Army Takes On Its Own Toxic Leaders

[daftandbarmy]

Bravo Zulu Uncle Sam for taking this one on...


Army Takes On Its Own Toxic Leaders

Top commanders in the U.S. Army have announced publicly that they have a problem: They have too many "toxic leaders" — the kind of bosses who make their employees miserable. Many corporations share a similar problem, but in the Army's case, destructive leadership can potentially have life or death consequences. So, some Army researchers are wondering if toxic officers have contributed to soldiers' mental health problems.

One of those researchers is Dave Matsuda. In 2010, then-Brig. Gen. Pete Bayer, who was supervising the Army's drawdown in Iraq, asked Matsuda to study why almost 30 soldiers in Iraq had committed or attempted suicides in the past year.

"We got to a point where we were exceptionally frustrated by the suicides that were occurring," Bayer says. "And quite honestly feeling — at least I was — helpless to some degree that otherwise good young men and women were taking their lives."

Matsuda might seem like an unconventional choice to study Army suicides. He's an anthropologist; the Army hired him to advise U.S. commanders on how to understand what was really going on below the surface in Iraq. But Bayer says those skills are what prompted him to ask Matsuda to look below the surface of the suicide problem in the Army.

http://www.npr.org/2014/01/06/259422776/army-takes-on-its-own-toxic-leaders

 

[OldSolduer]

I would have to agree with that.

 

[The_Falcon]

It's a step in the right direction (for any military), but studying the problem is one thing.  Actually dealing with the problem, will be the hard part.

 

[tomahawk6]

Toxic leaders,as well as great leaders have always been around.You learn to deal with all sorts in the military,which is what makes us so valuable in the civilian marketplace  ;D

 

[pbi]

Well... since the Army probably created them, or at least did nothing useful as they advanced to where they are now, the Army might actually have an obligation to "take on" these people.

"Oftentimes platoon leaders will take turns seeing who can smoke this guy the worst. Seeing who can dream up the worst torture, seeing who can dream up the worst duties, seeing who can make this guy's life the most miserable,"

These are commissioned officers? Or high school bullies? Maybe this isn't an individual people problem: maybe it's a bigger unit- or institutional- level cultural problem. I wonder to what extent this is aggravated by the fact that officers and NCOs in the US Army are generally several years younger than their Canadian counterparts, and perhaps less mature?

Further, in my understanding, the previous US Army  "Up or Out" or "Two Look" OER/Board system almost guaranteed that nobody wrote anything even remotely negative on an officer's ER unless they wanted to tube him. This probably prevented constructive criticism or course correction on some of these bad people. I have heard that the pers pressures of OIF/OEF caused modification to "Up or Out", but after decades in place I'm sure it has done its share of damage.

That said, I've seen (or served under...) enough of these rotten people in the Canadian Army to know that we live in something of a glass house. We also have (or at least "had", in my service) people with all of these nasty characteristics. Inevitably, they slipped through the system, frequently because they delivered "the goods" to their own superiors who were too detached from reality to know what was going on.

In addition to having leaders evaluate their subordinates, as just about every institution does, they asked subordinates to evaluate their leaders — anonymously.

I used to think that this was a terrible idea, that would totally undermine the military discipline and leadership system. But, as I got on in the service and saw more and more of these people rise up despite they way they treated their people, I began to accept the idea. Now, I believe in it.

There is a version of it that has been done at the Canadian Forces College for quite a few years now (the "360 Evaluation"), but IIRC the subject gets to pick who provides input. (It's been a while since I was involved with it) I think it might be quite interesting to see what some peoples' career trajectories would have looked like if their subordinates could have put in a word or two.

You could argue that where NCMs are concerned, this is the role and function of the NCO net, but I have served in units where this was either broken or disregarded, so it is not really a guarantee.

In the end, promotion and selection  would still be command decisions (in order to counter the possible "popularity contest" effect), but a broader base of assessment might be very useful.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Well... since the Army probably created them, or at least did nothing useful as they advanced to where they are now, the Army might actually have an obligation to "take on" these people.

These are commissioned officers? Or high school bullies? Maybe this isn't an individual people problem: maybe it's a bigger unit- or institutional- level cultural problem. I wonder to what extent this is aggravated by the fact that officers and NCOs in the US Army are generally several years younger than their Canadian counterparts, and perhaps less mature?

Further, in my understanding, the previous US Army  "Up or Out" or "Two Look" OER/Board system almost guaranteed that nobody wrote anything even remotely negative on an officer's ER unless they wanted to tube him. This probably prevented constructive criticism or course correction on some of these bad people. I have heard that the pers pressures of OIF/OEF caused modification to "Up or Out", but after decades in place I'm sure it has done its share of damage.

