# Toxic Leadership – A US Army Perspective



## nobodythank you (Jul 8, 2014)

Saw this article posted by the Tactical Tailor page and thought it was an interesting read. Did a search and didn't see this posted so...

*Toxic Leadership – A US Army Perspective*

From the article:


> "Doc’s research found that during times of war, as the operation tempo increases and stretches the available rank and file thin, the Army allows in recruits who are less than optimally suited for military service. His report notes that beyond a basic physical fitness and self-evaluation “all manner of pre-existing conditions and circumstances…can be waivered away to clear the volunteer for induction and service.” This insight supports the standard thesis that suicide victims are the result of ‘pre-existing conditions and circumstances’, *however* there is another impact of this less thorough recruiting policy;_ inappropriately trained people, who are unsuited for leadership roles, are fast track promoted to ranks beyond their level of competency and expertise._"



I thought this was an important part of the concept behind toxic leadership. Which can happen in peace time as well as war time. I saw plenty of this in the Florida Guard unfortunately. As a side note, I am not undermining the need for maintaining discipline and good order within a military structure. I am trying to highlight how sometimes, the idea of suck it up and quit sniveling within our culture can cause command to miss important clues in preventing suicide. My feelings anyhow.

Discuss...


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 8, 2014)

I also think we promote Officers too fast.  They spend two years learning a job, then move on just as they get competent.

Make the 15 year reduced pension permanent, and let CPT's retire at 15 years.

I could probably make the claim that NCO's move up too fast also.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 8, 2014)

I would not equate suicide with preexisting conditions or poor recruitment policy. Although the argument can be made on some cases, I know too many great soldiers and leaders who ended their lives. Generally due to inability to cope with multiple deployments, loss of family, loss of fellow soldiers and more so transitioning from the Army life.

That said, there was a huge problem in 2005-2008 with recruiting and the fucknuggets who were getting in, couple that with lower discipline standards/training and now we have soldiers bitching about sticky arms b/c they can't roll up their sleeves.


----------



## Grunt (Jul 8, 2014)

I think one of the saddest things concerning promotions is that many of those that are fast-tracked are based on "who they know" rather than "what they know" which helps lead into toxic leadership. Many of them don't possess even as much as a clue of what leadership is. How many of them have you come across where it was said, "Respect the rank, even if you don't respect the person." I have known way more of them than I should have.

I don't believe that encouraging others to "suck it up" is necessarily a bad thing in the realm of "everyone is a winner and second place is great as long as you tried your best". There are those that need to hear it and be pushed beyond their comfort zone and realize there is more to life than quitting when things hurt or seem too hard.  I agree that leaders need to have the capacity to know their people. Part of being a good leader is knowing your people to the point where you can discern when they are having some serious issues and when they are just wanting to whimper out. Is it possible to know every problem they may be having personally...absolutely not, but a leader who IS a leader and has some vested time and interest in their people may be able to see that one little trigger that can indicate whether a person is having a legitimate issue or just wanting a whine session.

True leaders are vested in THEIR PEOPLE -- toxic leaders are vested in THEMSELVES.


----------



## pardus (Jul 8, 2014)

This thread is relevant to this one...

http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/threads/moral-injury-beyond-ptsd.20313/#post-343992





SOWT said:


> I also think we promote Officers too fast.  They spend two years learning a job, then move on just as they get competent.
> 
> Make the 15 year reduced pension permanent, and let CPT's retire at 15 years.
> 
> I could probably make the claim that NCO's move up too fast also.



I was a little shocked when I learned about the US Military's policy on rapid promotion. After almost 6 years of service in the Army I'm still shaking my head at the stupidity of it. Experience cannot be beaten! If someone is an excellent CPT/SGT whatever, but not suited to go any higher, leave them there until they retire.


----------



## AWP (Jul 8, 2014)

In a similar vein:
http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/threads/your-experiences-with-toxic-leaders.10848/


----------



## AWP (Jul 8, 2014)

Complex organizations are like a jenga tower. The tower doesn't fall because you removed "A" block, it fell because of the other blocks and the most recent was just the catalyst.

Issues like suicide, PTSD, toxic leadership, morale, uniform design and selection, procurement...they're like a Venn diagram with overlapping circles. They don't exist in a vacuum, they aren't stand alone, and eventually they tie-in to leadership at the top. This oversimplifies the problem and solution, but that is where the genesis of a solution is found.

It all rises and falls on leadership. A breakdown between the different levels and responsibilities, whether GO or CGO, Field Grade or SNCO, is still a breakdown. One more block in the jenga tower removed.

