Should PSG’s and above be subject to 360 Evaluations?

I previously wrote a little piece about “Confidently wrong Non-Comissioned Officers” and how they are destroying the Army, in my view at least. Recently, one of the many people who prompted me to write that piece, was selected for promotion to the next grade. In my opinion, this person lacks the temperament to lead someone out of a wet paper bag, and lacks flexibility and adaptablility and even a basic understanding of human interaction. That said, this persons sphere of influence just got much larger, or will when they pin the next rank.

Situations like this, where near unanimously the unit (to include officers) has a disdain for this person due to their treatment of the Soldiers in their charge, and people that have known this person in the past almost all have the same things to say as we did. It makes me think that we can identify toxic leadership starting at the PSG level by using 360 evals and making them a part of board files. This could help prevent the selection of individuals for the next rank who should not be in charge of anyone, ever.

Understandably the goal is not to be liked by your platoon, but to be respected and looked up to as a leader people WANT to follow, not HAVE to listen to. I can understand some level of hesitation to doing these at the PSG level, but I think it may be necessary to start there in order to prevent these individuals who are toxic from becoming First Sergeants or CSM’s. Or, more accurately, to draw their attention to their deficiencies so they can correct them and improve themselves as a leader. What are your thoughts?