# Your Experiences With "Toxic Leaders"



## Marauder06 (Jun 26, 2011)

I think I may have participated in this one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...06/25/AGThw4kH_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines



> 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.


----------



## Viper1 (Jun 26, 2011)

Yep, ditto.

Mara can you send digits in a PM.  Want to talk to you about something else I've noticed...


----------



## Viper1 (Jun 26, 2011)

I like how GEN Dempsey wants to introduce a 360 review process for evaluation reports.  I'm interested to see the mechanics of it.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 26, 2011)

Viper1 said:


> Yep, ditto.
> 
> Mara can you send digits in a PM. Want to talk to you about something else I've noticed...



Gladly.  Wife and kids are out of town so I have plenty of time to talk.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 26, 2011)

No way......It's crazy I tell you!:-"


----------



## Chopstick (Jun 26, 2011)

Marauder06 said:


> Gladly. Wife and kids are out of town so I have plenty of time to talk.


Off topic but gives Chopstick pause. An unsupervised Mara could be "toxic". :eek:


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 26, 2011)

Chopstick said:


> Off topic but gives Chopstick pause. An unsupervised Mara could be "toxic". :eek:



Unlikely, I'm out of TGL18.    More like "detoxic"


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 26, 2011)

No comment.


----------



## Chopstick (Jun 26, 2011)

Marauder06 said:


> Unlikely, I'm out of TGL18.  More like "detoxic"


Damn and I was looking forward to an entertaining evening here on SS.  Poor planning on your part!


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 26, 2011)

Chopstick said:


> Damn and I was looking forward to an entertaining evening here on SS. Poor planning on your part!



All I have left in the house is cheap American beer- which I like, I just don't feel like drinking.  Besides I have my big econ final tomorrow and I need to study, plus I don't want to wake up with a hangover.


----------



## Chopstick (Jun 26, 2011)

Marauder06 said:


> All I have left in the house is cheap American beer- which I like, I just don't feel like drinking. Besides I have my big econ final tomorrow and I need to study, plus I don't want to wake up with a hangover.


Why are you not studying then?  Get cracking there Mr. Toxic!


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 26, 2011)

Marauder06 said:


> All I have left in the house is cheap American beer- which I like, I just don't feel like drinking. Besides I have my big econ final tomorrow and I need to study, plus I don't want to wake up with a hangover.


 
Mara your posts are toxic.:-"


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 26, 2011)

JAB said:


> Mara your posts are toxic.:-"



Toxic?  Moi?  Far from it, my good fellow!  More like "tonic," as in the cure for what ails you.  I'm here to bless you with my munificent intelligenceness and free you from your bonds of unenlightened darkness.

That, and to provide clipart.  Toxic:


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 26, 2011)

Marauder06 said:


> Toxic? Moi? Far from it, my good fellow! More like "tonic," as in the cure for what ails you. I'm here to bless you with my munificent intelligenceness and free you from your bonds of unenlightened darkness.
> 
> That, and to provide clipart. Toxic:


 
Too fucking funny!


----------



## pardus (Jun 26, 2011)

From my personal observations I think It's so endemic to the Army that its beyond tackling and bringing under control.

0.02c


----------



## QC (Jun 26, 2011)

Happens in private enterprise too, but I don't think there's a law against disliking the people you work with.


----------



## pardus (Jun 27, 2011)

QC said:


> Happens in private enterprise too, but I don't think there's a law against disliking the people you work with.



True, but there are laws/regulations against bullying, conduct unbecoming and abuse of power within the Military.

Ive seen company commanders swearing at junior enlisted personal like drill sergeants for very minor issues.
SGMs throwing rocks at pvts while abusing them in front of hundreds of other Soldiers.
SGMs physically taking people to the ground while being surrounded by SGTs in a defensive ring who then order the dozens of Soldiers in the vicinity to turn around so they can't see what's going on.

Fucking disgusting, unprofessional and disgraceful!


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 27, 2011)

I've been in combat where the enemy is killing us by any means; while our Cdr's charged us with murder for killing "clear as fucking day" enemy, just b/c the BCT Cdr was trying to keep a "following the policy" image. It's a top to the bottom problem and it's not limited to CONUS/OCONUS, or conventional/SOF. But whatever, by the time anything is fixed I will be rocking in a rocking-chair.... $0.02


----------



## QC (Jun 27, 2011)

Concur Pardus absolutely, goes beyond what's acceptable.


----------



## Ajax (Jun 27, 2011)

pardus said:


> From my personal observations I think It's so endemic to the Army that its beyond tackling and bringing under control.
> 
> 0.02c



Don't know what y'all are yammering about.  We're too big to fail.  :-|


----------



## Crusader74 (Jun 27, 2011)

pardus said:


> True, but there are laws/regulations against bullying, conduct unbecoming and abuse of power within the Military.
> 
> Ive seen company commanders swearing at junior enlisted personal like drill sergeants for very minor issues.
> SGMs throwing rocks at pvts while abusing them in front of hundreds of other Soldiers.
> ...



If that happened in this man's army, the SGM in question would be "Mr" before his heels touched the ground..It happened 18-20+ years ago  where a Pte or NCO for that matter, would be brought around to "handball ally" ( a hand ball court) and given a boxing lesson in lieu of a charge .. You would never get away with that now.

In relation to the title, I think I'd rather have a "toxic leader"  than a "toxic manager"...


----------



## Crusader74 (Jun 27, 2011)

I have seen my fair share of toxic leaders but we have a process called " redress of wrongs" . Where by if a subordinate feels he/she was wronged by an Officer, he can make out a redress explaining how and why he was wronged which goes straight to a BG who in turn will appoint an O-4 to investigate the issue.. You might not get the answer your looking for but what it will do is bring to the attention his failings to higher command by virtue of the redress.. It doesn't bode well for officers to have a redress against them in the file.

I haven't heard of any redress's going in against Senior NCO's ..normally it will be more a bullying issue and a process called A7 ( admin document 7) which is a process against some one who is accused of bullying..again not good.


----------



## AWP (Jun 27, 2011)

80 and 20? I'm surprised the numbers are that low.


----------



## Casimir (Jun 28, 2011)

pardus said:


> From my personal observations I think It's so endemic to the Army that its beyond tackling and bringing under control.
> 
> 0.02c


I think you and I are pretty much on the same page. We experienced a lot of the same leaders first of all, but in my current unit, morale is shit and the general consensus is that our leadership at most levels is absolutely garbage.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 28, 2011)

pardus said:


> From my personal observations I think It's so endemic to the Army that its beyond tackling and bringing under control.
> 
> 0.02c



I am going to have to disagree with this one. For only one reason. Our younger/lower level leaders are in a high percentage good leaders. However many higher level leaders are not. I think it has to do with the fact that most o6's were at the platoon level in what? Mid 90's? The army has changed, our missions have changed, the people have changed, but those leaders still think everything down to the platoon level is like it used to be, I also believe that they(O6's and such) are so risk adverse due to having come up during non-wartime. It is my opinion that once some of our young leaders become higher ranking, and hopefully carry their same attitudes forward, some of this leadership mess will subside.


----------



## Viper1 (Jun 28, 2011)

cback0220 said:


> I am going to have to disagree with this one. For only one reason. Our younger/lower level leaders are in a high percentage good leaders. However many higher level leaders are not. I think it has to do with the fact that most o6's were at the platoon level in what? Mid 90's? The army has changed, our missions have changed, the people have changed, but those leaders still think everything down to the platoon level is like it used to be, I also believe that they(O6's and such) are so risk adverse due to having come up during non-wartime. It is my opinion that once some of our young leaders become higher ranking, and hopefully carry their same attitudes forward, some of this leadership mess will subside.


 
I agree with you here.  Maybe we need to promote to GO faster and let this next crop of leaders who have a lot of combat time get to the flag officer level quicker?  Most of the Division CGs and other BG's were commissioned mid-80's and the GEN's at the top were all commissioned in the mid-70's post Vietnam.  Why does it need to take 25 years to make a GO, 30+ years to make 3-4 stars?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 28, 2011)

Viper1 said:


> I agree with you here. Maybe we need to promote to GO faster and let this next crop of leaders who have a lot of combat time get to the flag officer level quicker? Most of the Division CGs and other BG's were commissioned mid-80's and the GEN's at the top were all commissioned in the mid-70's post Vietnam. Why does it need to take 25 years to make a GO, 30+ years to make 3-4 stars?


