Thought you all might find this of interest based on recent posts:

2014-01-07T07:41:23-05:00

http://www.npr.org/2014/01/06/259422776/army-takes-on-its-own-toxic-leaders<div class="pta-link-card"><div class="pta-link-card-picture"><img src="http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2014/01/03/toxic-leadership-3-efd348d20ca6bf4d03e66ae90968de4adc5664f8.jpg"></div><div class="pta-link-card-content"><div class="pta-link-card-title"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.npr.org/2014/01/06/259422776/army-takes-on-its-own-toxic-leaders">Army Takes On Its Own Toxic Leaders</a></div><div class="pta-link-card-description">Could destructive leadership be contributing to the rise in soldiers who commit suicide?</div></div><div style="clear:both"></div><div class="pta-box-hide"><i class="icon-remove"></i></div></div>

Response by SFC James Baber made Jan 7 at 2014 7:50 AM

2014-01-07T07:50:16-05:00

Good article Sir, but do you think it is reality or some good spin doctoring on the part of the Pentagon and DOD?

I would hope it is viable and true, but I have seen similar grand standing before during my career.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2014 8:39 AM

2014-01-07T08:39:19-05:00

Sir,

What stuck out to me about the article was this quote: "Toxic leaders were also good at snowing their superiors — so they kept getting promoted." I assess this to be largely false. I was an assistant to a BDE CDR and spent a lot of time around Corps and Division level leadership. Complaints about poor leadership all the way down to company commanders filtered up that high. I found nothing was done about it for 3 main reasons:

1. Toxic leaders get measurable results and their superiors like that. Toxic leaders focus on the metrics because the military system rewards metrics over substance. They know they can get away with almost anything if their numbers look great. For example, my OCS company CDR ran us 7 miles x 4 days/wk at a <8.0 min pace. We had the highest APFT scores out there. But there was a very dark side. He openly said that women had no place in the Officer Corps and of the 25 or so of us that started only 5 or 6 made it; I went through 3 roommates. We also had the highest recycle rate and sick call rate. But, man, look at our PT scores!

2. Command time is relatively short. By the time the problem is widely known, the person might have 6-8 months left. That is a long time for the suffering Soldiers, but a blink of an eye to leadership. Plus, the leadership themselves are on a rotation cycle where they feel like tackling the problem would exceed their own time in their role and they don't want this to follow them to their next duty station. I have a 15-6 that has dogged me for 3 years even after I left active duty - no one wants that.

3. It is hard to tell a truly toxic situation from cry-babyism. It is. Not for the Soldiers involved, but for the leadership. Read my first example again. Didn't you think that was whining...right up until you realize that an 8 minute pace is barely passing for males in the 2 mile, but maxing the scale for females, and then read the CDR's actual agenda. Perfect, right? He can make sure that the males can pass his standard (if they work at it), but that it would be nearly impossible for females to do so.

This is a tough issue, but there are not easy answers. I would hate to see leaders who are tough but fair end up swept up in this because of Soldiers that don't want to work hard.

Response by Col Joel Anderson made Jan 7 at 2014 9:42 AM

2014-01-07T09:42:42-05:00

Thanks for the feedback. I wont speak for the intent or potential agenda behind it all. I think one of the important things within the article is folks trying to come to an assessment of factors that contribute to unwanted behavior, in this case suicide. We need to open the aperture widely to assess all the symptomatic issues that contribute to this chronic and growing problem.

I know from my career that it takes all kinds of leaders to make the apparatus work. Whatever you call it, leadership is an artful craft that encompasses a lot of different dynamics, myriad personalities, and rationale for executing the craft while effectively embracing the individual and group collective and support the mission.

I have experienced leaders who were of the type described in the article. Are they the norm, probably not but if this type of "leadership" contributes to some considering suicide, then it is worth at least considering and figuring out how to address this style and work towards solutions that serve to help understand the complete spectrum that influences such considerations.

