Small Wars Journal

Army Worries about 'Toxic Leaders' in Ranks

Sun, 06/26/2011 - 8:33am
Army Worries about 'Toxic Leaders' in Ranks by Greg Jaffe, Washington Post. BLUF: "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 said that they had worked directly for one... The survey also found that 97 percent of officers and sergeants had observed an "exceptional leader" within the Army in the past year." The Army defines "toxic leaders" as "commanders who put their own needs first, micro-managed subordinates, behaved in a mean-spirited manner or displayed poor decision making."

Comments

bumperplate

Sun, 06/26/2011 - 4:05pm

This should be good for discussion.

Leadership has indeed suffered and we have some horrible leaders. From my vantage point I think it's time to start resetting year groups and/or pushing promotion timelines back toward the right. If people can't see such a catapult to that next paygrade due to promotion timelines, maybe they'll take their "talents" elsewhere, which will be good for the Army all the way around.

I wonder if poor decision making is a nice way of labeling incompetence because there's a fair amount of that going around too - yet another consequence of getting desperate for personnel and promoting too quickly.

I joined the military close to 20 years ago as an enlisted guy. I recall two prominent examples on the enlisted side of toxic leadership and perhaps a third that was borderline. As an officer I've seen that number increase dramatically, which is disheartening. Also, as an officer, I see it within our officer corps way more often than I witness it in the enlisted ranks and that too is disheartening. When the enlisted pax are seeing this often enough in their officers it's only a matter of time before it makes its way down to the E9 and E8 levels. It's at the E8 level that I see it more often and at its worst. Those guys out there bucking to make the list for E9 are just awful for a company.

Officers take the lead of other officers and it seems that toxic leadership is making its way lower in the pay chart. I used to hear stories of it at happening at the Division level, then get word about how it was happening at some BCTs. But now I see it firsthand at BNs.

Unless and until they stop promoting "yes men" and those that live with their noses up the asses of their superiors, this will not end.

In the officer corps, we must overhaul our values system. Running fast in front of a formation does not make you a leader. Tabs and badges do not make you a leader. Your PT (and training for the PT test while hiding out from combat focused PT) score does not make you a leader. Volunteering your unit for every task does not make you a leader. Face time with the boss at all social events and hitting reply all to echo the boss' comments like some lacky does not make you a leader.

Additionally, our senior officers (BN Cdr and above) must take a stand against toxic leadership outside of our ranks as well - and they must be willing to skull drag a terrible 1SG right out of his or her company and show him a new desk and chair in the 3-shop where he or she can lay on land & ammo for the new 1SG's company, etc.

Our metrics for leadership are among the worst in the world for a large organization. Nowhere in writings on leadership does it state that you must be the "best" at any one task. You will command junior enlisted with masters degrees while you only have a bachelors; you will execute a PT test and some SSG is going to smoke your score; some PVT is going hit more targets than you with the M4. But we have conjured up some crazy scheme whereby officers are expected to be "the best", and hence they end up being scared to fail, scared to show up to events when they are not likely to be the best one present, and insist on grandstanding and showing off at the events where they excel. Being competent, proficient, and well-rounded are things we need in our officers. Throw in trustworthiness, integrity, and the appropriate level of care and concern for one's subordinates (tough love as well as compassion), and a big dose of mental toughness and you have a great start to being a leader. Until that changes, we will continue down this road with toxic leaders.

Lot of bitching up above....my quick and not so subtle solutions:

1) push promotion back three years and increase KD time requirements by a minimum of 50%, preferably 100%. If you're one year from your BZ look, stay the course. If you're outside of that, get ready to wear that rank a good bit longer. Let's get back to holding on to people that want to be here. If you want to be a leader, if you see the nobility and meaning in leading Soldiers in garrison and in combat, stay the course and deal with the delay. Otherwise, hit the road.

2) abolish all unit runs or mandate a 9 min / mile pace for no longer than 3 miles. Don't like it? I don't care. Being a track star and dusting your formation doesn't make you look like a stud, it makes you look like a child. 82nd....are you listening? You want to show that your unit is fit to fight, execute a 12-mile road march in full kit with weapons, finish under four hours, with your formation still intact and ready to dig fighting positions, establish a patrol base, etc. Prancing in front of the Div Cdr tells me nothing about leadership and combat fitness. Your Soldiers will feel more pride from a foot march than a 45 minute run. Bring your Soldiers across the parade field after 12 miles and let the Div Cdr address them - that will make them feel good. Running by just tells them the circus is close to over.

3) re-certify all of your bling. Training for Ranger School for four years while at ROTC or USMA etc, and getting through 60 days of suck when you're in your biological prime does not make you a leader. Take the RPFT, pass the core Ranger tasks from the school house every year or take the tab off. Like to impress everyone with your bling....re-certify yearly or take it off. Jump from a plane, take a written test, pass the BAC physical requirements every year or take off those wings. Same for Pathfinder, AirAssault, and anything else that goes on a uniform. Same for EIB - if you're not current on your proficiency then obviously you're not an expert, take it off. Oh, and there's no carry over. Every piece of crap you want to attach to your uniform, re-certify or take it off. Then we'll see just how many schools people want to attend and hopefully get rid of the Soldiers and the unit commanders that believe a chest full of badges determines what kind of Soldier you are. If we have to go through re-certification for anti-terrorism awareness then by George you should do the same if you want to state you're an expert infantryman or attained excellence in armor, etc.

4) lastly, make the branches field their training commands with officers from their own branches. We have too many infantry guys taking command of armor/cav units, as well as other commands in and out of the MFE world. No more. Tell the infantry guys to just enjoy their time on staff a bit longer. No reason for an Armor officer to hold command at the Transpo School. This will demand more top notch people from these communities come about, and will demand they increase their abilities to lead and command. It will force the branches to start policing their own more closely, to generate and develop their leaders. The commanders at major levels (such as TRADOC) will be responsible for ensuring command positions are filled appropriately and with the top leaders from each branch/community.