 
Funny thing to me is that throughout history the best (or at least the ones regarded as great commanders) were normally in their late 20-30’s when they made their names known. Something that also makes me think “WTF” is that most of those great commanders suffered their worst losses in their later years.

Napoleon
Julius Caesar
Alexander the Great
Cyrus the Great

When looking at the United States History, we can see that a majority of our great military commanders were older 40’s. However when you figuratively compare their campaigns of greatness to those of past times, they have less military achievement in their much longer military career.

MacArthur
Eisenhower
Grant
Washington

Not taking away from their impressive and honorable careers, just trying to pointing out the differences in military accomplishments.

I personally think that even though there is recklessness in younger leaders, normally the eagerness and willingness to take risk is what allows them to achieve greatness in military campaigns. However, the older more mature, controlled tend to avoid risks and place too much control in the campaign. I also believe that there comes a sense of arrogance in youth that pushes them to prove themselves, while the older tend to be arrogant in that they no longer feel they need to push or prove themselves.


----------



## Viper1 (Jun 28, 2011)

JAB I agree with you on a couple of points, particularly the "reckless yet eager" and "mature yet controlling" comparison.  I agree that allowing for younger GO (and Command Sergeant Major) leadership might change the culture of the force as far as risk aversion.  I mean McMaster was fairly young to become a BG a few years ago, was passed over twice in 2006-2007 (even with his Desert Storm and OIF 1-2 Tal Afar success) until Generals Petreaus, Austin, Ordieno, etc took over the promotion board screenings, and still hasn't been given Division Command even though he made the 2008 list.  He's going to be 50 next year.

However, the leaders you mentioned all held critical jobs in their younger days of soldiering that prepared them for high command and do not agree on your comparison to the generals of ancient times.  Given the nature in warfare at the times they served, I believe that Washington, Grant et al can be ranked up there with Caesar, Napoleon, Alexander.  Additionally, those four you mentioned were hardly less risk averse.  Washington had to be talked down by his staff and subordinates from trying to do a decisive blow on the British multiple times in 1776 (ref. David McCullough's book _1776_), Eisenhower blessed off the invasions of North Africa and France, Grant was ruthless i.e. The Wilderness campaigns, and the Inchon landing was MacArthur's brain child.  Of note, BG Teddy Roosevelt Jr was 56 years old when he led the 4ID on Normandy beach in the first wave.

I was thinking more along the lines of someone like General James Gavin (mid-30's when he commanded the Eighty-Duece) and General Matthew Ridgeway (47 when made a Division CG).   I think good, competent, successful, combat tested, leaders should have a shot to make Division command and Division CSM by the time they reach 20 years in service (maybe even 18 years?!).

And speaking of risk aversion....my Dad used to tell me stories about the KIA list being *400* guys a *WEEK* during some of his time in Vietnam.  Nowadays the press goes nuts if we lose 100 a month.  It's sad that it happens and it's tragic but I also believe that we shouldn't be so risk averse that we put the mission behind the "I'm going to get everyone home" promise.  It's false promise the moment it leaves someone's lips but I've heard it way too many times from BDE and BN commanders saying it to their Soldiers and their spouses.  The enemy has a vote and yes we should be ruthless with negligence in the field (ref Wanat and COP Keating) but let's not tarnish the honor of our dead by shirking the mission just because guys might get hurt.

Just my two cents as a Captain with 6 years in....


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 29, 2011)

Viper, I agree with you for the most part. I tend to view today’s military capability and function very different in the aspect of then vs now (history vs present). I also use history as a gage to find patterns in our current warfare. I think the key to the problem is at the Btn/Brig level and giving BCT commanders more strategic decision room in how they utilize their BCT in their A/O. Those Btn/Brig commanders need to be young hard charges, at the same time the older more refined Division, Corps, Army level commander need to be flexible in meeting the needs of those younger commanders.

Today’s conflict is not and will not be won by 2, 3 or 4 stars on a collar, it will be COL & below who win it, and it will be A/O dependent in how they win it (I know I am not telling you anything you don’t already know). But to be clear, I don’t believe Division level or higher command is what is toxic in the Army. I believe it is the 40 & 50 Year old LTC/COL /CSM who have lost a grip on the reality of the warfare we face today at the 18 to 30 year old level (i.e. how is it that I can trust a SPC in his 20’s to make a decision that will impact the operational outcome, but I can’t trust that LTC in his 40’s to back up or even understand his decision).

We are in a war where one day we are attacking and killing the enemy and the next a policy maker is wanting to play nice and make friends. We have commanders who want to hunt down our enemies and we have other commanders who want to turn Baghdad into San Antonio. Those are pretty extreme complexities that don’t mix well with the youthful soldiers who are forced to make it happen. 

As for my comparison of historical commanders, it’s hard to compare between people who developed warfare and concurred the world, to people who commanded in a national revolution and civil war. At the same time I do not want to come off as taking anything away from the fine commanders of our national history, they defiantly accomplished great things.


----------



## Viper1 (Jun 29, 2011)

Good points all JAB.  Well said.  I believe you and I for the most part, agree.


----------



## AWP (Jun 29, 2011)

One thing to consider in WWII is that we HAD to have young guys in command because of the rapid expansion of our Army. Sure, some rising stars pushed through beyond their peers. Your West Point Classes of 36-40 produced how many battalion, regimental, and division commanders?

Without WWII, the US would not have had a case in our history to see so many young leaders. It isn't that they aren't capable, but our data is off a little compared to other nations.


----------



## pardus (Jun 29, 2011)

Freefalling said:


> One thing to consider in WWII is that we HAD to have young guys in command because of the rapid expansion of our Army. Sure, some rising stars pushed through beyond their peers. Your West Point Classes of 36-40 produced how many battalion, regimental, and division commanders?
> 
> *Without WWII, the US would not have had a case in our history to see so many young leaders*. It isn't that they aren't capable, but our data is off a little compared to other nations.



Civil War?


----------



## AWP (Jun 29, 2011)

pardus said:


> Civil War?



Good point. The methods for becoming an officer were so different from WWII that I don't know if you could compare them except for their ages. However, not unlike WWII the MAJs and LTCs who began the war tended to finish as generals (usually a brevet promotion though). You also have over half a million deaths in the CW compared to a little over 400k for WWII so that may skew the numbers as well.


----------



## pardus (Jun 29, 2011)

True.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 29, 2011)

Actually there have been many cases throughout our early history of young 20 year old Btn & Reg commanders. One of the most well known young commanders was LTC Custer; he was (brevet) promoted to MG during the civil war at the age of 24 if I remember correctly. I think the fast promotion is need durring war (Maj to day, Gen tomorrow), and reduction to normal rank after is reasonable. But again I don't see it as our current "toxic" problem. $0.02


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 29, 2011)

JAB you are correct, I feel that our toxicity is at the BN level leadership.


----------



## pardus (Jun 29, 2011)

I'm seeing it lower down, in the NCO field mainly.

Edited to add: Though that maybe in itself a symptom of the toxicity from above.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 29, 2011)

I do believe there has been a lot of career “risk management” in the NCO corps as well. My personal career has been effected/limited due to something that many of my seniors were given a pass on. The good old boy system and the “lets burn this guy” stuff does go on. I think the primary problem with the NCO corps is a lack of quality being retained, and the promotions system (dumbass’s get promoted b/c they have more points). At least that’s how I have seen it in the NG-combat arms side; it may be different in other career fields and with regular Army. But I would not say that it is 'toxic' even though it is part of the problem...


----------



## pardus (Jun 29, 2011)

I see as toxic in the effect it has on the junior enlisted.
Smaller picture stuff maybe but I think it has a huge effect on retention.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 29, 2011)

Can you give me an example? I am trying to figure out where you are coming from.

I have always taken the stand that my ability to do my job as a NCO is normally limited to my superiors effectiveness at their own job. Things like training, discipline, and unit cohesion are some what within my control at the smaller levels. But things such as policy, admin, supply and schools are always out of my control. If I don’t have leadership that gives me what I need, then I can’t give my soldiers what they need. That can be anything from getting a PFC promoted to SPC, to having enough ammo to get my soldier zeroed and qual’ed.

