A Blog Link About Toxic Leadership

[Brad Sallows]

Strong claims require strong evidence. Ever it was thus.

 

[ericsauve2]

I am sorry you had to go through that.

That was not my experience in Gagetown, at all.

On phase 3 a WO threatened to kill (pierce) us, as described above. And that was just the tip of the iceberg. On phase 4 a WO used to keep us in a room, many Friday evenings, for 2 reasons: (1) to prevent us from "escaping" towards Quebec City at a decent time, and (2) to tell us, in lengthy and descriptive form, how he DESPISED officers. Everyone could tell he thoroughly enjoyed those moments when we were all at his mercy. I so hated Gagetown that I never wanted to go back, ever. I eventually went back to instruct on phase 3 and, while I made it really tough for the candidates, I believe I was - for the most part - respectful to them. I can't say the same of all instructors because some just replicated what they had endured...

 

[ericsauve2]

Strong claims require strong evidence. Ever it was thus.

True. And I do have strong evidence but I guess it didn't reflect in my paper, for the simple fact that I didn't want to provide names or specific examples.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I happen to be both a fellow soldier and a consultant ;-)

I'll do my best to not base my judgement on professional bias (déformation professionnelle in French!)

Look, I am sorry if I hit you between the eyes in my first post. I am deathly sick of being sold snake oil by consultants who do not understand the first thing about warfare or the profession of arms. That is clearly not you. But, the DND/CAF have a bad habit of bringing in outsiders to impose solutions that don’t fit the problem set. So, forgive my knee jerk reaction when another consultant comes along and annoys me where I go to relax- army.ca.

Leadership has been a life long area of interest to me. What makes humans tick under combat conditions is fascinating. In my own experience, I served under one Commanding Officer who was a bully and and I generally hated because he was so hard on subordinates. Here is the “but” : when we were on operations, under near combat conditions, I actually came to respect him for his tactical acumen and his desire to win. I felt, if shooting actually started, we had a good chance of winning with him in charge.

This is where my feelings are conflicted: he was a terrible peace time leader. Toxic, by today’s definition. And yet…I wanted to follow him in combat. Does that make any sense? It doesn’t to me. How do we develop combat leaders, with the desire and skills to win a fight, without them also burning down a peace time military?

 

[Staff Weenie]

I've got a lot of observations and thoughts on this after 32 years in the CAF.....

Points to ponder - how much of toxic leadership is a learned behaviour, and how much stems from some sort of personality disorder - narcissism, oppositional defiance disorder, borderline personality disorder, or antisocial personality disorder (I believe this is the current DSM umbrella which covers psychopathy and sociopathic behaviours now - note that I've got no background in psych, so this is not a clinical opinion)?

If it is a learned behaviour, was it ingrained into the individual during their pre-CAF upbringing, or was it developed through experience/observation during their CAF service? In either case, can it be addressed through retraining, or should we cut our losses and remove the individual?

If it is from a personality disorder, how do we quickly identify, diagnose, and remove these individuals? There is a belief that 'functional sociopaths' (probably a more accurate clinical term exists now) are more prevalent in leadership positions than in the general population. They often appear to get things done, but only for their own advancement and gratification. They have absolutely no consideration or empathy for the trail of institutional carnage and broken employees in their wake. We may think someone falls into this category, but getting an actual diagnosis is neither quick nor easy.

There is also another type of toxic leader I've encountered - individuals who may mean well most of the time, but are professionally incompetent or deficient in skills and experience, and who use aggression/abuse as a cover.

I would never deny that there is an issue in the CAF. The question is how widespread it is, what is/are the root cause(s), and how does the system react/retrain/remove/rectify the situation?

 

[KevinB]

Pizzas

There is formal teaching/instructing and then there is what one learns by observing, which is as important. I was told several time to take care of my troops, Mission First - Men Second, that type of stuff. That's not always what I witnessed though. I have seen toxic leaders say all the right things yet doing exactly the opposite. I think we were misinformed, many times. I think that toxic breeds toxic. I do think however that things are getting better, we are more professional. They are more safeguards. When I hear "humans are more important than hardware", I want proof of that.

Mission, Men, Equipment, Self - however for many it is simply a buzzword.

