Leadership can be toxic (catch all)

[Steve Blair]

Possibly better and perhaps far more important question:

How did he get where he is?

I think we know the answer to this one, Ken. Our pet rock of the personnel system strikes again.....

[AdamG]

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://militarytimes.com/blogs/outsi...der-not-liked/

http://www.stripes.com/news/europe/g...#disqus_thread

[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.

[SWJ Blog]

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.

[SWJ Blog]

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.

[SFAT]

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.

[Commando Spirit]

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.

Whilst I agree that the current "toxic leadership" issue is of concern, the article does not concern me overly. I'll expand.

If the leader has evidence that a subordiante (I'll come onto this term in a moment!) is underachieving then the "ass chewing" can be rightly defended should the need arise. This, in my mind, is simply one aspect of good management (not leadership).

The leadership should come into play long before the need for the "ass chewing" in the first instance. A function of command, and therefore leadership, is to develop our subordinates and so when one is found to be wanting in a given area the necessary remedial trainng should be made available. Don't get me wrong, where a subordinate, following remedial training, or coaching, or mentoring, or a misture of all three is found to be below the required standard then said "ass chewing" is well deserved and should not be avoided but delivered with gusto!!! I think we, as leaders, have a duty to develop those we lead first and foremost and save the "ass chewing" for those rare moments when it genuinely is deserved, otherwise who will they go to for advice and guidance when they have a realtime issue?

If the aggrieved individual then chooses to try to throw some dirt, make a claim, or bleat and cry about it then at least the leader can demonstrably prove they did their best to develop the individual in question.

(I am aware that I may be coming across as a slight tree hugger here which is amusing me because I'm far from it!)

The term subordinate is one that causes much discussion in many domains and so, not wishing to ambush or derail this thread, I commend the assembled council members to consdier this definition of leadership which brings into debate the term of followership:

"Leadership is a reciprocal relationship between those who choose
to lead and those who choose to follow." (Kouzes. & Posner, 1993)

Finally (at last I hear you cry!), the article is simply presenting an issue that we have been well aware of for decades; that is the old adage that a soldier is not happy unless they are complaining! These surveys simply give another stage within which to do it; it used to be in the NAAFI, or the crew room or the smokers room/shed/area but now it is via online surveys...

Perhaps it is this that we should be more concerned about; the fact that we feel the need to have such surveys??

[Commando Spirit]

...training...mixture...

Speed typing was never my strong point - please excuse the spelling errors and my current setup (at work) will not allow me to edit!!

[davidbfpo]

A Military Review January 2013 article that appeared today via Twitter, it starts with:

Why would a leader in the Army or in any organization choose to micro-manage subordinates; show a lack of respect for them; choose not to listen to or value their input; or be rude, mean-spirited, and threatening? Most leaders would not. Most people do not choose to act like this. However, it is clearly happening in the uniformed services and in society as a whole. The Army recently released a study reporting that 80 percent of the officers and NCOs polled had observed toxic leaders in action and that 20 percent had worked for a toxic leader. This problem is not new.

Link:http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/Military...228_art012.pdf

[davidbfpo]

Found when researching an antidote to the thread's theme, from Australia and set in he early 1950's:

I recall as a young Cadet on a night navigation exercise in the Canberra area. After becoming geographically embarrassed, namely lost, a classmate and I decided that a few quiet beers in the private bar at the Ainslie Hotel would be far more to our liking than trying to find navigation markers on a very cold night in the hills of Canberra.

As the hours slipped by very pleasantly, we eventually adjudged it time to return to the College and so we commenced our long walk back. Around about the Russell Offices area we were getting quite weary and thought it best to further conserve our energy by flagging down the next passing car heading in the direction of Duntroon.

Soon the lights of an approaching vehicle loomed large and I stood in the middle of the road and flagged it down. It stopped, and it was not until my classmate and I had made ourselves comfortable in the back seat, that the unpleasant realisation hit us, that there in the driver’s seat was none other than the Director of Military Art, Colonel Hassett.

‘Good morning boys’ he said. ‘Good morning Sir’ we said. ‘What have you been doing?’ he asked. ‘Night navigation exercise’ we squeaked. ‘Umm’ said the DMA, totally unconvinced. He drove us to our company lines without further comment or conversation.

We thought we were gone; 21 days confinement to barracks and 84 days stoppage of leave at least; possible dismissal loomed large in our minds. But nothing happened, nothing at all.

We sweated for weeks on the consequences of that fateful evening, however it never came. Years later as a very junior General, when I asked why we were never reprimanded, Sir Francis replied with a smile ‘I knew that in waiting for the sword to fall, you were punishing yourselves far more than I ever could’. So true and so typical of his leadership style.

Link:http://www.gg.gov.au/speech/eulogy-g...rancis-hassett