An example of what I perceive as leadership that is toxic would be failures at the command level to drive training, discipline, and care for the unit personnel. Something as simple as having soldier not busy in training, but instead finding details to keep them from being in trouble. I can take a platoon and spend an entire enlistment training them in weapons, equipment, tactics and unit SOPs. But if my command is focused on keeping my soldier busy vs allowing me to do my job in training my soldiers, I will find myself tasking detail after detail of stupid shit that does nothing but destroy my soldiers motivation and retention. It also destroys my on motivation and leaves me looking for another unit, thus becoming a lose-lose (i.e toxic to the unit).

I can come up with several examples that I have experienced and been forced to take part in, I have seen a lot of bullshit. I have seen a lot of great soldiers leave because of it and I have been fighting with it since I have joined.


----------



## pardus (Jun 29, 2011)

OK, brand new E2-E3 walks into his first unit and starts talking to his squad, platoon, company and finds the majority have a bad attitude because they are "sick of getting fucked around".

Can't get schools because the NCOs take them or won't allow his name to go forward, PT scores aren't put in because NCOs can't be bothered and he doesn't get promoted.
Pay doesn't go in because "something was messed up, but don't worry, we're on it.
Is forced to pay for his own travel because he couldn't register with DTS due to an NCOs lack of knowledge and was told "don't worry, we're on it".

Listening to NCOs talking with pride about how they beat up junior ranks and also threatening other junior ranks.

NCOs talking in front of junior ranks about how other NCOs/Officers are "assholes" etc... and how they want to beat them up/ruin their career etc...

That is stuff off the top of my head ive seen personally.

Now there are layers above that for sure, ive also witnessed Officers displaying despicable behavior that has even greater effect but I'm responding directly to JABs post.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 29, 2011)

pardus said:


> OK, brand new E2-E3 walks into his first unit and starts talking to his squad, platoon, company and finds the majority have a bad attitude because they are "sick of getting fucked around".
> 
> Can't get schools because the NCOs take them or won't allow his name to go forward, PT scores aren't put in because NCOs can't be bothered and he doesn't get promoted.
> Pay doesn't go in because "something was messed up, but don't worry, we're on it.
> ...



This is the first I have heard of things like this. You might just be in a horrible unit. I would be sick of getting fucked around too. These are issues that should be brought up through the CoC, if that doesn't yield results, I would go to IG.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 29, 2011)

I have seen some of those things T, although I agree with Cback that it needs to go up the CoC it will go one of two ways for you; 1) the CoC will cover it up and look to fuck you some how, or 2) they will do something abou it. When dealing with the NG, I feel a detailed letter to congress is the best way to go. There is no way that CoC is not aware of that shit going on, and if they are already allowing it to happen then you kind of know where you will stand if you push it up.

Personally I would run like hell from a unit like that, sometimes you have to take your own sanity into account...


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 29, 2011)

A threat of a letter to a congressman is normally enough to get whatever you need done, done. However it is like calling a tactical nuclear weapon as danger close on your position. If it happens, you had better make sure your shit is wired TIGHT. And you have proof of any allegations made. Why not just interstate/unit transfer?


----------



## pardus (Jun 29, 2011)

Yeah, I'm now on a temporary posting to another unit and I'm seeing amazing things like, NCOs looking after us and we actually get a meal when we are meant to get one. (seriously, I've gone more than 24hrs without a govt supplied meal while on base almost every time we train (we are are allowed to take MREs if we can find them))
I'm far to wise to know that making a complaint will do nothing except make this my first and last enlistment and the remainder will be miserable.
I do what I can to help the guys out, I have some sway that extends a little above my station. My new unit has given me great responsibility that allows me to ensure I will have a big say in what happens in a line company from now on.

I like to bitch on the surface but I also work on things quietly and stealthily from the soft underbelly ;)

The return to my parent unit, yes I'm dreading it, but I'm hoping the CoC has changed by then and things will be better.
We'll see... :-|


----------



## pardus (Jun 29, 2011)

cback0220 said:


> Why not just interstate/unit transfer?



I'm due to deploy soon(ish), once that's over, i'm looking for a job away from my present AO.
When/wherever I land that job is the place I'll be transferring to.

If you have any leads let me know! lol


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 29, 2011)

Are you a citizen? If so why not go to group?


----------



## pardus (Jun 29, 2011)

cback0220 said:


> Are you a citizen? If so why not go to group?



Yep.
Not in shape to go the tabbed route at the moment.
Attached, well I though that would be a cool way to go but it was explained to me that I probably wouldn't do anything of significance. Not too many non tabbed guys on patrol right?


----------



## RetPara (Jul 1, 2011)

pardus said:


> OK, brand new E2-E3 walks into his first unit and starts talking to his squad, platoon, company and finds the majority have a bad attitude because they are "sick of getting fucked around".
> 
> Can't get schools because the NCOs take them or won't allow his name to go forward, PT scores aren't put in because NCOs can't be bothered and he doesn't get promoted.
> Pay doesn't go in because "something was messed up, but don't worry, we're on it.
> ...



I've seen platoon and company level NCO's and officers relieved for less than that.


----------



## surgicalcric (Jul 1, 2011)

pardus said:


> Yep.
> Not in shape to go the tabbed route at the moment.
> Attached, well I though that would be a cool way to go but it was explained to me that I probably wouldn't do anything of significance. Not too many non tabbed guys on patrol right?



We had 5 non-tabbed guys out with us last night...

We have two CRD guys and a 25B attached to our ODA and an armorer who lives on our fire base and the 4 of them have seen more action in this country than some of the team guys from sister ODAs. ;)

Pardus, it all depends on who you are, how well you know your job and your place in the hierarchy, and what the ODA needs.

I know plenty of support guys who find their way to an ODA by doing a great job in the rear... I know plenty of guys who are shitbags, think because they are in an SF Group they are SF guys and end up watching the team leave the wire nightly too...   Depends on a lot of variables and timing...

All that said, support guys are just that, support.  Them going out on patrols are more of an attaboy than anything else, aside from the SOT-As...


----------



## RetPara (Jul 1, 2011)

surgicalcric said:


> All that said, support guys are just that, support. Them going out on patrols are more of an attaboy than anything else, aside from the SOT-As...



This is a really amusing comment when you sit and think about it for a moment. For most of us here the comment makes a lot of sense.  The British Army had a punishment for soldiers by "Removing Them From The Roster Of Battle" and leaving them behind.  So our more's and values are so skewed that punishment is viewed as not being allowed to hang our ass out possibly get killed. No wonder some people - even friends and family never seem to "get it".

I could imagine going to some folks that are "support" types here and sincerely saying "Since your doing such a great job you get to work all night, go out with a patrol and get shot at!!!!"  If THAT didn't get me a vacation on the inpatient mental health ward...  I don't know what would...


----------



## pardus (Jul 1, 2011)

surgicalcric said:


> We had 5 non-tabbed guys out with us last night...
> 
> We have two CRD guys and a 25B attached to our ODA and an armorer who lives on our fire base and the 4 of them have seen more action in this country than some of the team guys from sister ODAs. ;)
> 
> ...



Things that make you go Hmmm....

Thank you for that.


----------



## moobob (Jul 2, 2011)

Toxic leadership... It effects the integrity of the NCO/Officer evaluation system.

Incompetent leaders sometimes don't like having competent subordinates. Doesn't make much sense when you think of it, because the competent subordinates make them look good when they might actually be doing a shit job.

i.e. "I don't want to give you a 1/1 NCOER because it is your first one, so you can show improve on the next one." That doesn't make sense.
-
I have this friend (who is actually me) that has been given subpar ratings, twice, by incompetent supervisors with no justification. The first time, my NCOER was held until my PCS day. The other time, the supervisor in question went to a school together after the rating was given, and the supervisor quit the school, and went to another unit. I can't really appeal the ratings, because they were 2/2, which isn't "bad" (but really is). I guess I am just a smartass and find ways to subtly let them know they suck ass. That same guy, I almost guarantee will get promoted to higher levels where he can screw over more people.

Something I wonder about is how a centralized board looks at ratings like that when they are surrounded by nothing but 1/1.

