless, toxic, incompetent, corrupt people in leadership positions in all fields. Hell, in many cases, they are celebrated and only get more power/status/money.

Doubtful that the Army would be any different.

[Kurovski]

24. Psychosis floats to the top.

Who better to do the dirty work than someone who doesn't have empathy?

[DBoon]

4. I only wish corporate america cared this much

"put their own needs first, micro-managed subordinates, behaved in a mean-spirited manner or displayed poor decision making" almost defines the qualifications to be a corporate executive

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. Very good study!

Toxic leaders eventually retire and eventually end up in my neighborhood. Thought they usually come from the Navy and Air Force.

[hack89]

7. If you just stayed off their grass

you wouldn't have any problems!

:)

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. The problem is, it's my grass they're encroaching on!

Seriously. In some innocuous statements are some ugly realities.

[ooglymoogly]

9. This is brilliant

It is the way our military should work. I just hope they are following through. I wonder how torturing Petraeus fared in this survey.

[Godot51]

13. Toxic leaders

It sounds like the Peter Principle in action, doesn't it? The percentages are probably similar for leadership across the board. Self-serving incompetence knows no boundaries.
In the bad old days of the draft I'd put the level of "toxic leaders" much higher, mainly because advancement was the goal of this type of person, despite their abilities or lack of them. Much like the Stanford Prison Experiment separated young men into guards and prisoners randomly, untested, barely trained 2nd Lts. were put in charge of inexperienced, frightened soldiers. That we functioned at all is a testimony to the adaptability of the human animal.
In the late 60s "fragging" was a word in the news due to the "accidental" demise of such leaders in the field.
In a third, dated, reference it was and will always be a Catch-22.

[Alcibiades]

16. You hardly hear of the Peter Principle any more

It was a great book, and, though very funny, its basic logic does apply to any large organization.

The existence of these sorts of folks is one of the main reasons why I never joined the Army: the others were that I am a contrarian, and so, since most everyone was determined that I would do it, as almost every other man in our family had, I was determined not to, and because it seemed too easy, in the sense that it is the easiest thing in the world to join the family business and make exactly the same choices your father made. Growing up, I had heard plenty of stories from my dad, my stepdad, my brother-in-law and grandfather, who were all career Army NCOs (though dad did make it to CW5) about stupid, inept or otherwise generally clueless people above them in the chain of command. It seemed wrongheaded that lieutenants were in charge of men who had many more years experience, but, more importantly, that it was the norm in the Army to work for folks who you did not respect.

It was only later, after about ten years in the civilian workforce, that I realized that this is not a problem unique to the military.

[lovuian]

14. Moral is low

its pretty obvious

[boppers]

19. Moral != Morale

Just FYI.

[Posteritatis]

23. Both are having their problems at times in the armed forces, sadly. (nt)

[No Elephants]

28. I thought leaving off the "e" was deliberate. Sure got to the nub of the matter.

[Pirate Smile]

18. I'm really glad they are doing this type of survey and hope they can put the info to good use.

[Solly Mack]

22. k/r

[jmowreader]

26. It didn't name the biggest problem here

The Army is full of toxic leaders. We know that. The Army does everything it possibly can to create them, though.

How officers are promoted to captain and above (promotion to first lieutenant is automatic) is by a centralized board. Ninety days before the board convenes at Headquarters, Department of the Army, the officer gets a new official photo taken, orders a copy of his or her microfiche (also known as the Official Military Personnel File), makes sure his or her records are squared away and crosses fingers.

At the board, they put twenty majors and above into a room. Each of them has a microfiche reader, with which your record will be scrutinized. They only get three minutes to do it, so big splashy achievements are preferred--which you get in your record by being a total prick. We're talking Raymond J. McKnight levels of prickness. (McKnight was a command sergeant major one of my contemporaries in Berlin described as "the single biggest prick to wear the uniform in the history of the Republic." Which, as it turns out, is pretty accurate--this is the bastard who'd sniff the troops' bedsheets during room inspections to make sure no one was having sex in the barracks. I think we need to find the little mean guy and run him for president in 2016 on the Democratic ticket because if McKnight was president we wouldn't have trouble with the Republicans ever again.)

[No Elephants]

27. I've never worked in a large civilian organization in which leaders were not toxic.

[MADem]

32. Power corrupts, and all that....

Some people let it go to their head. It's a curious result of the human condition.

It's actually better in the military now than it was, say, fifty or sixty years ago. There are more rules for behavior and more oversight, in general.

However, that fact is not terribly helpful when the stakes are as high as they are in this operational environment. The Services really can't afford any f-ups in leadership ranks.

[marasinghe]

35. sadly, you are correct; and not just with regard to corporations.

working for an international humanitarian organization, i can say - the toxic adjective could apply equally to the executives running this place.

i believe that, almost all social organizations - whether familial, ethnic, religious, military, corporate, idealistic, whatever - begin to degenerate into self-serving entities, designed to propagate the interests of its own officers (as opposed to the original reasons for its creation & existence) by the 3rd generation of leaders. once the founders have passed on, their ideals will also die - in very short order.

[bemildred]

37. Money attracts sociopaths like shit attracts flies. nt

[Demeter]

31. And Why Should The Army Be Any Different Than US Business?

The incestuous relationship runs deep.