<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 unctuationKerning /> false false false ontGrowAutofit /> MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --><!--[if gte mso 10]>

TOXIC LEADERSHIP:  The Result of Toxic Followership

 

While reading “Toxic Leadership” by Colonel George E. Reed, the first sentence that grabbed my attention was found in the second paragraph which stated, “the terms toxic leader, toxic manager, toxic culture, and toxic organization appear with increasing frequency in business, leadership, and management literature (Reed, 2004, 67).”  The phrase that immediately came to mind was “toxic assets” but, of course, Reed’s article from five years ago makes no mentions to these staples of current nightly news.  So why do I mention them?  The reason can be found in President Obama’s recent words while discussing the AIG bailouts.  The President said, “The fact that these guys are looking for bonuses having run down AIG begs the question of why were they making that much beforehand.  When nobody was criticizing them, everybody thought they knew what they were doing.  That kind of culture has to change.”  What kind of culture was the President referring to and what does it have to do with toxic leadership?  More on that later.

Reed’s article is useful as it points toward a trend, in my experience, found routinely in today’s Air Force.  That trend is the promotion of very talented, hard working, loyal, yet ultimately poor leaders.  It should be noted, before continuing futher, that Reed’s article does carry great risks with its sweeping criticisms of leadership and he acknowledges the risk toward the end of the article when he says “toxic leadership, like leadership in general, is more easily described than defined (Reed, 2004, 71).”  I think we would do well to avoid painting too broad a stroke and labeling as “toxic leaders” those whose leadership style or decisions we simply disagree with as tempting as it might be.  Of all the definitions presented in his article I most agree with the Army War College description of toxic leaders as “focused on visible short-term mission accomplishment,” eager to “provide superiors with impressive, articulate presentations and enthusiastic responses to missions” and “unconcerned about, or oblivious to, staff or troop morale and/or climate (Reed, 2004, 67).”  This description fits my experiences of Air Force leadership although, to that leadership’s credit, much of Reed’s characterization of the toxic leader (bullying, loud, unconcerned, and malicious) have thankfully never been part of my Air Force experience.  That is definitely not to say our leadership culture and leadership production doesn’t have issues.  It most certainly does.  But the problem is not merely a leadership problem.  In fact, I would argue it’s more a followership problem.

            Reed indicates in his article multiple times where much of the problem lies.  Followership.  Talking about the Band of Brothers account, Reed states "characteristically, no soldier officially complained to the chain of command (Reed, 2004, 68).”  Later in the article he says “the Army value of loyalty militates against airing dirty laundry” and “subordinates might not report toxic leaders because nobody likes a whiner (Reed, 2004, 68).”  Later, while discussing why leadership doesn’t correct subordinate leadership from the top down, he quotes Lynne F. McClure who states, “The biggest single reason is because [the behavior] is tolerated (Reed, 2004, 70).”  In my experience, the Air Force culture is characterized by airman that almost see themselves as toy soldiers and who rarely if ever speak out against toxic leadership.  They most certainly bitch and complain and do so with gusto and passion.  But how many subordinates ask to speak to their bosses and then explain to their boss why he or she is wrong?  How many are willing to go over their bosses head in an attempt to get a problem resolved after unsuccessfully meeting with their boss?  I know of very few…and yet working the chain of command is a basic military function.  The chain of command is a two way channel and yet for most gravity, or some other force, keeps complaints from going uphill.  In my experience, the full chain of command process has been replaced with what is called “loyalty.” This loyalty, however, is less a virtue and more a vice and used like a careerist codeword; it means subordinates who are loyal will not disagree with their boss and, if they do, will not go over their bosses head to get an issue resolved.  Many airmen consider themselves “loyal” by not disagreeing with their boss and consider it a virtue to “not rock the boat.”  These airmen when in the presence of those that won’t “shut up and color” will even provide sage like advice to “pick your battles” despite having never battled themselves.  What they call virtue and political skill, however, is far too often simple careerism and cowardice.  People don’t want to risk their jobs, their assignments, or their reputations in the squadron by challenging the status quo.  It’s because of this “shut up and color” mentality, which cowards and careerists prop up as virtue, that our leadership has been allowed to stray so far.  Accountability is a two way street but people must be willing to walk it both ways.  This failure of followership has led to a failure of leadership and the effects are not merely academic.  The misplacing of nukes, the gutting of the Air Force well beyond acceptable limits, the shameful lobbying for the F-22 with the simultaneous dragging of feet to produce requested UAVs, and the perception of “do more with less” at the expense of the reality of “doing less with less” can all be traced back to a failure of followership.  In my experience, it’s a cultural problem that has manifested itself with inbred non-combatant fighter pilot leadership that has almost choked the Air Force into irrelevancy at a time when it is very greatly needed.