--
I guess the big issue I see with our current leadership is careerism, instead of being willing to fall on your sword for your men, with risk aversion being connected to that.

It sometimes seems that actually accomplishing something militarily seems like it takes second place to "Did not have any alcohol related incidents while in command".


----------



## Teufel (Jul 2, 2011)

pardus said:


> OK, brand new E2-E3 walks into his first unit and starts talking to his squad, platoon, company and finds the majority have a bad attitude because they are "sick of getting fucked around".
> 
> Can't get schools because the NCOs take them or won't allow his name to go forward, PT scores aren't put in because NCOs can't be bothered and he doesn't get promoted.
> Pay doesn't go in because "something was messed up, but don't worry, we're on it.
> ...


 
Sounds like you should have joined the Marines!


----------



## pardus (Jul 2, 2011)

Teufel said:


> Sounds like you should have joined the Marines!



You fuckers said I was too old!   lol


----------



## Teufel (Jul 2, 2011)

pardus said:


> You fuckers said I was too old!  lol


 
Maybe you should have enlisted at the Marine Corps museum.


----------



## pardus (Jul 2, 2011)

Fucker!


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jul 3, 2011)

I almost swallowed my dip. :)


----------



## goon175 (Jul 5, 2011)

I think one of the major problems with the good/great junior leaders not getting to levels where they can get rid of some/all of this toxicity is the fact that they are THAT GOOD and thus don't want to stick around long enough to deal with it. They do there time (6-10 years), guys under them will admire them and hope that they will have that guy as a 1sg or csm some day, but instead they get out and go contract, get work for an alphabet agency, or continue there education. Or they stay in and go to an SMU where they really aren't going to have a huge impact on the problems we are talking about here. Who is left alot of times? The guys that continue this ruthless cycle of toxicity. Now I am not trying to say that we don't have some great 1sg's, csm's, etc. out there, I just think they are spread too thin in the army to change this problem effectively. And you find a large proportion of the good/great leaders in the SOF community, thus leaving a lot of units on the conventional side "high and dry".


----------



## Viper1 (Jul 6, 2011)

There is an article in the most recent Army Times about a LTC getting romantically involved with a Sergeant's wife.  A Sergeant who the LTC was chaptering out of the Army because of PTSD and DUI issues.  Doesn't get more toxic than that in my opinion.  It's only in paper version but the online article should be up soon.


----------



## pardus (Jul 6, 2011)

Viper1 said:


> There is an article in the most recent Army Times about a LTC getting romantically involved with a Sergeant's wife. A Sergeant who the LTC was chaptering out of the Army because of PTSD and DUI issues. Doesn't get more toxic than that in my opinion. It's only in paper version but the online article should be up soon.



WOW, that is very fucked up.
I hope they burn that fuck!


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 7, 2011)

Viper1 said:


> There is an article in the most recent Army Times about a LTC getting romantically involved with a Sergeant's wife. A Sergeant who the LTC was chaptering out of the Army because of PTSD and DUI issues. Doesn't get more toxic than that in my opinion. It's only in paper version but the online article should be up soon.



I think this is from the plot of Ultimate Force mate...Hanno fucked that guys shit up though lol.

(Just kidding...but it is a case of life imitating art).


----------



## AWP (Jul 8, 2011)

Viper1 said:


> There is an article in the most recent Army Times about a LTC getting romantically involved with a Sergeant's wife. A Sergeant who the LTC was chaptering out of the Army because of PTSD and DUI issues. Doesn't get more toxic than that in my opinion. It's only in paper version but the online article should be up soon.



The Unit is supposed to be fiction, not based on events.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 9, 2011)

The "Toxic Leader" thread has become pretty popular, I thought it might be useful to have a separate thread in which we can share stories from our personal experiences about how "not" to be a leader.  Military and civilian experiences are equally welcome.

Keep in mind that this is a public forum, available to anyone with Internet access.  I encourage you to refrain from referencing specific individuals by name, and if you mention a specific organization, that you omit the dates.  If the "toxic leader" is someone that you work for or with currently, it might be best that you don't comment at all.  That will avoid potential embarrassment or adverse action against you for telling the story.

So, what have you got?


----------



## moobob (Jul 9, 2011)

I was a junior NCO in a section that was the 'black sheep' of the Company, not for quality of personnel, but for a perceived less sexy and "important" mission. Because of this, we got saddled with details that should have been spread across other sections. Due to receiving a new OIC, who was one of the true subject matter experts in the field, and the hard work of my soldiers... we were doing something like 50% more than the section had in previous years, and starting to receive recognition from echelons pretty high above us. We had a pretty good NCOIC, who was selected for Warrant Officer and left abruptly. The NCOIC left instructions for the 1SG to send me to the promotion board.

Our company 1SG, who was a different MOS than 90% of the company and never did figure out what we did, was always looking for things to fault us on. We had excellent soldiers and it was really just resentment that our OIC (a senior warrant) was blocking the 1SG from not distribution details fairly (pointless details that took us away from a real world mission).

For example, we had less than 20 people where we were at, with the rest of the company spread out far away. The 1SG mandated we have a barracks CQ because "we should have a CQ." NCOs had to pull CQ every 3 nights and did not get the next day off. I went straight to work after CQ. Since our NCOIC was leaving, he asked the 1SG to sponsor me for the promotion board, which the 1SG agreed to. The intent was for me to take over the NCOIC job and keep the mission rolling. The CSM asked me to extend, and I reenlisted for 1 year stabilization.

Well, the OIC got promoted unexpectedly, and both he and the NCOIC left. Shortly before promotion board time, the 1SG informed me that he was moving an NCO in to be NCOIC over me. The new NCOIC had zero experience, and wasn't the right MOS to hold the slot. The new NCOIC, under instructions from the 1SG, told me I had to go through a 3 month evaluation period before going to the board. I had maybe 6 months left in the unit. I said Roger, and continued to run the shop for 2 more months as the new NCOIC sat around surfing the internet all day. He was not legally qualified to do any of the work, and essentially had no real job. He had a meeting with all our soldiers one day and said "Look, I don't care about the mission here. I think it's stupid." After that, the soldiers pretty much got demoralized and stopped putting effort into work. Then we went back to doing details like before.

I finally got fed up and realized I could waive my reenlistment option and branch would put me on orders right away, which I did. The section was disbanded about 6 months later and all the personnel redistributed. The 1SG, who had no deployments anywhere (in 2008) got orders to a MITT team and tried feverishly to try to get out of it and stay in his non-deploying unit. The new section NCOIC held my NCOER until literally hours before I caught my flight to PCS, and gave me a 2/2 NCOER that said "Promote Now" anyone familiar with Army NCO ratings knows is contradictory. He also omitted major things like "hand picked for an MTT to train a battalion on (tasks to perform our mission)." I flew across an ocean to train another unit and was by name requested to return to give more training. Wasn't on my evaluation, which I should have seen at least a week prior but was ambushed with as I was leaving the unit (so I wouldn't have time to legitimately complain up the chain of command.)
--
Telling junior enlisted soldiers they are wasting their time at work, when in reality they were performing an important mission is pretty toxic leadership, nevermind giving me an evaluation that will be looked at in the future for promotions and will probably have the board members saying "wtf is this?" I would say "guess what kind of unit this is" but I think some of you would know the answer too easily.


----------



## Chopstick (Jul 10, 2011)

Viper1 said:


> There is an article in the most recent Army Times about a LTC getting romantically involved with a Sergeant's wife. A Sergeant who the LTC was chaptering out of the Army because of PTSD and DUI issues. Doesn't get more toxic than that in my opinion. It's only in paper version but the online article should be up soon.


And here you go. Im assuming this is the story you are referring to M. I hope there isnt more than one!:eek:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/07/army-o5-suspended-while-alleged-affair-investigated-071011/



> Sgt. Mitchell Streeter was overwhelmed. Twice deployed, he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, unable to sleep, stressed out by his job as a recruiter, and now he was being forced out of the Army after a drunken-driving arrest.
> To top it off, his wife was acting suspiciously.
> Late on the night of his 37th birthday, April 27, Streeter paged through his sleeping wife’s cellphone. There, among the messages he might have expected, were some shocking extras: graphically sexual messages between her and another man.
> He woke up his wife to confront her. She confessed. The other man was his married battalion commander, and the two of them had carried on an affair for 10 months. It had ended a month earlier.


