Your Experiences With "Toxic Leaders"

[Crusader74]

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!

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]

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]

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

 

[Casimir]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[AWP]

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]

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]

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]

True.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

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]

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

 

[pardus]

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]

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]

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]

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.