For years the CAF, and specifically the CA sat idle (I went to Cyprus, and yes I consider that idle, other than for ones liver). As a result with no real operational missions it is hard to focus on soldiering. Then FYR and Somalia popped up and while for the most part the CA conducted itself well, there were several issues that a few bad apples spoiled the batch, and then some more rocks got turned over - and the CAR was thrown out instead of conducting any actual root cause analysis into how every Commando (3 CDO while managing to escape Somalia fairly unscathed managed to embarrass itself in Rwanda with some drunken shotgun shenanigans - at the minimum) managed to have some fiasco associated with it. Then the CAF got the "solution" clearly it was degreed officers that where needed (I have no issues with degreed officers, but the idea that a degree will create a moral and just person just doesn't sit with me. Combined with idiotic interpretations of ROE for FYR deployments, as well as exposure to situations that the CA had never prepared troops for was not exactly a recipe for success for the physical and mental health of individuals as well as the organization as a whole.

Armies - and specifically the Infantry tend to attract a certain type of person - that if left alone will often find something to do, and 9/10 times that something will be designed to increase excitement - which if poorly channeled will not end up well for the individual or the CA. In time of budget cuts and lack of combat deployments, the leadership (from junior Cpl to the CDS) needs to find training to fulfill the needs of the force and the personnel in it. For nature abhors a vacuum and then you end up with the drunk bully syndrome, as the fine line between hard and stupid gets crossed easily - especially when enabled by alcohol and boredom.

 

[NavyHopeful]

I'm sure that, in some fashion, everyone in uniform will experience some form of toxic leadership. The difference between the encounters will likely vary depending on the specific circumstances, and the level of the toxicity.

I could regale all with stories of toxic leaders that people I know have served under, or even any experiences I may or may not have had, but the reality is that whether in or out of uniform, toxic leaders are potentially everywhere. The difference, in my opinion, is that because the CAF is an easily-identifiable organization and is under constant scrutiny at all times, any form of toxicity is amplified under the giant magnifying glass of today's population.

Now, knowing all that, and as a junior leader myself, it falls to those at my level to draw the line in the sand. What kind of leader do I want to be? Do I need to be that hard-nosed MS/MCpl that gets results, but my subs hate my guts? Or am I the guy who let's them cut loose and I pick up the slack to make sure the work gets done?

The answer is going to be different to everyone that has to ask themselves that question. But I postulate a rubric to follow for future leaders:

• Mission first, but PEOPLE ALWAYS. Without your subordinates, your section does not succeed.
• You need to be the type of leader that you would be excited to work for.
• Never ask a subordinate to do a job you wouldn't be willing to do yourself. Ensure that you aren't giving your subs a garbage tasks while you stand back and shoot the breeze with the other supervisors. (Navy specific: nothing beats a good MS that helps with cleaning stations when the department is short-handed. Good for team-building and morale to see a supervisor rolling up the sleeves for some menial labour.)
• You may not have time to explain an order in-situ, but once the dust has settled, you can always hash out the AAR with your subs to explain what happened, why you did what you did, and ask for any possible suggestions on improvements. Sometimes the best ideas come from the least-expected places.
• Remember your subordinates are people, too. They are more than just cogs in the giant CAF wheel. They have lives, and families, and problems just the same as the rest of us. You don't need to dig into them to get to know them, but (if you feel comfortable with it) give them a small glimpse into your reality away from work, and give them the olive branch to approach you with anything they may need to get off their soul. And let them know that it's ok to NOT confide in you, too. Make sure they know that, if not you, there is ALWAYS someone that will listen, and point them in the direction of those resources.

These are the basic leadership principles I follow. I welcome anyone to use them, and I also welcome any improvements on them.

If anything, THIS is how I do my part to eliminate toxic leadership. Not just in the CAF, but anywhere.

 

[Good2Golf]

That said, I have worked in Int for 10 years, and the last 9 years as a consultant, and toxic leadership can be found everywhere. In civilians too.

Ouais.

And in females too -- there, I said it.

Double ouais.

As I stated in the very beginning, the CAF and in fact, DND, don't have the monopoly on toxic leadership.

Treble ouais.

My first CAF experience with toxicity turned out to be my CFOCS Pl Comd. Capt NurseO…she swore like a stevedore and often openly derided the females in the platoon, including at times the c-word. That was an eye opener, for sure.

Others have touched on it as well, but I think there was some notable blurring of military to/with civilian (false)equivalencies that resulted in some distinctions conduct at more senior levels, since it seemed that neither the PER/PAR process nor elements of the PSPM process were particularly well applied to a number of layers of leadership.