The military as a whole must address "the system" before it can hope to solve the "little" problems like PTSD, suicide, and even camoflage patterns. Since issues overlap, improvement in one area CAN help other areas, but if those aren't fixed then the original fixes won't last.

Nothing will happen until the leadership is willing to admit that it is wrong and has been wrong for years.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 8, 2014)

JAB said:


> I would not equate suicide with preexisting conditions or poor recruitment policy. Although the argument can be made on some cases, I know too many great soldiers and leaders who ended their lives. Generally due to inability to cope with multiple deployments, loss of family, loss of fellow soldiers and more so transitioning from the Army life.
> 
> That said, there was a huge problem in 2005-2008 with recruiting and the fucknuggets who were getting in, couple that with lower discipline standards/training and now we have soldiers bitching about sticky arms b/c they can't roll up their sleeves.


I think having to deal with fuck-nuggets, EEO, all the "I am special" programs adds unnecessary stress on the Soldiers, Airmen,etc.

Better recruitment would have reduced the number of ucktards allowed in.
Stable Force numbers would have reduced the number of back to back deployments too.
One mistake and your through attitude (which I equate to Toxic Leadership) would reduce the stress too.
Viet Nam was the last war that allowed deployed Service Members to blow off steam, now we have GO's who want battle ready leaders who are Choir Boys in Garrison.  Rarely happens.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jul 12, 2014)

pardus said:


> This thread is relevant to this one...
> 
> http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/threads/moral-injury-beyond-ptsd.20313/#post-343992
> 
> ...




Isn't that the exact reason the Army made a Specialist rank, to reward a soldier with higher pay but is not ready to be an NCO? Seems like a pretty good policy to me. I have no qualms giving raises to members of the military without giving them rank. I'm sure I'm in the minority on that, but if someone is not capable of leading but very good at following and doing their job, why push them out?


----------



## racing_kitty (Jul 12, 2014)

SOTGWarrior said:


> Isn't that the exact reason the Army made a Specialist rank, to reward a soldier with higher pay but is not ready to be an NCO? Seems like a pretty good policy to me. I have no qualms giving raises to members of the military without giving them rank. I'm sure I'm in the minority on that, but if someone is not capable of leading but very good at following and doing their job, why push them out?



It's not just why the Army created the rank of Specialist, but why it went beyond the grade of E-4 (PSC-5, SPC-6, etc.).  Some folks could be technical geniuses when it came to their jobs, but couldn't lead starving wolves to meat.  

The downside was a redundancy in rank structure, and that meant $$$ in a post-Vietnam military world, where funds were hard to come by.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 12, 2014)

racing_kitty said:


> It's not just why the Army created the rank of Specialist, but why it went beyond the grade of E-4 (PSC-5, SPC-6, etc.).  Some folks could be technical geniuses when it came to their jobs, but couldn't lead starving wolves to meat.
> 
> The downside was a redundancy in rank structure, and that meant $$$ in a post-Vietnam military world, where funds were hard to come by.


Agree, Why have an E-6 Specialist who didn't supervise anyone (or so the thought process went).
Ignore the fact that those SPC5 (and ups) bailed for GS and civilian careers, we saved money.

We still have a WW II style promotion mentality.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 12, 2014)

I was surprised by this. I figured by now, with an all volunteer force, standards would be better maintained.  Nothing new in past wars for the military to lower standards, accept waivers, give the green light to shitbirds in the hunger for bods; promote prematurely or based on politics, and award medals to people who didn't necessarily earn them...but some things never change. 

Lower standards and _some _suicides could be from preexisting mental issues and conditions... But if you look at it like a soldier, and look at the logic of it, sometimes suicide is just shooting your way out of a bad situation. When you've successfully shot your way out of bad situations before, it may present itself as a viable option.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 6, 2016)

I stumbled across this working paper from HBS today while doing some research for work. I think it raises a lot of great points and draws upon actual data.

http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication Files/16-057_d45c0b4f-fa19-49de-8f1b-4b12fe054fea.pdf

If you have some time it is a solid read, especially for those that work in organizations that are very difficult to fire someone.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 7, 2016)

Kinda glad this was resurrected.  The article in the original post had some interesting points, and my question is this: did we see the same proportion of issues from the same problems in WWII?  It seems to me, based on zero data, to be a newer phenomenon.

Also, regarding rapid promotion, "back in the day" (WAY the fuck back, like until WWII) it was very, very hard to get promoted, and terminal rank was not nearly as high as it is now.  I concur that people get promoted way too fast and it seems to have frequently devolved into the military version of the Peter Principle.

Regarding leadership at large, as soon as leaders take their vision off their people and organizational goals, the wheels come off and toxicity seeps in.


----------

