Pentagon Concern About ‘Toxic Leaders’
12.21.2013 at 07:06pm
Pentagon Concern About 'Toxic Leaders' by Anna Mulrine, Christian Science Monitor.
The latest bad behavior story coming out of the Air Force – involving the alleged boozy cavorting of the US general in charge of nuclear weapons in the hotel bars of Moscow, no less – has senior military officials again grappling with precisely how the Pentagon might prevent the rise of what it calls "toxic leaders.”
The cause has been taken up by the US military’s top leader, Gen. Martin Dempsey, in recent months.
The fact that the US military has been on a war footing for more than a decade, he told troops during a “town hall” meeting earlier this year, may have created some “bad habits, frankly.”…
There have always been toxic leaders, and there most likely always will be, I saw more than my share during the no defects military of the 80’s and 90’s. What we have today however, might be something different that affects all personnel to varying degrees.
I was at a large Joint Base on the West Coast this past week to speak with a senior medical provider (former enlisted and retired field grade officer) concerning indicators of destructive behavior in current service members on his/her installation. He described the problems on post (alcohol related incidents, “hot” drug tests, general lack of military bearing, other indiscipline) as “a lack of the grounding in the general rules of civility”.
As an example, he said that his posted parking space was continually hijacked by other personnel and went on to state that it was something that he never would have thought of doing while he was a private or officer. Not because it was an order, but because it was discourteous and disrespectful. He went on to say that he experience the cure to this problem in the 70’s and 80’s Army, it takes enforcement of standards and leaders leading by example. What it doesn’t take is some fancy named formal program, to get the train back on the railroad tracks. As the Latin motto says, “Non Vox Sed Votum”, not words but deeds.
As an aside, who is the CJCS’s speech writer who has Dempsey talk about balance between competence and character? It’s not like it’s a trade-off between one or the other, they are absolutes that are both demanded. If over the last decade of combat we sacrificed character for competence, had we already taken the first steps towards failing to accomplish what the nation asks of us?
I have served under some. However the rules over common sense, one size fits all leader is just as damaging and far more common. As is the General who wants to be a company commander and the blind follower. You can’t have it both ways. The “my career guy” will follow the rules, and never assume risk. This is where the brass grows. You are never going to field a unit of Airborne Ranger Chaplains, to who cut down droves of enemy, don’t partake of wine, woman or song, smoke or dip, are nice to small animals and never do wrong. It’s just never gonna happen. Kick out the worst, smoke the rest and stop thinking human behavior has moved past the basic level or improved in the last 4000 years. When someone has “authority” over someone else, the opportunity for misuse it exists and has and as has corruption.
Start busting some Generals & Admirals to E-1 with full loss of benefits and see if that doesn’t correct some of the behavior. But remember, the death penalty hasn’t stopped killers. And no creed, program, rule, law or training is going to prevent them from entering service and getting promoted either.
Just two comments:
1- I agree with the others on the character versus competence comment. I would submit that our personnel system hasn’t figured out how to identify competence above the E-7, W-3, and O-3 levels- and that if we figured that out, character would be part of the package (how can you be a competent leader and not have any character?? I don’t think we define competence correctly). And I also don’t buy the idea that character means one is a monk. Plenty of our own- not to mention the rest of the world’s- history shows that is not true.
2- The real issue in my opinion is that our military is a reflection of our society- not in the individualistic sense one normally thinks of- but in the institutional sense. Our institutions have evolved into something probably very different than what our Founding Fathers thought they should. Does anyone really think the TSA protects us from terrorists more than just annoys us? Does anyone really think the DEA has made progress on the use of illegal drugs in this country? And do most politicians/voters think the U.S. military- as an institution- has done anything to make us more secure in the past decade+? Our personnel system- and our military- exists for arguably different reasons than we commonly assume. They exist for many as a reflection of what we would like to have: war without blood, easily-measured victories, equality of outcome, fairness, gender/sexual orientation blindness, progressive culture enabler, social justice, a continuation of money flow, etc. Once one looks through those frames- and they are frames that many interest groups that are actively seeking change in the military openly admit to aiming for- many of our problems and our so-called solutions- start to make sense, at least to me.
In others words- I think it is a bad assumption to think those in charge are really aiming for a competent force during warfare.