----------



## Viper1 (Jul 10, 2011)

Yep that's the one Chop.


----------



## Chopstick (Jul 11, 2011)

Viper1 said:


> Yep that's the one Chop.


Interesting with the added twist that the wife worked in the boss's office.  WTF?:confused:


----------



## Mac_NZ (Jul 11, 2011)

I hope that Lt Col is stripped of his rank on the parade ground and marched off in disgrace in front of his troops.  Things being what they are though he will probably retire with full pay and benefits.


----------



## ArcticOneSix (Jul 11, 2011)

Never reinforcing your suborinates or being reinforced yourself by your leadership is Toxic. Don't get me wrong, reinforcement can be positive or negative but the lack of any reinforcement forces you to keep on trucking and just go ahead. I've been doing the same job for 20 months now and have yet to recieve any form of counseling, any form of reinforcement. I changed this for my subordinates by counseling, both positvely and negatively, so they at least have some idea of what I expect from them.


----------



## LibraryLady (Jul 11, 2011)

Getting after a subordinate for taking initiative and getting after same subordinate for not taking initiative in the same shift and for essentially the same reason.

LL


----------



## RetPara (Jul 11, 2011)

Your OIC has relieved at least one senior NCO in every unit he has been in.  Then he tells you that your educated way beyond your station in life.....


----------



## Mac_NZ (Jul 11, 2011)

I reserve a spot in this thread for the 1st October.  I may require 3-4 pages.


----------



## AWP (Jul 11, 2011)

Post 9/11: I don't care about a bunch of people in New York City.

(and then later in the same speech)

If all of you come home I haven't done my job.

(This guy is now an O-6)


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 11, 2011)

People who are great at the nuts and bolts of the job but have no idea how to deal with staff, no idea about leadership and, worst of all, no direction on any of that from above.


----------



## surgicalcric (Jul 11, 2011)

Freefalling said:


> (This guy is now an O-6)



Zeegers?
____________________________

Cant really comment at the moment but I reserve about 10-pages for 01 Jan 12...


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 11, 2011)

Freefalling said:


> Post 9/11: I don't care about a bunch of people in New York City.
> 
> (and then later in the same speech)
> 
> ...



I have heard this story. I get out in 5 weeks. My wonderful prose on this subject can wait


----------



## Headshot (Jul 11, 2011)

Had this Major when I was working at the S shop at 2/18, and running a pre-Sniper course, snag me and my Hummer to go pick up Gen. Steele (sp) as I didn't have a class to take to the range that day. He was more or less using me as his own badge of courage as he was a chicken shit skating bastard from Prickville USA. We pick up Gen Steele out in dino land off some tank trail after a helo landing, so Major Asshole wants him to get in the back but he had already seen my combat scroll and name tag and wanted to sit in front with me. So Major Asshole starts to give him my bio after seeing an opportune moment to suck up, and Gen Steele essentially tells him to STFU, that he knows who I am and will talk to him when he gets time after chow maybe. We get back to the barracks and Gen Steele invites me to have chow with him and makes Major asshole stay in the shop to gather paperwork for him to look at when he gets time. Good on Gen. Steele, bad on Major Asshole as it was proof that even a General who had never met him could tell he was a prick from the word march.

My take on it, if you know your shit and live it, it doesn't matter who you know because the other professionals won't give a shit either, and neither will anyone else under or over your command if your not walking the walk.


----------



## AWP (Jul 12, 2011)

surgicalcric said:


> Zeegers?



No, "The Hurricane."



cback0220 said:


> I have heard this story. I get out in 5 weeks. My wonderful prose on this subject can wait



I look forward to it. I can't believe that story has made it to the AD side of the house.


----------



## ArcticOneSix (Jul 12, 2011)

Headshot said:


> My take on it, if you know your shit and live it, it doesn't matter who you know because the other professionals won't give a shit either, and neither will anyone else under or over your command if your not walking the walk.



AMEN.

There is an old southern gentlemen's rule. "I will never lick the boots of those below me on the social ladder nor will I kick the faces of those below me."


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 12, 2011)

Freefalling said:


> Post 9/11: I don't care about a bunch of people in New York City.
> 
> (and then later in the same speech)
> 
> ...


I wanna hear that story, PM if'n ya have to.


----------



## surgicalcric (Jul 12, 2011)

Freefalling said:


> No, "The Hurricane."



Not familiar with "The Hurricane" I have to say.   Shoot me a PM when you have time brother.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 26, 2011)

Another "toxic leader," from an article in the Army Times:



And for another point of view on the same topic, this letter to the editor:



> *IN THE COLONEL’S DEFENSE*
> 
> It was truly shocking and quite reflective when reading this article [“Hawaii brigade boss relieved of command.” July 4]. Surely, I thought that the Army had evolved from their double standards of judgment when women were in positions of command during my time on active duty.
> Clearly, I am not saying Col. [Dianna] Roberson might have displayed some of the leadership traits attributed to her, but I think that the entire situation warrants further investigation.
> ...


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 26, 2011)

That letter made me throw up in my mouth a little bit. Does this LTC think that the entire army is so unprofessional as to not look past race and gender? Is she fucking serious? That is by FAR the most ridiculous letter I have read in Army times. The fact that that woman made it to LTC with that attitude is unbelievable. Literally, unbelievable. I am disgusted right now.


----------



## pardus (Jul 26, 2011)

cback0220 said:


> That letter made me throw up in my mouth a little bit. Does this LTC think that the entire army is so unprofessional as to not look past race and gender? Is she fucking serious? That is by FAR the most ridiculous letter I have read in Army times. The fact that that woman made it to LTC with that attitude is unbelievable. Literally, unbelievable. I am disgusted right now.



Agreed. Just bloody garbage.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 26, 2011)

Yeah I seriously cannot get over what was written above to the editor. It is beyond my comprehension that she believes that other officers in the army would go about actively sabotaging another higher ranking officer. And on top of that to imply that it was done solely based on race and gender is disgusting to me. It gets my blood pressure up just thinking about it. I wonder if she read the article in its entirety, I did, and that COL that was relieved deserved it. She treated her subordinates like garbage, set unreasonable goals and wasted unbelievable amounts of time and resources on stupid shit. But she is black and a woman does not cut it in 2011.  I feel like I was slapped in the face by the above article, which I refuse to quote because it is disgusting slander.


----------



## AWP (Jul 26, 2011)

I don't trust Hyphens anyway; they always have an agenda.


----------



## Chopstick (Jul 26, 2011)

Freefalling said:


> I don't trust Hyphens anyway; they always have an agenda.


These are words to live by.  1000% agree!


----------



## is friday (Jul 26, 2011)

I once had an NCO who came from a different command take over my shop when I was a bootski. He was knowledgeable in little and displayed poor leadership traits*.

Poor leadership traits:
1.) When he was learning his "new job" after transferring from a different command/job description, instead of getting his hands dirty with some on-the-job training--he said he "didn't need to do the work because he is a Sergeant".
2.) Frequently put himself before his troops. Once while we worked well past 2200 (expected to be at formation at 0500 the next morning,) without chow he went and ate some chow at home. Another Sergeant hooked us up with some chow after finding out he had ditched us. Poor leader returned some time later and attempted to yell at us for eating instead of working.
3.) Poor leader charged an NCO beneath him for doing something against regulation that he had done himself not even a month prior.
4.) Poor leader took me to the Gunny when I challenged his authority instead of handling me himself like any NCO with a backbone would.

That's just the stuff off the top of my head. But yeah--I definitely learned how to not be a leader from that soup sandwich.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 27, 2011)

Looks like a lot of commanders in Hawaii are losing their jobs.

