Abstract
Destructive leadership, or toxic leadership, is known to have a damaging effect on subordinate members of the armed forces. In the military, toxic leaders are those who engender low levels of confidence, torment, overwork, and micromanage their units, inflict undue stress, and repeatedly violate their soldiers’ trust (Elle, 2012; Reed, 2004). Toxic leadership tends to undermine discipline, morale, and motivation and has a highly divisive effect on unit cohesion. The presence of toxic leadership within the army has recently been confirmed by a survey indicated at least 20 percent of officers and NCOs have worked for a toxic leader (Doty & Fenlason, 2013). In this paper, a comparison of toxic leadership to effective leadership is made in order to show how toxic leaders engage in behaviors that are counterproductive to troop morale and unit cohesion. The specific impact of toxic leadership, as it manifests in the behaviors and attitudes of lower rank officers, is then addressed. The toxic leadership styles and outcomes of two commanding officers, who were relieved of duty in 2011, is examined in detail.
In the military, leadership is defined as primarily a process of influence. According to the ADP 6-22 on “Army Leadership,” good leaders motivate their followers to accomplish missions and fulfill their duties. Good leadership styles are not necessarily inborn, but can be developed through continuous learning, self-monitoring, and improvement. Army leaders are tasked with aiding the professional growth of soldiers and helping each individual achieve his or her potential. It is insufficient that soldiers are motivated to carry out their tasks; for the sake of the long-term health of the organization, they must also have a well-developed sense of purpose and share a common goal or vision.
The positive outcomes of effective leadership are far-reaching. Effective leaders focus and synchronize their organizations by providing directional guidance. They energize their followers and instill an intrinsic motivation to work toward challenging goals. They facilitate the efficient use of resources and improve the odds that the organization’s objectives will be satisfactorily met. Organizations where effective leadership is in place are self-sustaining, purposeful, and likely to achieve high quality results. Effective leaders provide a flexible and engaging climate where subordinates are able to try out different options because they have no reason to fear failure. In combat, effective leaders promote teamwork between the eight elements of combat power, which include intelligence, movement and maneuver, mission command, sustainment, and protection, information, and fires (United States, 2012).
Occasionally, people who lack the qualities of a successful leader will nevertheless find themselves in a leadership position. People who engage in negative leadership practices are called toxic leaders. Toxic leaders are destructive, and the effect of toxic leaders on their followers, as well as on the organization as a whole, is starkly opposite to the effect of successful leaders. In the army, toxic leadership can have dangerous consequences.
The ADP 6-22 describes toxic leadership in terms of a set of attitudes, motivations, and practices that have a deleterious effect on mission performance, the organization, and the unit. Toxic leaders are almost the polar opposite of effective leaders, and behave counter to the basic tenants of leadership. Where effective leaders display strong interpersonal tact, toxic leaders treat their followers with, at best, apathy, and at worst, outright disrespect. Whereas effective leaders inspire and motivate their subordinates, toxic leaders belittle, degrade, humiliate, abuse, and exploit them. Doty and Fenlason (2013) posit that most toxic leaders suffer from narcissism. This causes them to be egotistical, narrow-minded, and self-interested to the point of excluding the interests of others. While successful leaders are focused on the success of the mission, toxic leaders are focused on their personal success and career advancement.
Doty and Fenlason (2013) elaborate upon the qualities that toxic leaders share with narcissists. For example, toxic leaders, like narcissistic leaders, are unable to have empathy for their followers. They are poor listeners, have unreasonable expectations and tend to react to criticism with anger. They are also arrogant, manipulative, and preoccupied with their power; accordingly, they do not hesitate to abuse their status and coerce others.
Elle (2012) writes that the dysfunctional personality traits of toxic leaders manifest in a set of destructive interpersonal behaviors, many of which have been observed by survey respondents reporting to have worked under a toxic leader in the military. Commonly reported toxic behaviors include micromanagement, aggressiveness, rigid decision-making, stifling criticism, and poor attitude. Less commonly reported behaviors include human rights violations, engaging in illegal and unethical acts, promoting incompetence and corruption, deliberately misleading through lying, and inciting altercations.