            Being a good follower sometimes does require shuting up and coloring.  Many times it does not.  The key to being a good officer, in my opinion, is knowing how to navigate that difficult and sometimes costly line.  I’ll close with the words of President Obama, again, who said, “the fact that these guys are looking for bonuses having run down AIG begs the question of why were they making that much beforehand?  When nobody was criticizing them, everybody thought they knew what they were doing.  That kind of culture has to change.”  Toxic leadership is the product of toxic followership.

 

Works Cited:

 

President Barack Obama, 19 March 2009, Cable News Network.

 

Reed, George E., “Toxic Leadership,” Military Review, July-August 2004

 

Toxic leadership has been prevalent in my short time (almost 4 years) on Active Duty in the USAF. I cannot stand to see it, but as Ryno said earlier, the followers are a big part of the problem. I will add personal examples that have happened in my work place, that have shaped this view, and these events will also support the fault of the followers.

About a year ago, my unit was in one of the initial mission briefings when one of the crew members appeared to be asleep. This particular crew member was Asian, and happened to be looking down at the floor at some of the material that was given to him at the beginning of the briefing. When the deputy group commander got up to speak, he observed the crew member, and determined in his own mind that this person was asleep. The lieutenant colonel decided it appropriate to throw a full binder at the "sleeping" person, which hit him in the head. After the mission briefing was over, the crew member was reprimanded with a Letter of Counseling (LOC), and his squadron commander chewed him out in front of his peers. When the offender told his commander that he was looking down and reviewing mission related material, his commander was silenced, and told him to carry on. Even though this happened, the non-judicial punishment stood, and the crew member still received the LOC. A formal IG complaint was never made, and was subverted by leadership (they are not allowed to do this), and the deputy group commander was never reprimanded or given any form of punishment.

Another incident that happened a little further back was when an enlisted member of my squadron received a Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) charge early on a Sunday morning. Our Wing Commander at the time decided it appropriate to recall the entire wing in on that Sunday morning, and have an open ranks inspection for every squadron in the Wing. The enlisted members and officers were separated after the inspection, and the E's were told that they were doing a fantastic job, and the O's were told that they were terrible people, incapable of leading their people out of a wet paper bag. After this, the Wing Commander made the offending squadron take a physical fitness test/assessment (PFT/PFA) in which several squadron members passed out due to dehydration from drinking the night before (Saturday). There are many problems here, and one of them is recalling all of your members for one person's mistake. The second problem is violating AFI 10-248, which clearly states that a member being assessed has to be notified at least seven days before he/she has to take the test. This is because the member being assessed has to annotate on their physical fitness screening questionnaire that they are of sound mind and body, and can take the PFT/PFA without any medical issues coming up. Again, an IG complaint was made, and nothing happened to the Wing Commander in this situation.

I give all of these examples to prove a point; that followers need to hold their leadership accountable. This point holds true especially to "Toxic Leaders" that permeate our existence on a regular basis. Too many people in the previous examples allowed the leadership to continue with their negative and illegal behavior, thus making it okay. The same could be said for members of Enron/AIG/Fanny May/Freddy Mac/I could go on all day, but you get the point. It is ridiculous that people let this go on, but what can a subordinate really do?