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Mar/26/ln/ln07p.html



> The commander of the 2nd Battalion, 25th Aviation Regiment out of Hawai'i was relieved of command in Afghanistan on March 14, the Army said.
> Lt. Col. Steve Brown's removal was the result of his "individual actions that violated military regulation," Schofield Barracks spokeswoman Capt. Kathy Turner said.
> No additional details regarding the removal were provided. Brown is retiring from the Army next month, and no further action is anticipated, Turner said.
> Brown was replaced by Lt. Col. Frank Tate. The 2nd Battalion, 25th Aviation Regiment will continue to serve in Afghanistan through mid-April, although some soldiers have returned to Hawai'i.
> ...




http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Mar/16/br/br05p.html


> Lt. Col. Alan Ostermiller, the commander of the 100th Battalion, 442nd Infantry Regiment in Iraq, has been relieved of his command, the Hawai'i National Guard said today.
> Brig. Gen. Joseph Chaves, the commander of the 29th Brigade Combat Team in Iraq, took the action after Ostermiller, 41, was involved in an altercation with one of his staff officers, the Guard said.
> Ostermiller, a 1982 Kamehameha Schools graduate who went through the University of Hawai'i ROTC program, was suspended after a verbal altercation escalated into physical contact between Ostermiller and his operations officer, a major, shortly after the battalion arrived in Iraq several weeks ago, officials said.
> Brig. Gen. John Y.H. Ma, the general in charge of Army Reserve forces in Hawai'i, recently downplayed reports of Ostermiller nearly choking the operations officer and scuffling with military police, but said reports at that time were still filtering in.




Seriously?  Things are so ban in the unit that you're going to need to choke out your S3?  :confused:


----------



## AWP (Jul 27, 2011)

Marauder06 said:


> Seriously? Things are so ban in the unit that you're going to need to choke out your S3? :confused:



I can think of a few who need to be choked...


----------



## Mac_NZ (Jul 27, 2011)

Freefalling said:


> I can think of a few who need to be choked...



I have a list somewhere.

Hey Digrar do you know the story of the Officer from 3RAR at Butterworth who was sent home within 24hrs or some such?


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 2, 2011)

Merged the site's two "toxic leaders" threads.


----------



## RetPara (Aug 9, 2011)

I don't think we have as much a problem as the Navy has.  They are averaging 1.37 major command reliefs over the past two years.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 18, 2011)

Was there "toxic leadership" in this case?  If so, was it on the part of the brigade commanders, or the 8th Army commander?

http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific...n-s-korea-reprimanded-over-gays-skit-1.144415



> SEOUL − Three South Korea-based colonels have been reprimanded for their part in a skit that officials believe made fun of homosexuals and the rules designed to protect them in the military.
> The skit – performed March 22 at a dinner attended by 8th Army officials at the Dragon Hill Lodge on Yongsan Garrison – featured the officers using effeminate gestures in portraying openly gay musicians Elton John and George Michael as soldiers, and then lip-synching a song by Boy George, who is also homosexual.


----------



## AWP (Aug 18, 2011)

1) Depends on the content and how it was presented.
2) I'd fire the colonels just for being dumbasses and not keeping up with current events. How many commanders have been smoked over this sort of crap in the last 12 months? At this point in our society, even if you find it funny there WILL be someone who doesn't, is butthurt, and all too willing to make you miserable for it. Trust me, I know....
3) A skit on gay people? Well hell, can I drag out my blackface setup and perform a Vaudeville routine? No? How about one on Asians with "rorrypops?" No? Then what makes these idiots think that they would get away with this? Content matters to a sensible person, but not to the butthurt. See #2.


----------



## interrogat (Aug 25, 2011)

Viper1 said:


> I like how GEN Dempsey wants to introduce a 360 review process for evaluation reports. I'm interested to see the mechanics of it.



My soldiers have been using Army360. I can imagine a future in which NCOs continuously check their A-360 iPhone App throughout the day to see who has better (worse?) reviews...

"Shit, man, another joe burned me; says I don't develop him as a leader..."


----------



## rv808 (Aug 27, 2011)

Marauder06 said:


> Was there "toxic leadership" in this case? If so, was it on the part of the brigade commanders, or the 8th Army commander?
> 
> http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific...n-s-korea-reprimanded-over-gays-skit-1.144415



One of BDE CDRs was mine.  I got here two months after that happened, and it was still a huge deal.  The entire BDE was retrained because of the incident.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Aug 27, 2011)

We were doing a joint op with the Brits, everyone was staged and ready to go. We sit around for about 30 min. PAST go time, & finally Captain --- comes out, explaining that he was late because 1) he was downloading music to listen to on the op, and 2) he was in a bid war on eBay for a comic book action figure (he collects them). He later gets a Bronze Star for that deployment & promoted to Major. Needless to say, the Brits were not amused, & from then on did all mission planning with our 1st Lt.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 27, 2011)

http://www.military.com/news/article/navy-fires-17th-commanding-officer.html

Another one down in the Navy.  This time over DUI.


----------



## surgicalcric (Aug 27, 2011)

Viper1 said:


> http://www.military.com/news/article/navy-fires-17th-commanding-officer.html
> 
> Another one down in the Navy. This time over DUI.



We need to let a few more go from the Army...


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 27, 2011)

Interesting article on the Adjutant General from CA.  You have to read most of the article but at the end he states he's exempt from double-dipping rules/limits because of his status as the AG.  Never heard of this happening before and to be honest, Guard pay confuses the heck outta me.

http://www.military.com/news/articl...ed-over-double-dipping.html?col=1186032325324


----------



## AWP (Aug 27, 2011)

Viper1 said:


> Interesting article on the Adjutant General from CA. You have to read most of the article but at the end he states he's exempt from double-dipping rules/limits because of his status as the AG. Never heard of this happening before and to be honest, Guard pay confuses the heck outta me.
> 
> http://www.military.com/news/articl...ed-over-double-dipping.html?col=1186032325324



As a former Guard guy this isn't surprising. Like any organization the Guard has bad apples and bad policies and those two combine for some...unique situations. The most important guys and gals in the Guard are those who control the funding.

I know it was a political decision, but the Guard should have never kept the combat arms units in the 90's. Those should have gone to the Reserves with the CS and CSS units staying in the Guard. I'd have been out of a job, but I think the Reserves would be a better place for the combat arms units out there, to include the SF Groups.

I'm a firm proponent of the Guard, but it needs an enema.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 27, 2011)

Why the Reserves instead of the Guard?


----------



## AWP (Aug 27, 2011)

Viper1 said:


> Why the Reserves instead of the Guard?



Control and funding. Guard units serve two masters, the State and the Feds, whereas the Reserves don't have that issue. For example, a Guard SF Group had (pre-9/11) at least 3 pots of money to draw from: Federal, State, and USASOC/ USASFC. States would play games with the State money using the excuse that USASOC was covering our funding, and so they would send money destined for us to some other unit in the state. Highly illegal, but done quite frequently.

Then there is the Military Support of Civil Authorities, aka "The State Mission." We had to train, or at least pencil-whip training, for our state mission which in FL was frequently hurricane and wildfire relief. Other units spent a weekend training for their state mission of riot control. Meanwhile, we're focusing on that instead of our warfighting role....which a CS/ CSS unit is better suited for in the Guard. If the CA units were in the Reserves they would have somewhat more money and more time to devote to shooting, moving, and communicating.

We had some "old guys" in my unit who were in Guard or Reserve SF Goups in the 80's. Hands down the Reserve Groups had the best training, the most schools, and the best AT periods/ TDYs. When the Guard was struggling to send guys to anything beyond MOSQ schools and doing home station AT periods during the summer, the Reserve Groups saw more schools and far more deployments and training opportunities.

I'm sure some won't share in my belief that combat arms shouldn't belong in the Guard, but I think it was a big, politically-driven mistake to allow them to remain under State control.


----------



## Kraut783 (Aug 27, 2011)

I think one of my biggest issues while in the NG was how Army Regs were ignored.  I was in a CID unit, which the NG had no control over once put on title 10...which drove the BN over us crazy, eventually causing our unit adverse effects on the day to day issues while on the title 32 status.  We would try and follow guidance, training requirements, schools...etc from CID command, but would be shut down at the state BN level, when pointing out any AR's that supported us, we would be told, well in the NG we do things different...(?)

This drove many of our members away from the unit and the NG itself.  I finally was able to go IRR and have a USAR unit pick me up from there.


----------



## Brill (Aug 7, 2012)

I got called out today and was told my actions were toxic! LMAO!

(post edited...I am "wanted" and do not need to give them any excuse...until AFTER this horseshit is over.  )


----------



## Chopstick (Aug 7, 2012)

What will happen now, Lindy?