Noted before, but bears repeating, I think psychometric evaluation for leaders (both commissioned and non-commissioned) must be institutionalized…and not just the CAF, but to be frank, the Canadian Public Service. For CFPS, I’d say EX-01 and above preferable, and most certainly mandatory for EX-03/05 and DM-01+.

Anecdotally, the most toxic leadership I ever experienced was actually in industry. 1st-person experiences with C-level and VP-level direct supervisors. I was able to personally make a difference in both cases, but that came at a cost (physical and mental). I think 360-evals should also be a corporate ‘best practice.’ I mention this not to excuse the CAF (and DND!) from making the effort to materially improve leadership, but rather to make the case that best practices could (should) be more prevalent in all of society.

Regards
G2G

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

And to put the full set of cards on the table, what is your consultant expertise in?

 

[Lumber]

Look, I am sorry if I hit you between the eyes in my first post. I am deathly sick of being sold snake oil by consultants who do not understand the first thing about warfare or the profession of arms. That is clearly not you. But, the DND/CAF have a bad habit of bringing in outsiders to impose solutions that don’t fit the problem set. So, forgive my knee jerk reaction when another consultant comes along and annoys me where I go to relax- army.ca.

Leadership has been a life long area of interest to me. What makes humans tick under combat conditions is fascinating. In my own experience, I served under one Commanding Officer who was a bully and and I generally hated because he was so hard on subordinates. Here is the “but” : when we were on operations, under near combat conditions, I actually came to respect him for his tactical acumen and his desire to win. I felt, if shooting actually started, we had a good chance of winning with him in charge.

This is where my feelings are conflicted: he was a terrible peace time leader. Toxic, by today’s definition. And yet…I wanted to follow him in combat. Does that make any sense? It doesn’t to me. How do we develop combat leaders, with the desire and skills to win a fight, without them also burning down a peace time military?

CHA in Libya?

 

[OldSolduer]

True. And I do have strong evidence but I guess it didn't reflect in my paper, for the simple fact that I didn't want to provide names or specific examples.

Just an observation: Change the names to "WO X" or "LCol Y" .

 

[OldSolduer]

This is where my feelings are conflicted: he was a terrible peace time leader. Toxic, by today’s definition. And yet…I wanted to follow him in combat. Does that make any sense? It doesn’t to me. How do we develop combat leaders, with the desire and skills to win a fight, without them also burning down a peace time military?

There are people who are "in case of real shootin wars, break glass".

 

[ericsauve2]

Look, I am sorry if I hit you between the eyes in my first post. I am deathly sick of being sold snake oil by consultants who do not understand the first thing about warfare or the profession of arms. That is clearly not you. But, the DND/CAF have a bad habit of bringing in outsiders to impose solutions that don’t fit the problem set. So, forgive my knee jerk reaction when another consultant comes along and annoys me where I go to relax- army.ca.

Leadership has been a life long area of interest to me. What makes humans tick under combat conditions is fascinating. In my own experience, I served under one Commanding Officer who was a bully and and I generally hated because he was so hard on subordinates. Here is the “but” : when we were on operations, under near combat conditions, I actually came to respect him for his tactical acumen and his desire to win. I felt, if shooting actually started, we had a good chance of winning with him in charge.

This is where my feelings are conflicted: he was a terrible peace time leader. Toxic, by today’s definition. And yet…I wanted to follow him in combat. Does that make any sense? It doesn’t to me. How do we develop combat leaders, with the desire and skills to win a fight, without them also burning down a peace time military?

Thanks, I appreciate your frankness. I was a little surprised at first by everyone's visceral reaction to the post, I was hoping that people wouldn't judge the book by its cover.

I don't have a problem personally with "hard" bosses, in the sense of demanding leaders. As long as they're fair and, you're right, as long as they have tactical acumen. I have been, in exercise, under the command of a Colonel, who was basically commanding a square combat team, and he had us attack the entire 1R22R who were dug up - Leopards included - on the highest mount in Gagetown... We're talking of a ratio of 1 against 3, at best. Our combat team got wiped out in seconds. And I'm not even mentioning the fiasco of receiving the orders 1 hour after H-Hour... You can't make that stuff up. Well, that Colonel was promoted to BGen, not long after. I'm not implying that he was toxic, but he laid out his complete incompetence in front of a good portion of 5 Bde.