I have been told by some in my unit that the IG and the commanders all have beers together on a regular basis at the officer's club on my base. I really do no think there will be any repercussions visited on any of these commanders because of that reason. I also do not believe that most subordinates will do anything, because they are not willing to rock the boat, because it could hurt their fledgling careers before they even start. I agree with Ryno here in saying that toxic leadership is the product of toxic followership. Another example would be when Hitler's followers at Nuremberg were questioned, and they said that they were "just following orders". Yes that is an extreme example, but the point that we are making still rings true.

Sources:

http://www.adversity.net/Terms_Defi...efense.htm

AFI 10-248

My own personal experience

Posted By beast05 on 02 Apr 2009 09:39 PM
Toxic leadership has been prevalent in my short time (almost 4 years) on Active Duty in the USAF.

This particular crew member was Asian,...

Even though this happened, the non-judicial punishment stood, and the crew member still received the LOC.

A formal IG complaint was never made, and was subverted by leadership (they are not allowed to do this),...

Our Wing Commander at the time decided it appropriate to recall the entire wing in on that Sunday morning, and have an open ranks inspection for every squadron in the Wing. 

There are many problems here, and one of them is recalling all of your members for one person's mistake.

The second problem is violating AFI 10-248, which clearly states that a member being assessed has to be notified at least seven days before he/she has to take the test.

Again, an IG complaint was made, and nothing happened to the Wing Commander in this situation.

Too many people in the previous examples allowed the leadership to continue with their negative and illegal behavior, thus making it okay.

I have been told by some in my unit that the IG and the commanders all have beers together on a regular basis at the officer's club on my base.

Beast, I'll give you my thoughts and opinions.  The question of being a good follower is a difficult line that our PME, in my opinion, does a poor job discussing.  Typically it highlights the need to follow orders (and rightfully so) and then gives two extremes.  One extreme being the theoretical "suicide mission" where you have to fly a jet into an almost certain death for apparently no good reason told the reasons were secret and yet you find out the "reason" for being left in the dark is some highly secret rescue operation that you played a small piece in.  The scenario brings up perspective, big picture, and the need for those with a small picture to that just obey.  The other extreme (not theoretical) is My Lai in Vietnam and knowing when to disobey an illegal order and climb the chain of command at great risk to yourself.  PME, in my experience, doesn't spend much time in the various shades of grey and I think many people come away thinking any order their commander gives them which they don't like is illegal.  My point is, it's a tough issue and there is some grey.  I think we need to realize sometimes our commanders are going to tell us to do things we disagree with and that is their perogative.  We may think it's a poor decision (and we should privately tell them) but it is their decision to make.  We owe them our feedback and then we owe them our allegiance to follow through with their plan as though our own; easier said than done but the professional thing to do.  I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir but I think it's a good reminder for all.

Now time to play Devil's Advocate.  My first question is how do you define toxic leadership?  Secondly, did you witness the binder being thrown at the troop and did you see the person was actually studying?  I'm not doubting your story but trying to determine your source for the details.  Also, why did you mention the ethnicity of the guy that got the binder thrown at him?  Does it play into your argument?

I think there is little doubt that throwing a binder at somebody is poor taste and I think it's indicative of the type of toxic leadership that Reed was getting at.  FWIW, an LOC for an officer is *I think* of the "desk drawer" variety that never goes into a person's record and doesn't generate a UIF.  Not saying it's insignificant, but it's worth little more than the paper it's written on.

I'm curious about your statement that a formal IG complaint was not filed and yet the IG complaint was subverted by leadership.  That doesn't make sense to me.  Just because a person may be given the "off the record" warnings to disuade them from filing an IG complaint doesn't remove their choice to do so.  I'm quite certain this guy CHOSE not to file an IG complaint and therefore this option wasn't subverted.  That being said, the IG works for the Wing Commander typically and if they refuse to take the IG complaint (which they can't do I don't think) then he could have filed the next level up.  He had IG options but it sounds to me like he chose not to use them.  That's not leadership subversion but rather followership subversion (pussing out).