That said, I've seen (or served under...) enough of these rotten people in the Canadian Army to know that we live in something of a glass house. We also have (or at least "had", in my service) people with all of these nasty characteristics. Inevitably, they slipped through the system, frequently because they delivered "the goods" to their own superiors who were too detached from reality to know what was going on.

I used to think that this was a terrible idea, that would totally undermine the military discipline and leadership system. But, as I got on in the service and saw more and more of these people rise up despite they way they treated their people, I began to accept the idea. Now, I believe in it.

There is a version of it that has been done at the Canadian Forces College for quite a few years now (the "360 Evaluation"), but IIRC the subject gets to pick who provides input. (It's been a while since I was involved with it) I think it might be quite interesting to see what some peoples' career trajectories would have looked like if their subordinates could have put in a word or two.

You could argue that where NCMs are concerned, this is the role and function of the NCO net, but I have served in units where this was either broken or disregarded, so it is not really a guarantee.

In the end, promotion and selection  would still be command decisions (in order to counter the possible "popularity contest" effect), but a broader base of assessment might be very useful.

Very  :goodpost:

I'm with you, especially on two points:

    1. We, Canadians, have toxic leadership problems of our own. Like you, I've served under, with and around too many bullies and buffoons ~ no cap badge is immune; and

    2. I think it is, in some important part, a cultural problem. I think the cultural problem is worse in the USA, where the high-school hero/jock/bully is omnipresent and is celebrated, not just tolerated, and I think we,
        with our endless fascination with all things American (penis envy, in my opinion), especially in the military, imported it as we import so many things: uncritically, even mindlessly.

 

[OldSolduer]

:goodpost:

Well said Mr. Campbell.

I would agree - too many of our soldiers at all levels want to emulate another country's military. We have a system that is IMO fairly decent.

I, for one, do not favour emulating Americans or for that matter the UK.

 

[tomahawk6]

Those leaders that fall into the toxic leader camp,do so because they forgot the golden rule.The sad fact is that they continue to be promoted,even when its not in the best long term interest of the service.

 

[pbi]

Those leaders that fall into the toxic leader camp,do so because they forgot the golden rule.The sad fact is that they continue to be promoted,even when its not in the best long term interest of the service.

Yes-and this is exactly what we have experienced in the Cdn Army as well. Despite the fact that we have what is basically  not a bad evaluation/board system, (if it is applied the way it is intended), I never ceased to be amazed by some of the poisonous people who got to some fairly senior and responsible positions over the years.

These people, if not stopped, do damage in two ways. First, and most obvious, is the trashing of their people and sometimes the organization.(After which the guilty party trots off happily to the next posting, often with a promotion). Second, but thankfully not as commonly, they can act as role models for other, more junior a**holes who see how it can work.

Unfortunately, it is very rare (at least in my experience) that they do get caught, often because they are very adept at reading their bosses and figuring out what song and dance is needed to please them.  As well, we have an instilled and understandable code that tells us that we shouldn't rat out the boss, even if he is a *******. It sounds too much like whining. That, combined with the climate of fear these people often generate, usually serves to provide a "firewall".

 

[George Wallace]

Yes-and this is exactly what we have experienced in the Cdn Army as well. Despite the fact that we have what is basically  not a bad evaluation/board system, (if it is applied the way it is intended), I never ceased to be amazed by some of the poisonous people who got to some fairly senior and responsible positions over the years.

These people, if not stopped, do damage in two ways. First, and most obvious, is the trashing of their people and sometimes the organization.(After which the guilty party trots off happily to the next posting, often with a promotion). Second, but thankfully not as commonly, they can act as role models for other, more junior a**holes who see how it can work.

Unfortunately, it is very rare (at least in my experience) that they do get caught, often because they are very adept at reading their bosses and figuring out what song and dance is needed to please them.  As well, we have an instilled and understandable code that tells us that we shouldn't rat out the boss, even if he is a *******. It sounds too much like whining. That, combined with the climate of fear these people often generate, usually serves to provide a "firewall".

....or Third, they get posted to one of the Schools and create clones of themselves and ending the advancement of promising candidates; thus maintaining the cycle.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yes-and this is exactly what we have experienced in the Cdn Army as well. Despite the fact that we have what is basically  not a bad evaluation/board system, (if it is applied the way it is intended), I never ceased to be amazed by some of the poisonous people who got to some fairly senior and responsible positions over the

I think the PER system is great.  The problem is we don't promote off capability and potential anymore; and like many things has become skewed but outside DND initiatives.

I know in the Sup Tech world we have left some very excellent and talented people behind because they couldn't speak French or didn't do OPDPs.  IMHO we place way to much emphasis on a persons accomplishments in areas other than their primary tasks.

 

[OldSolduer]

....or Third, they get posted to one of the Schools and create clones of themselves and ending the advancement of promising candidates; thus maintaining the cycle.

