Poor Leadership, Or The More Widely Known Phrase “Toxic

Every leader in the U.S. Army have a different leadership style. During my thirteen years in the Army I have seen several leaders placed in positions where it was obvious that they were born for that position, performing admirably and making very real contributions. In other situations leaders were placed in positions of leadership appearing unprepared for the role. These leaders over time were soon surrounded by other leaders that ensured their success. Several leaders in my career have left a lifelong mark on my leadership style. Every one of them left me with knowledge that have built a foundation for my leadership beliefs and style. There is also what we call in the Army, “toxic leadership” which produce harm to the organization, leaders

Lieutenant General Anthony R. Jones investigated the possible involvement of personnel higher in the chain of command (Jones 2005). Lieutenant General Jones concluded that abuse ranged from inadequate resources, confusion about allowable interrogation techniques, conflicting “policy memoranda,” to “leadership failure.” Lieutenant General Jones also noted that “leadership failure, at the brigade level and below, clearly was a factor in not sooner discovering and taking actions to prevent” the abuses.

The Corps of the Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) has been around since the formation of the Continental Army in 1775. The basic responsibility of the NCO was to fill gaps in the lines and keep soldiers quiet on mission while leading (Perkioniemi, 2009). Currently, the responsibilities of the NCO focus on soldier welfare and accomplishing the mission (NCO Creed). Toxic leadership is a serious concern for the military, and it is undermining the reputation of the NCO Corps. What is toxic leadership, how can it be addressed, and what will happen to the Corps if it is allowed to continue?

This quote by Colin Powell describes toxic leadership in the Armed Forces. Toxic leadership is a failure of leadership. A toxic leader does not lead, they poison the workforce and tarnish the reputation of organization. Toxic leadership can exist anywhere, from the private sector to the government, to our military Armed Forces.

SFC (Ret.) Mark C. Daw is the subject of this Leader’s Legacy paper. SFC Daw served for over twenty years in the United States Army Signal Corps. SFC Daw served during the Cold War in the Berlin Brigade, in Operation Desert Storm, in Bosnia during Implementation Force (I-FOR), and in Operation Iraqi Freedom 04-06. A career paratrooper, SFC Daw’s leadership style involved leading from the front at all times, superior tactical and technical proficiency, a hand of discipline tempered by wisdom, and developing his Soldiers professionally and personally. SFC Daw’s example serves as one worthy of emulation by all Soldiers, regardless of expertise or field. I am the Soldier I am today because of SFC Daw.

Our nation’s military continuously evolves to ensure success in future operations. This change is only be possible if our top leaders work in concert towards a common goal. The purpose of this document is to highlight how General Stanley McChrystal changed the manner in which the U.S. Military operates and communicates in an ever-changing environment.

The purpose of this paper is to describe why SFC Boozer, Charles is who I consider my Legacy Leader and how he positively impacted not only myself, but the Army and NCO Corps which directly influenced the Leader that I am today. The Attributes and Competencies that he instilled in me as Leader are just a few of the many things that I would like to become part of my Legacy that I would like to leave behind the Army and NCO Corps.

In this chapter, the methodology that will be used to analyze US Army leadership effectiveness in Schofield Barracks, Hawaii will be discussed. The research question of how does sequestration impact US Army leadership effectiveness at Schofield Barracks will be evaluated by collecting data from soldiers and leaders at Schofield Barracks. Through surveys about their experiences after federal sequestration, the research will attempt to define if whether leadership is more or less effective after the implementation of the budget restrictions.

The United States Army is in a state of decline. The Army’s senior leaders are either oblivious to the decline or only care about the popular issues such as sexual harassment or hazing. Today’s junior leaders are either incompetent, feel their hands are tied, or simply do not get the backing from their senior leaders in order to effectively make changes. Our senior leaders blame their junior leaders, and our junior leaders blame their senior leaders. The fact of the matter is that all leaders, from the Chief of Staff of the Army to newest Corporal that was recently promoted this month, have to lead.

The result was that we’ve ended up with a command structure is top-heavy with guys who looked good in uniform and talked right and did well enough not to embarrass themselves, while the really good ones quietly did all the serious work and bailed out our superiors and got blamed for errors they had advised against until they eventually got out.”

Joining the military at a young age, I became reliant on my leadership. I looked at anyone that was higher rank to me, to be a leader. I became aware really fast, that just because you have rank or a title, it does not make you a good leader. When you are brand new to an organization, you look to your peers and leaders to guide you through the transition period. Some of us unfortunately fall into the trap and become consumed by horrible leadership.

Today’s military leadership was defined and cultured through revolutions, civil war, conflicts, and currently a combat era lasting almost ten years. Through recent leadership development changes brought on by former Secretary of the Army, Dr. Francis Harvey, the military has become an entity trying to keep ahead of the incessant derogatory diversions to the honorable way of life impeding military leadership everyday. Disregard for human life, loss of the moral compass, innuendo, and complacency have caused the hierarchy to struggle with the leadership model that has formed the civilian populace and ultimately, the future leaders of the military.

The article “Toxic Leadership Isn’t Dead yet” examines toxic behavior in leadership and identifies the signs to look for when inspecting our own environment. Ellis (2014) recommends using the four D’s to classify a dysfunctional leader: deny, defend, demonize and destroy (p. 8). He stresses the importance of acknowledging dysfunction, seeking out help to deal with the situation and offers suggestions on how to repair damage caused. The author’s blunt approach is refreshing, informative and his insight invaluable.

Toxic leadership includes managerial incompetence, threatening, controlling and unlawful behaviors, and physical and non-physical abuse that are intentionally hostile or detrimental to both individuals and groups (Ashforth, 1994; Kellerman, 2004; Reed, 2004; Lipman-Blumen, 2005a). Whereas, intentionality play a central role in how the leader can be classified as intentionally toxic or unintentionally toxic leader. Leaders who are considered intentionally toxic deliberately harm others to strengthen themselves at the expense of others (Lipman-Blumen, 2005a). While unintentionally toxic leaders act recklessly, including being incompetent, which can have significant negative effects on followers.

There are many examples of poor leadership behavior in today’s workplace. Inadequate leadership can be detrimental not only to a team within an organization, but also to the entire organization itself. I believe it is vital for upper management to ensure that their leaders are properly trained and aware of how to handle certain situations and employees. When a leader’s weaknesses are overlooked, large problems occur.