As far as your Wing Commander deciding it was approriate to recall the entire wing for the fault of one person...you're damn right it was appropriate.  No question.  He's the Wing Commander and he can absolutely make an example out of one guy for all.  I disagree with your claim that somehow this is a problem that he recalled everybody for the mistakes of one person.  This isn't the Peace Corps.  Are you going to turn down the emergency tasker on Sunday morning because you were too busy getting drunk and didn't get your beauty sleep?  This is a good example, in my opinion, of stop whining.

As far as violating 10-248 then there is a problem.  This is one of those grey areas and where you get paid the big bucks to figure it out and put your pink fleshy ass on the line when you really think you're doing the right thing.  You may be right, you may be wrong, and there will be opinions on all sides.  I think when making the determination it's useful to check your motivations and see where they truly lay.  In this case, if your motivation is to get back at Wing Commander that you disagree with because he ruined your weekend and you don't like being "punished" for the mistakes of one person and yet it's a one time event and isn't systemic...  Technically it's a violation.  I wouldn't find it IG worthy.  But I wasn't there and don't know all the facts.  I can promise you, however, I've been in the position of having others tell me an IG complaint wasn't worth it and that I was attacking windmills and I've also watched the IG do nothing despite providing them proof of a systemic violation of regulations.  I'm speaking from experience.

As far as the IG...he works for the Wing Commander.  The next level IG works for the next level commander.  I'm not sure if the chain of command goes through the Wing Commander or not but functionally I can assure you they work for the commander.  The IG is not the Silver Bullet that people think.  Often it's used as a hamster wheel for people to spend energy.  That's not to say they aren't useful and it's not to say you should avoid the IG if you have an issue but you have to realize the tight rope the IG walks is put in place by the commander.  I don't know if they should be having beers with the commander but it doesn't seem out of place to me.

You said, "Too many people in the previous examples allowed the leadership to continue with their negative and illegal behavior, thus making it okay" and yet I would again ask if the examples you provided were examples of systemic issues?  Does the binder thrower do this all the time?  Does the Wing Commander routinely break 10-248?  Also, you cite 10-248 and yet there is not footnote or embedded footnote so I can't turn to the part in the regulation that supports your argument.

Good discussion!

"My first question is how do you define toxic leadership? Secondly, did you witness the binder being thrown at the troop and did you see the person was actually studying? I'm not doubting your story but trying to determine your source for the details. Also, why did you mention the ethnicity of the guy that got the binder thrown at him? Does it play into your argument?"

My definition of toxic leadership come straight from Colonel Reed's article that we are studying this week. On the first page (p.67), he says that "it is not one specific behavior that deems one toxic; it is the cumulative effect of demotivational behavior on unit morale and climate over time that tells the tale. The ethnicity of the individual comes into play when the commander said he looked like he was sleeping. On a side note, I did leave out small pieces of the story, and backstory so that people could dissect the scenario, and play devil's advocate. Now, back to the ethnicity issue. When the individual was looking down, it looked like he was sleeping to the commander. I was a personal witness to this event.

"I'm curious about your statement that a formal IG complaint was not filed and yet the IG complaint was subverted by leadership."

The person who was offended was planning on making the formal IG complaint, and was dissuaded by leadership from doing so. Any type of leadership is not allowed to subvert or deny access to the IG in any way. This is according to AFI 90-301 page 98, para 5.3.1
Source: http://usmilitary.about.com/gi/dyna...90-301.pdf

As far as citing a reference for AFI 10-248, the reference is page 25, paragraph 4.2.1.1

Source: http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shar...10-248.pdf

I do believe that the Wing King has the right to do whatever they want as long as they are not breaking the rules, however, DUIs/DWIs are not a common problem within my unit. It is primarily my opinion that the commander did the wrong thing by his actions after the original reprimands took place (Unauthorized PT test, Uniform Inspection, etc...). I have no problem with a commander ripping his subordinates when they make a mistake, and I think his school of thought was that we would all keep him in check, and not let it happen to anyone else.

