Leadership can be toxic (catch all)

[M.L.]

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:

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

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:

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.

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:

]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.

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.

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.

[TAH]

What I read stated that in addition to relieving the Bde Cdr, the Bde Command Sergeant Major was also removed....

me thinks there is more here that just a "bad" Commander.

[selil]

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.