Just as the positive impact of effective leadership propagates throughout the organization, the negative consequences of toxic leadership multiply exponentially. The higher up in the organization a toxic leader is, the more damage he or she is capable of causing. The effects of toxic leadership span a spectrum of dysfunction. On the less extreme end of the spectrum, according to Elle (2012), toxic leaders cause undue stress on subordinates, create an environment of hopelessness, and increase turnover intentions. At the other extreme, toxic leadership undermines discipline, deflates espirit de corps, and erodes unit cohesion. Within businesses, these deleterious effects are associated with missed opportunities, loss of revenue and productivity, and failure to meet deadlines. Within the military, these effects are associated with domestic violence, substance abuse, and absenteeism. In a combat situation, these effects can cause critical miscommunication, put soldiers’ lives in danger, and increase the risk of mutiny (Elle, 2012).
The prevalence of toxic leadership in the armed forces is troubling, though its true extent is not known. A 2010 survey conducted by the Center for Army Leadership of over 30,000 civilians, army officers, and NCOs found twenty percent of them had worked directly under a toxic leader. The remaining 80 percent further reported that they had directly observed toxic leadership within the past year. Reed (2004) writes that toxic leaders can influence the people who work for them to become disenchanted with the military or, more perniciously, to follow their example. This can spawn a lineage of toxic leaders, with each generation passing down its harmful habits and attitudes to the next. It has been suggested (Elle, 2012) that most toxic leaders become that way because they were groomed by a toxic leader themselves. In 2011, several senior-level toxic leaders were been relieved of command after an investigation, including two brigade commanders and a general. One of these toxic leaders was Colonel Frank Zachar of the 172nd Infantry Brigade in Germany. Zachar’s leadership was reviewed negatively by four out of six battalion commanders, and four out of five command sergeants major. His unsuitability as a leader was further attested to by people who served under him; they reported that Zachar led by intimidation, and was a highly abrasive and negative person who routinely passed the blame for his own shortcomings onto his subordinates. His outward behaviors and attitudes fostered a negative command climate that wore down his troops’ morale. The negative impact of his leadership was measurable. The unit that Colonel Zachar commanded was outstanding for its high rates of alcoholism and drunken driving incidents, homicides and suicides, and domestic violence incidents. Another relieved officer, who is thought to epitomize toxic leadership in the military, was Colonel Phillip Stemple of the 67th Battlefield Surveillance Brigade. An investigation of Stemple revealed that he was an open bigot, often making disparaging remarks of his soldiers based on their race, religion, and gender. He would habitually publically humiliate his fellow soldiers, to the point that members of his command lived in fear of him. The outcome of this type of treatment on soldiers’ reported feelings of workplace satisfaction and happiness was predictable.
Toxic leaders may be, and often are, successful in that they produce desirable outcomes, accomplish their missions, and meet their commanders’ intent. However, they exert a destructive influence over their followers, and that is counterproductive to the long term health and success of the organization. They fail to treat their subordinates with respect, abuse their power, and undermine the sense of loyalty that is the foundation of morale and unit cohesion. They lack concern for the well-being of the people they are meant to lead, which diminishes confidence in the goodness of the organization and the competence of superiors. The implications of toxic leadership go beyond their detrimental effects on a business, unit, or branch of the military. Toxic leadership leaves a mark on the members of the organization themselves, and contributes to the deterioration of personal well-being.
References
Doty, J., & Fenlason, J. (2013). Narcissism and toxic leaders. ARMY COMBINED ARMS CENTER FORT LEAVENWORTH KS MILITARY REVIEW.
Elle, S. A. (2012). Breaking the toxic leadership paradigm in the US Army. ARMY WAR COLL CARLISLE BARRACKS PA.
Reed, G. E. (2004). Toxic leadership. Military Review, 84(4), 67-71.
United States (2012). ADP 6-22: Army Leadership. Washington, D.C: Headquarters, Dept. of the Army.
