on their comments and attitudes, mostly involving the Bde Cdr but they are not repeatable on a Family Board. :D
Printable View
on their comments and attitudes, mostly involving the Bde Cdr but they are not repeatable on a Family Board. :D
In my experience, FRG has always been a hit or miss thing. I have known some that were awesome and others that were nonfunctional or even counter-productive and the reason for either good or bad was always based on the personalities of the wives involved. There Army has created classes and lectures and killed a lot of trees to try to make FRGs into universally functional organizations but none of that matters if the right people are not involved or if the wrong people are. Expecting the commander's wife to always be the head of the FRG is a huge mistake that I have seen over and over. I have seen too many who thought that they wore their husband's rank or didn't have time to run the FRG because of their own career or family or simply just weren't cut out to lead any organization. I have also seen FRGs that had good leaders but were so poorly supported by the other spouses as to be useless. A well functioning FRG is an absolute asset to any unit but a dysfunctional one creates nothing but drama and more problems than it solves.
Great points. However, there is a major cultural hurdle to overcome in the officer corps. There is huge informal pressure for the CO's wife to head the FRG. If she doesn't, it is often seen as a "ding" on her husband. You won't find that stated anywhere in print. But it is clearly expected in most cases. My wife refused to head the FRG in my company during its second deployment for several practical and personal reasons. Ultimately it didn't hurt me, but I felt the pressure, and so did she.
Funny thing is she got very involved at our next assignment in spouse activities, and even received TRADOC's highest spouse award. When the pressure wasn't on it was much more "fun".
Bottom line is that it is still "expected", especially as a field grade, that a spouse will head the local FRG. If she does not, the husband usually has to be outstanding in every other respect to compensate.
I think many bad FRGs stem from spouses who grudgingly accept the role, but their heart isn't in it. They do it out of duty/loyalty/guilt, and it reflects in their performance. Pure volunteerism by the "right" sort of people makes a difference.
I had a BC once who wasn't a bad BC as they go. He wasn't the most well liked but he did a lot of good things for the battalion but I doubt that a lot of that was remembered when it came to be OER time. You see, his wife, an Italian national, got nailed in a sting by CID buying alcohol for underage soldiers. She also was just about useless to the FRG. And so it goes...
LTG Frank Helmick has barred COL Drinkwine's wife from brigade functions:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/0...gg_bct_061110/
http://fayobserver.com/articles/2010...06135?sac=Home
Sounds like she was an estrogen bomb in a constant state of explosion. :wry:
So, I'm guessing this doesn't help COL Drinkwine's chances at getting a star? :rolleyes:
Based on the two media reports, regardless of which side one might take, it remains the Colonel's obligation to act upon ANY influences within the Brigade which are detrimentally affecting morale amongst soldiers and/or dependents...
And this from the articles: "Brian Drinkwine dismissed their complaints and told them that the relationship between his wife and their wives was a senior-to-subordinate relationship. Drinkwine repeated that his wife speaks for him." I'd add emphasis, but the whole thing is toxic.
Why hasn't he been relieved?
Yeah, that guy should be fired. This kind of attitude explains why so few participate in base "wives clubs" anymore.Quote:
his wife and their wives was a senior-to-subordinate relationship
No surprises here really and has been going since the dawn of time. From a retired troop's perspective who did his fair share of guard duty at the front gate, many of the officers' wives thought they carried their husband's rank on their shoulders. I have seen the same in Canberra amongst public service wives in Canberra and would expect the State Department and other departments in DC to see similar. It also goes on on private industry. , as well as in large corporations.
The is the (in) famous quote by a base commander at an all ranks base ball who started his speech with 'Officers and their ladies, Senior Non-Commissioned Officers and ther wives and Airmen and their women'. It was safe to say that it was not a happy base.
A lot of this gradually ceased in my time in the Royal Australian Air Force as airmen became mored educated as did their wives. I woked on an operational a front line base where the base training officer was a Corporal who had been to an Ivy League School and ton another wheer the Base Information Technology officer was a Sergeant. Both were highly qualified for their positions with degrees that were higher than most of the officers. At the blunt end in the support bases, politics ruled, and this is where many resignations occured because of the need to save face.
Another case was when a Corporal was mis-diagnosed with a serious fracture of an arm and sent home with some Panadol. The ####e hit the fan the next day when his wife came into the base medical section, threatening to have the nurse concerned reprimanded by the state nursing board, as she was a senior matron in a top local hospital. Fun days in the class ridden military.
http://militarytimes.com/blogs/outsi...der-not-liked/Quote:
GRAFENWÖHR, Germany — The Army has relieved the commander of the 172nd Infantry Brigade, shortly before the unit intensifies its training for an Afghanistan deployment this summer.
Acting V Corps commander Brig. Gen. Allen W. Batschelet said Tuesday that Col. Frank Zachar was relieved of command on Monday, “… due to loss of confidence in his ability to command.”