When I was a student at Command and General Staff College, we were asked by General Shinseki to assess why so many junior leaders were leaving the Army. This issue was a factor in what we provided. Many of you may remember that event as the results of that study, supposed to have been kept in confidence and the results not shared ended up being forwarded to a couple colleagues, that were then forwarded to several others, the emails became viral and then we ended up in the media. Our class became known in some circles as the "Class of Whiners."

The point of it is that premise to that event and this article are similar; assess factors contributing to a problem and help us figure out a solution.

We owe it to ourselves to look at the question posed, cast the net widely, assess the root issues contributing to a problem. I relevant we need to figure out how to rectify the situation and if not, press on.

Just some thoughts. A...

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2014 10:07 AM

2014-01-07T10:07:01-05:00

Unfortunately, this issue should have been looked at a long time ago.

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Jan 7 at 2014 10:34 AM

2014-01-07T10:34:32-05:00

Too little, too late?
or the "future is here"?
The Army is down sizing. Which metrics are going to be used to determine the keepers? The success bullets on OERs or the items like Chapters, UCMJ, IG complaints, EO, SHARP reports, suicide, mental health and sick call rates that show on QTBs, but not OERs? Are red flags going to get recognized for CMD teams or glossed over?

We've seen a recent purge of Flag and GOs for violations ranging from inappropriate or disparaging comments of civilian leadership to fraud, waste and abuse to sexual misconduct with subordinates. These are the Officers that raised the current generation of Field Grades, the ones who brought entitlement culture and toxic leadership to today's military. Are current measures to clean up adequate? Are we getting the worst of the bad apples out?

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2014 6:52 AM

2014-01-08T06:52:23-05:00

A well-written article indeed and it shows, at least, that the Army does want find and separate those leaders which it finds as toxic from the ranks. <div><br></div><div>I agree that over the 23 years I have been on active duty that I have seen both good and bad leaders; were any of them toxic -- by today's definitions the answer would be  a resounding YES. </div><div><br></div><div>But unfortunately over the last two decades the Army has wanted RESULTS and they wanted measurable results at that. The actions ALMOST (and I do emphasize almost) always justified the outcome as those that could produce results would get promoted and would move up the ranks. Unfortunately, that was before the 24-hours news cycle, perpetuation of everything and virtually everyone connected to the internet with multiple means of getting their story and information out to the general public, and the drawdown that has the Army (and the Department of Defense) in the lime-light amongst the media, Congress, and the public. </div><div><br></div><div>During the last few years in the Army I have listened to many a flag officer (across all four services) talk about their rise through the ranks -- and I would venture that through their self-proclaimed actions that greater than 1/3 of them would today be considered Toxic in their actions as a Company and Field-Grade Officer. Their actions at the time had created results. And many of those NOW Flag-Officers shared their stories, methods, TTPs, etc with their subordinates -- creating many of the toxic leadership examples we see today.</div><div><br></div><div>Were their actions of the time justified? Hindsight being what it is, I think probably not, but at the times and over the years many were rewarded for their results -- and the actions that got them there were completely overlooked. </div><div><br></div><div>Bottomline, it will take us MANY years to rid our Army and the Department of Defense of the Toxic Leaders and Leadership Styles that were accepted by the previous leaders. Whether that acceptance was explicitly or tacitly accepted -- it was accepted. There is no question that there is no place in our military for bad leaders. The current drawdown of the Army will hopefully help identify and separate the good leaders and reward their positive leadership styles.</div>

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2014 1:09 AM

2014-01-09T01:09:51-05:00

I find this to be true and an otherwise excellent troop may feel so stigmatized that no matter what they do, they feel they will fail. I tried to be a very calm leader and I felt that being firm but fair I got the best results. My trainees adapted my style and their performance made them successful and good trainers. We want to get the best, we cannot play head games. A person can be good at what they do but maybe too stressed to endure too much harassment.