----------



## CDG (Aug 7, 2012)

lindy said:


> I got called out today and was told my actions were toxic! LMAO!
> 
> I volunteered to deploy with a AD SF unit but my Guard unit refuses to allow me to bring ANY equipment whatsoever, especially SOT-A stuff. So I informed my unit leadership that this was negatively affecting morale and I had elevated my gear request to Group and USASOC, who both agree that I SHOULD be able to draw my stuff from my unit directly.
> 
> ...


 
Fuck man.  Sorry to hear this.  Nothing like leadership that actively works to sabotage its own guys.


----------



## Brill (Aug 7, 2012)

We're about to pull a "Band of Brothers" moment.  Nothing like drama right before deployment!


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Aug 7, 2012)

Chopstick said:


> What will happen now, Lindy?


Probably something like this...





 
:-"


----------



## AWP (Aug 8, 2012)

I need to code in a Holy Shit! button for posts like Lindy's.


----------



## Brill (Aug 8, 2012)

BN SGM is coming out for a sit down.  Apparently when I invoked the I will inform "alphabet soup" if this isn't resolved things started happening. :-"


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 8, 2012)

Tough situation you're in, Lindy.  Hope it works out for the best.


----------



## RetPara (Aug 8, 2012)

Over the 20-30 years I have become absolutely convinced that the Army National Guard (ANG), as now organized needs to be eliminated/major restructured.  Certainly a good number of ANG units can be absorbed into a much larger reserve force structure.  The rest can be the nucleus of a State Militia or much smaller Army National Guard.  The political shenanigans and waste that go on in the ANG cannot be justified.

The Air Force got it right the way their Air NG units are comprised.  I don't believe the Army could do that mix of active/civ tech/active guard/whatever the Air NG does.

Funding from DOD to the states would allow them to retain some small commo units, medical, MP, and transportation.  No combat arms or major end maintenance units.  I have serious issues with states have ANG aviation units...  but it would help make the medicine more palatable.


----------



## reed11b (Aug 8, 2012)

Agree, the only reason I serve in the Guard is the lack of other combat arms options, and I may cross over to Civil Affairs when this enlistment is up. I think I'll start a new thread on this topic to help this thread stay on topic..
Reed


----------



## pardus (Aug 8, 2012)

lindy said:


> We're about to pull a "Band of Brothers" moment. Nothing like drama right before deployment!


 
Good for you for standing up for whats right.
Just remember that in Band of Brothers, One guy was booted from the unit as a result...


----------



## Brill (Aug 9, 2012)

To caveat, since I've been on AD orders, I have encountered nothing less than the utmost professional interaction and support from my AD counterparts from both RTSB and SF.  I feel like I'm back home again with my brothers and am considered a valued member of the AD unit.

After this experience, I am now of the opinion that Guard AGR soldiers should have maximum tour lengths and should have to re-compete for their positions vice the incestuous (AKA toxic?) relationship that now exists.  The "good old boy network" simply reinforces the stereotype of  "lazy Guardsman" and is actually an obstacle to those soldiers who desire to be just as competent and proficient as their AD counterparts. 

Clearly my opinion does not proliferate to all AGR soldiers as my experience is extremely narrow and of short duration but there is definitely a pattern.

I completely agree with RetPara, Guard needs restructuring and SF especially, should be moved to the Reserves.


----------



## goon175 (Aug 10, 2012)

I hope all goes well for you Lindy. One thing that I have noticed is that a lot of senior leadership these days hasn't gotten used to the fact that those under their charge are not as dumb as they think, and will speak up when something is fucked up. I think the senior leadership in place right now grew up in an army that wasn't as well educated as todays army, and certainly not as seasoned. They grew up saying "roger sarn't" and blindly executing, whereas for todays soldier who has been to combat and knows what happens in combat (and what consequences can happen), the "roger sarn't" mentality isn't always acceptable. They won't just accept a fucked up situation, they will challenge it and ask "why" and offer potential alternate COA's that aren't necessarily in line with what was originally put out. I think this has left the senior leadership both confused and dismayed, and the only explanation in their eyes is a "lack of standards and discipline".

EDIT: The above was not meant to degrade the service of those who came before us, but rather to sharpshoot the current senior leaderships mindset.


----------



## reed11b (Aug 10, 2012)

goon175 said:


> They won't just accept a fucked up situation, they will challenge it and ask "why" and offer potential alternate COA's that aren't necessarily in line with what was originally put out. I think this has left the senior leadership both confused and dismayed, and the only explanation in their eyes is a "lack of standards and discipline".


Agree times a billion, though enlisted willing to ask questions have always been around. Those on here that served during the early and mid-90's can confirm. The system simply promotes those that are good in super structured environments (which war ain't) and are good at paperwork and have been waiting patiently for these wars to end so they could get back to "real soldiering". Until you fix personnel command, this shit will remain cyclic.
Reed


----------



## Brill (Aug 31, 2012)

Chopstick said:


> What will happen now, Lindy?


 
I received my gear and then some.  We actually have better equipment (not as beat up) as the AD guys and even have nicer "toys".


----------



## Chopstick (Aug 31, 2012)

Yay!


----------



## CDG (Aug 31, 2012)

lindy said:


> I received my gear and then some. We actually have better equipment (not as beat up) as the AD guys and even have nicer "toys".


 
Glad to hear it worked out for you!


----------



## Brill (Jan 15, 2014)

In my civilian job, we have an O-5 who is a textbook Army definition of a toxic leader as defined by:

U.S. Army War College faculty and students stated that toxic leaders “are focused on visible short-term mission accomplishment ... provide superiors with impressive, articulate presentations and enthusiastic responses to missions... [but] are unconcerned about, or oblivious to, staff or troop morale and/or climate ... [and] are seen by the majority of subordinates as arrogant, self-serving, inflexible, and petty.”

Latest samples:
We compiled a small team to work a short-term task and the O-5 was unhappy because he couldn't see them (I just put them at open desks but he wanted eyes on).  The team leader recently had surgery and I'm not sure if he is even aware but the O-5 has NOT contacted the TL to check up.

The weekly intel briefs are about as accurate as I am linked to Kevin Bacon.

Morale is in the shitter.  The military guys are stuck but the 5 civilians are:
changing offices, PCSing, volunteered for 120-deployment, and then there's me...I was selected for a different job BUT due to the widespread fleeing of the civ workforce (subject matter experts), the O-5 stated that he will put my departure on hold.

At least one civ has had an exit interview with the O-6 commander and deputy (GS-15) and it reportedly didn't go well.  The COL and the GS-15responded "there's not much I can do".  Not sure if there's confusion over CAN vs WILL.

Question before the board:  

What can WE (civ and mil) do at the grass roots level?  If you were a Senior Enlisted Leader, would you interpret a civilian addressing military leadership problems as ok or as butting into military business?

I am going to recommend a sensing sessions and a climate survey at least but the senior leadership is WAY out of touch with what's going on because the O-5 micromanages the shit out of anything going up.  The guy is out of his comfort zone and doesn't understand (or care to learn) our skillset or mission.  I'm so tired of hearing him say "metrics".


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 15, 2014)

lindy said:


> In my civilian job, we have an O-5 who is a textbook Army definition of a toxic leader as defined by:
> 
> U.S. Army War College faculty and students stated that toxic leaders “are focused on visible short-term mission accomplishment ... provide superiors with impressive, articulate presentations and enthusiastic responses to missions... [but] are unconcerned about, or oblivious to, staff or troop morale and/or climate ... [and] are seen by the majority of subordinates as arrogant, self-serving, inflexible, and petty.”
> 
> ...


You can file an IG report stating he is toxic and the Bde Cdr won't do anything about it, but the IG complaint has to have specific examples.  Part of the complaint can state he won't let you move to a new job because everyone else has fled his command.


----------



## Brill (Jan 15, 2014)

SOWT said:


> You can file an IG report stating he is toxic and the Bde Cdr won't do anything about it, but the IG complaint has to have specific examples.  Part of the complaint can state he won't let you move to a new job because everyone else has fled his command.



Unfortunately I may have to go that route for a DIFFERENT issue (wasn't even reviewed or considered for promo last year due to mobilization and is contrary to Federal law as well as local policy).