Yes....so they can yell, scream, bully and belittle their trainees. Thankfully when I went through TQ 3 all our NCOs were well adjusted and older. No 22 year old MCpls or 28 year old WOs.

 

[Rifleman62]

Like volunteer work "requirement" while deployed for six months of the PER period in an operational theater.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I know a few folks like this is in the Navy; one is a CO, the other soon to be an XO, and a few are also going up the ranks, or have already done their damage.  For exactly the reasons already described; they look great to the higher ups, but their peers and subordinates loathe them, because they are generally awful human beings to anyone they think they are in a position of power over.  Still nothing like what some of the incidents in the article are describing, but bad enough on its own.

It's unfortunate but unless we start using some kind of 360 evaluation, I think it's bound to happen.  Even if there is some unofficial feedback, possibly targeted at trainees, it might be helpful at catching and correcting the issue early.  Personally I would have loved some kind of anonymous feedback early; for the most part, didn't have much of a mentor, so aside from using them as a model of what not to do, floundered a bit.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Luckily there's a (in)competency template available to use to help formally identify people like this:

In Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why It Matters, Barbara Kellerman (2004) suggests that toxicity in leadership (or simply, "bad leadership") may be analysed into seven different types:

Incompetent – the leader and at least some followers lack the will or skill (or both) to sustain effective action. With regard to at least one important leadership challenge, they do not create positive change.[3]

Rigid – the leader and at least some followers are stiff and unyielding. Although they may be competent, they are unable or unwilling to adapt to new ideas, new information, or changing times.[3]

Intemperate – the leader lacks self-control and is aided and abetted by followers who are unwilling or unable to effectively intervene.[3]

Callous – the leader and at least some followers are uncaring or unkind. Ignored and discounted are the needs, wants, and wishes of most members of the group or organization, especially subordinates.[3]

Corrupt – the leader and at least some followers lie, cheat, or steal. To a degree that exceeds the norm, they put self-interest ahead of the public interest.[3]

Insular – the leader and at least some followers minimize or disregard the health and welfare of those outside the group or organization for which they are directly responsible.[3]

Evil – the leader and at least some followers commit atrocities. They use pain as an instrument of power. The harm can be physical, psychological or both.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_leader

 

[Journeyman]

.....unless we start using some kind of 360 evaluation.....

Perhaps .357 evaluation.... 


  <---- it's a joke

 

[Navy_Pete]

Perhaps .357 evaluation.... 


  <---- it's a joke

WHAT A TERRIBLE THING TO SAY!!! 

Just kidding... I nearly sprayed my computer with coffee! Well done!

When you are discussing to react to a man overboard during a lecture and people are 'joking' about turning a blind eye if it was a particular individual bobbing around, probably a bad sign.  Worse when there is general agreement, or jokes about throwing heavy objects instead of a kisby ring....  ;D

Worked for a guy like this for a little over a year.  He covered off a few of the templates listed.  On his last day he brought in coffee and doughnuts for the department and gave a little speech (great to work with you all, lots of challenges, blah blah blah...).  Normally that's when a few other people pipe up saying good things, then handshakes, etc.  Instead you could have heard a pin drop, and everyone just left after a minute or two of awkward silence.  Later I got invited to go for beers to celebrate his departure...without him.  Kind of awkward.  Was happier then most to see him go, as he used me for a rapid deploying bus speedbump a few times a week when he forgot to do something for the CO/XO, but as I was his 2 I/C, thought it might not be appropriate.  Fortunately his replacement was top notch, but it was impressive to see the huge changes in a few weeks when morale was back to normal.

 

[George Wallace]

..........  Was happier then most to see him go, as he used me for a rapid deploying bus speedbump a few times a week when he forgot to do something for the CO/XO, but as I was his 2 I/C, thought it might not be appropriate. 

The unfortunate thing about that is that his writing your PER will have an affect on you for the next three years, until you have had three PERs to "undo" the damage he may have caused.

 

[OldSolduer]

When 1 CMBG was commanded by General Cox, I had an OC that IMO was the worst I had ever seen. Arrogant, and rude towards us, and very gracious to his fellow OCs and the CO.
He went so far as to say he had no confidence in his NCOs and the platoon leadership. He was also involved somehow in the Airborne Regiment.

He also had the troops stand by their beds at 0600 with then CSM crawling under beds looking for dust etc.

I was very glad to be "punted" from that company.  I was quite verbal in my criticisms and the OC and I hated each other from the word go. He took his release in 97 I think.....good f**king riddance.

 

[dangerboy]

It was a dark time for A Coy, the CSM did not like the posters that went up "Lost Moral, If found return to A Coy".  No mater how hard he tried they kept on reappearing on the walls of the shacks.