So I guess my point is: what matters is that you're a competent officer/NCM when it comes to doing your actual job: warfighting. There should be no such criteria as competent/incompetent leader in garrison. That would be the equivalent of a firefighter who's very effective at the fire station but doesn't know how to put out a fire.

 

[ericsauve2]

Just an observation: Change the names to "WO X" or "LCol Y" .

It's a small world we live in...

 

[OldSolduer]

It's a small world we live in...

You’re right and if they recognize themselves then it may give them that push to correct themselves

 

[ericsauve2]

I've got a lot of observations and thoughts on this after 32 years in the CAF.....

Points to ponder - how much of toxic leadership is a learned behaviour, and how much stems from some sort of personality disorder - narcissism, oppositional defiance disorder, borderline personality disorder, or antisocial personality disorder (I believe this is the current DSM umbrella which covers psychopathy and sociopathic behaviours now - note that I've got no background in psych, so this is not a clinical opinion)?

If it is a learned behaviour, was it ingrained into the individual during their pre-CAF upbringing, or was it developed through experience/observation during their CAF service? In either case, can it be addressed through retraining, or should we cut our losses and remove the individual?

If it is from a personality disorder, how do we quickly identify, diagnose, and remove these individuals? There is a belief that 'functional sociopaths' (probably a more accurate clinical term exists now) are more prevalent in leadership positions than in the general population. They often appear to get things done, but only for their own advancement and gratification. They have absolutely no consideration or empathy for the trail of institutional carnage and broken employees in their wake. We may think someone falls into this category, but getting an actual diagnosis is neither quick nor easy.

There is also another type of toxic leader I've encountered - individuals who may mean well most of the time, but are professionally incompetent or deficient in skills and experience, and who use aggression/abuse as a cover.

I would never deny that there is an issue in the CAF. The question is how widespread it is, what is/are the root cause(s), and how does the system react/retrain/remove/rectify the situation?

Very interesting post. I would hope that we're able to screen real sociopaths/psychopaths before they get to the recruit school, or before they get to their unit.

"Functional sociopaths", I love the term. When I mentioned "psychopaths", what I actually read from psychology was that toxic leaders exhibited signs of being psychopaths, but were not psychopaths in the sense of hardened criminals --- those should be in prison. But what you described in that paragraph (appear to get things done, only care about their benefits, no consideration, no empathy, trail of destruction, etc.) is exactly what psychopathic leaders are.

I strongly recommend the short book The Toxic Boss Survival Guide. It really differentiate between incompetent/lazy/difficult, etc. and toxic. There's a series of adjective specifically that tell you if your boss is just difficult, or if he's a real asshole (a synonym of toxic in the book The No-Asshole Rule, which I also strongly recommend).

Last point, we can't count on the "system", IMHO. What is most needed is managerial courage to address the issue when it's become evident to everyone. And many books I read said "reform" is futile. Fire, quickly.

 

[ericsauve2]

You’re right and if they recognize themselves then it may give them that push to correct themselves

From what I read and what I know, "pointing out" a toxic leader is the worst strategy, as they only get more toxic. It's unfortunate but real toxic leaders cannot be reformed, they ought to be fired.

 

[ericsauve2]

And to put the full set of cards on the table, what is your consultant expertise in?

Intelligence, mostly, and security, generally. Got a contract for me? ;-)

 

[ericsauve2]

And to put the full set of cards on the table, what is your consultant expertise in?

Just curious, under your avatar I read "staff member, directing staff, and subscriber". What do those mean? I saw "donor" and "mentor" too.

 

[Blackadder1916]

My first CAF experience with toxicity turned out to be my CFOCS Pl Comd. Capt NurseO…she swore like a stevedore and often openly derided the females in the platoon, including at times the c-word. That was an eye opener, for sure.

Early to mid 1980s?

Swinging a dead cat time. If it is who I think it may be, while she wasn't DS on my BOTC, I might have worked with her when she was nursing and later (after I commissioned) been on course with her. I wouldn't count her as a friend, but back then as a friendly colleague/acquaintance. Her language could be "salty" - she made a few ribald comments to/about me when she noticed me at CFOCS - my course mates were a little shocked but it wasn't the first time that staff who I had previously served with as an NCO were overly familiar.