Batschelet said there was no specific incident that led the Army to relieve Zachar.
http://www.stripes.com/news/europe/g...#disqus_thread
COL Frank Zachar was relieved of Command of the 172nd Infantry Brigade after just over seven months in command. The reason given by the Acting V Corps commander, BG Allen Batschelet, was:It very well may be that COL Zachar was relieved for toxic leadership. An article at Military Times asserts that Zachar was not exactly a popular commander with the troops. Some Soldiers, writing anonymously, were very critical of COL Zachar:Quote:
Loss of confidence in his ability to command... (Curiously, BG Batschelet added)..There weren’t any illegal, immoral or unethical activities.....His (Zachar’s) leadership style wasn’t really effective and over time the command here lost confidence in his ability to command
There is evidence that toxic leaders not only work, but thrive in the Army. A study entitled TOXIC LEADERSHIP IN THE U.S. ARMY by Colonel Denise F. William from the US Army War College concluded:Quote:
He was a monster to work for, unless you were one of his favorites.”
“He took a perverse joy in making life absolutely miserable. It was disgusting and disheartening to experience.”
“Zachar ran his troops into the ground, every morning I would wake up saying to myself ‘today is going to suck’ ”
“I never seen the number of AWOLS, drunk driving incidents, suicides and homicides, and domestic issues in any command as much as I had in his.
From my own experience, I was once told that when students at the Army Command and General Staff College were given an assignment to write on a difficult leadership experience (called the “Crucible” paper), more than 70% wrote on toxic leadership. This would be remarkable in and of itself. What makes it extraordinary is that nearly 100% of the officers in that CGSC class had combat experience. When toxic leadership is a more defining leadership experience than combat, you know you have issues.Quote:
]Toxic leadership exists in the U.S. Army, and the Army seems to tolerate it.
Perhaps the most obvious reason, albeit disturbing, is that toxic leaders seem to get the job done, at least in the short-term. The harsher toxic leaders who bear traits the Army values, such as rigid, controlling, enforcing, and confident, but take them to the extreme will find more success. Their superiors are either oblivious to the toxic behavior or, more likely, are so satisfied with the results in terms of mission accomplishment that they choose to overlook the human cost of getting the job done.
Perhaps COL Zachar owed his stellar resume to a long list of previous leaders who were too oblivious to notice that he was a toxic leader, or more likely, deluded themselves into believing that he was a good leader with a “strong” leadership style. The fact that he was relieved is an embarrassment to the colonel. The fact that he made it as far as he did is an indictment of the officer management and leader development system.
The fact that BG Batschelet took a stand and fired the guy – well, that shows that maybe there are good leaders out there after all.
What I read stated that in addition to relieving the Bde Cdr, the Bde Command Sergeant Major was also removed....:confused:
me thinks there is more here that just a "bad" Commander.
I believe Col Zacher is on the council but figure he won't comment. I just noticed in all of the linked articles people with self admitted drinking problems, article 15s and other disciplinary hearings were unhappy with the form or method of punishment they received. Well, I'm not to surprised by that. Actually I'm kind of surprised by the number of people who claimed he "drove them to drink". Stress is an input, but what you do with that stress is a choice. I know that there are bad leaders. I'm just kind of surprised to see the kind of comments that are "supporting" the armies decision.
Army Worries about ‘Toxic Leaders’ in Ranks
Entry Excerpt:
Army Worries about ‘Toxic Leaders’ in Ranks by Greg Jaffe, Washington Post. BLUF: "A major U.S. Army survey of leadership and morale found that more than 80 percent of Army officers and sergeants had directly observed a “toxic” leader in the last year and that about 20 percent of the respondents said that they had worked directly for one... The survey also found that 97 percent of officers and sergeants had observed an “exceptional leader” within the Army in the past year." The Army defines "toxic leaders" as "commanders who put their own needs first, micro-managed subordinates, behaved in a mean-spirited manner or displayed poor decision making."
--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.
Rooting Out Toxic Leaders (360 Degree Army Evaluations)
Entry Excerpt:
--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.
Interesting article on leadership, discipline, and the morale of fighting men.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...MobAppShare_EM
Can some it up in a few of my own words from recent experience:
10 years ago Leaders were punished and reprimanded for looking the other way when deficiencies were observed; Today, leaders or more likely to be punished for doing just the opposite.
In the “Toxic leadership” age, leaders are constantly having to look over their shoulders and in continuous fear of subordinates ganging up on them with threats of IG complaints and pulling the “toxic” card. It’s a damn shame leaders worry more about what an underachieving subordinate will do after an ass chewing, rather than how said subordinate will adapt and overcome.
Leaders young and old have forgotten the witchery of small unit leadership. This, I think, directly contributes to the downfall of discipline and morale.