----------



## xGenoSiide (Jan 15, 2014)

I am fortunate enough to have not had a leader as bad as you describe, although a previous commander was a big fan of micromanagement, to the point of having patrols at certain locations at certain times with blocked lunches. In theory, a good idea, but with a set time for everything during a 12 hour shift, the slightest incident can throw off everything.


----------



## Brill (Jan 17, 2014)

So questioning the validity of OB GYN appointments and demanding proof of said appointments (for female officers), is that tolerated in today's Army?

How about being so hostile to female civilian employees that they openly cry?  Again, ok today?


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 17, 2014)

@lindy I hope your situation gets resolved, because everything you've described sounds HORRIBLE.  I'm sure you're thinking the same thing as young Bill Paxton


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 17, 2014)

lindy said:


> So questioning the validity of OB GYN appointments and demanding proof of said appointments (for female officers), is that tolerated in today's Army?
> 
> How about being so hostile to female civilian employees that they openly cry?  Again, ok today?


Proof they went should be enough, why they needed to go is a HPPA vilation and the Female Officer should report it as such.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jul 24, 2014)

Viper1 said:


> I like how GEN Dempsey wants to introduce a 360 review process for evaluation reports.  I'm interested to see the mechanics of it.



I am sorry if this has been covered as I did not want to go back and read all the pages, but this is the first I have heard of the military going to a 360 performance review. Has it been instituted yet? From what I found through a quick Google search, all the articles date back to 2013 (except this but I have no CAC card http://msaf.army.mil/LeadOn.aspx). I know the military moves at molasses pace in implementing new ideas, but I think that is a great way for a leader to improve on their leadership skills. I know the military is very vertical organization, but in no other work place does the cohesiveness of a unit have such an impact on the overall success of a mission as exists in the military. If I hate my boss, I get to do home at the end of the day and forget about him or her. In the military though, you can live with that person 24/7/365. It is imperative that leadership is great. That obviously does not mean buddy buddy with lower rank (I am speaking strictly conventional here), but once a leader loses the respect of  those below them, it is damned near impossible for them to gain it back.


----------



## Viper1 (Jul 24, 2014)

SOTGWarrior said:


> I am sorry if this has been covered as I did not want to go back and read all the pages, but this is the first I have heard of the military going to a 360 performance review. Has it been instituted yet? From what I found through a quick Google search, all the articles date back to 2013 (except this but I have no CAC card http://msaf.army.mil/LeadOn.aspx). I know the military moves at molasses pace in implementing new ideas, but I think that is a great way for a leader to improve on their leadership skills. I know the military is very vertical organization, but in no other work place does the cohesiveness of a unit have such an impact on the overall success of a mission as exists in the military. If I hate my boss, I get to do home at the end of the day and forget about him or her. In the military though, you can live with that person 24/7/365. It is imperative that leadership is great. That obviously does not mean buddy buddy with lower rank (I am speaking strictly conventional here), but once a leader loses the respect of  those below them, it is damned near impossible for them to gain it back.



I've done three MSAF 360 reviews and there are certain flaws in the system.  Maybe it's an article for publication idea (have at it all), but this is just from where I sit as an O-3.

Positives
1) It covers a lot of good stuff, including spaces for specific comments about what to sustain and what to improve.
2) It's quick and easy to use.  The Army did not throw away user efficiency in this survey, thank goodness.
3) It can be done at the unit and individual level.
4) It offers opportunities for one-on-one mentorship about your 360 degree review results and how to improve (disclaimer: I have not taken advantage of this yet)
5) You have to pick at least 5 superiors, ten peers, and ten subordinates.  

Areas to Improve
1) It isn't a mandatory yearly requirement.  It can get put on an officer's OER or an NCOER but so far, there isn't a push to ensure compliance.  O-4's and Commander's should be especially required to fill this out with maximum participation from their subordinates.  The yearly "command climate survey" doesn't cut it. 
2) Only 40% of the total have to respond to make survey results.  You can see where this can lead to skewed results.
3)  There is no way to enforce compliance to fill out the survey on someone, e.g. if someone requests that I fill out a survey, there is no system to ensure that I actually do fill it out.
4)  It's subjective rather than objective.   
5) Like point #1, there is no requirement to use the one-on-one mentorship tool once you receive survey results. 

USMA used a 360 degree review system all years I was there and I believe it still goes on.  As a cadet, I had to rate every single one of my peers with tangible comments to tangible questions and assign them a "grade" (think the Army OER system with center mass, above center mass, etc).  I was also required to rate five subordinates and five superiors.  We were also required to rate the company cadet staff.  This was used as tangible results for military grades from the TACs. Instructors were required to rate cadets as well.  I still have all those reports filed at the house, nine years after my cadets days were over.  

My 2 cents.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jul 24, 2014)

Thank you for the respone.


----------



## x SF med (Jul 24, 2014)

Viper1 said:


> I've done three MSAF 360 reviews and there are certain flaws in the system.  Maybe it's an article for publication idea (have at it all), but this is just from where I sit as an O-3.
> 
> <bulk of text>
> My 2 cents.



Most of the really good companies I've worked for since leaving the military have used 360 reviews...  and they work pretty well as long as people are honest and are not harboring vendettas.  Compiling the narrative portions can be a bear, very resource and manpower intensive.


----------



## Brill (Jul 25, 2014)

x SF med said:


> Most of the really good companies I've worked for since leaving the military have used 360 reviews...  and they work pretty well as long as people are honest and are not harboring vendettas.  Compiling the narrative portions can be a bear, very resource and manpower intensive.



I think federal agencies would benefit from a review like this.  The "gimme the top three, bottom three" work for a reason, either to validate the next supervisors opinion or open their eyes to unseen problems.

It seems that mil vs civ leadership are missing that mark that effective leadership, which retains good employees, is just as important to the bottom line as the bottom line!  People don't quit their jobs...they quit their boss.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 25, 2014)

lindy said:


> I think federal agencies would benefit from a review like this.  The "gimme the top three, bottom three" work for a reason, either to validate the next supervisors opinion or open their eyes to unseen problems.
> 
> It seems that mil vs civ leadership are missing that mark that effective leadership, which retains good employees, is just as important to the bottom line as the bottom line!  People don't quit their jobs...they quit their boss.


Command climate surveys, when done properly, can act as a 360 review.


----------



## x SF med (Jul 25, 2014)

I had a boss while in Publishing, the CFO actually, who did my 360...  It's not bad when your 'senior raters' are the Div Pres, the CFO, and Sr VP of Sales and you deal with them on regular and ad-hoc projects on a daily basis...  throw in my boss figured that my 'peers' were the VP of  Business Analysis (IT guy), VP of Production, A SR Financial Analyst, and the Director of Inventory Planning and I was only a Sr Financial Analyst.

Because in this company, your immediate boss sat down to get the list to people who worked at the same level of influence to the goals of the company as the 'rated' employee for next level up and peer... he only had to know who the 5 subordinate or influenced people I chose were and make sure I actually worked closely with them. 

He got a good view of where I stood in the great scheme of his team... I did pretty well that year, and all the other years I held that position. 

I'd probably still be with that company if I hadn't been part of the MA&D team that was tasked with selling to a competitor and staying within Robinson-Patman Antitrust statutes, Sarbanes-Oxley rules, meaning I had to figure which franchises (text book families/ series) needed to be diversified in auction to other competitors first so that total market share (by volume and revenue) was below 51.3% of total market by Subject grouping...  I'll stop now.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Aug 3, 2014)

SOWT said:


> Command climate surveys, *when done properly*, can act as a 360 review.


The important part is in bold.  From the few "debriefs" I have sat in on following a CMEO survey, it seems that so many people get caught up in the minutiae.  Too many people gripe about things that could be handled by their LPO or Chief (first E6 or E7 in their COC).


----------



## Scubadew (Aug 3, 2014)

SkrewzLoose said:


> The important part is in bold.  From the few "debriefs" I have sat in on following a CMEO survey, it seems that so many people get caught up in the minutiae.  Too many people gripe about things that could be handled by their LPO or Chief (first E6 or E7 in their COC).


 
This. Chain of Command is there for a reason. I can't even count the number of times at an "All Hands Call" that someone has asked the CMC or the CO a question that could probably have been handled at the ALPO or LPO level.

"Sir/Master Chief, do I have to go to field day this week? I got an 'Oustanding' on my last room inspection and I heard that if..."

Sit down.


----------