Adding more to the story, the member who received the DUI was not even there for the punishment, and he was not given any form of public punishment, although not required, but it is helpful to see. That also provides motivation for all concerned to never let anyone out of their site while drunk and in the possession of car keys. Another member who was with this airman was punched in the face when he tried to take the intoxicated person's keys.

I also agree that we need to toughen up as a whole, because coddling peers and subordinates does not do us any good. The examples that I cited were just that, examples, but things like this tend to happen more often than not in my unit. I think Reed's article hits home with his three examples of a toxic organization which are "an apparent lack of concern for the well-being of subordinates (e.g. risking safety of subordinates just to prove a point), A personality or interpersonal technique that negatively affects organizational climate (angry simply because they take heat from their leadership for the hot topic at the time (DUIs)), and a conviction by subordinates that the leader is motivated primarily by self-interest (see above)" (p. 67).

Posted By beast05 on 03 Apr 2009 02:36 PM
The person who was offended was planning on making the formal IG complaint, and was dissuaded by leadership from doing so. Any type of leadership is not allowed to subvert or deny access to the IG in any way. This is according to AFI 90-301 page 98, para 5.3.1

As far as citing a reference for AFI 10-248, the reference is page 25, paragraph 4.2.1.1

Got ya.  I can see how the Asian thing plays into it now.  Thanks for clarifying.

As far as your statement that "any type of leadership is not allowed to subvert or deny access to the IG in any way" being referenced in AFI 90-301 section 5.3.1 I have to disagree.  That section says  "Members of the armed forces shall be free from reprisal for making or preparing to make a protected communication (AFI 90-301, 5.3.1)" which is not the same as your claim above.  In your claim leadership can't subvert access to the IG in any way...  Take as an example a commander explaining to a troop that, in the commander's opinion, it would not be a wise move for the troop to file an IG complaint claiming the commander was failing to serve ice-cream every Friday (because the commander had no duty to do so and the complaint would highlight the troop) yet explaining to the troop that he had every right to file a complaint if desired.  By your definition it would seem the commander was wrong by attempting to subvert the IG complaint by trying to reason with the troop and explain that, while the troop had every right to file a complaint, it wasn't a good idea to do so.  AFI 90-301, however, would not say that commander was wrong.  It merely says there will no REPRISAL for filing a or preparing to file a complaint.  If there is reprisal (which in the example above there is none) then the regulation then spells out the remedy, which I assume the person in your example did not do, "Air Force members may file complaints of reprisal with IGs at any level and receive the protections of 10 USC 1034 (AFI 90-301, 5.3.4)."  Again it appears to me the person in your example simply chose not to go through with the complaint.

As far as AFI 10-248 mandating the medical questionaire be completed prior to the PFT the section you cite says, "Recommend questionnaire be completed no earlier than 30 calendar days, but NLT 7 days prior to FA to provide time for medical evaluation, when indicated (AFI 10-248, 4.2.1.1)."  I'm not saying you are right or wrong with your interpretation but it doesn't seem clear cut to me.  It appears to recommend the time frame for completing the questionaire but I don't see anything binding the hands of commanders.  I'm also curious as to what the "when indicated" phrase is referencing.  My reading of the regulation doesn't support your claim but, of course, that doesn't mean my interpretation is correct.  I think AFI 10-248 is poorly worded in several sections.  I've also never filled out the medical questionaire except right before taking the PT test.  Doesn't mean that's the right way to do things though.

This is good stuff.  What a great way to learn the regulations.  Thanks for posting that.

Works Cited:

AFI 10-248

AFI 90-301

Let me start by apologizing if this isn't quite up to standard. It is quite late here and I just finished writing up a report on composite structures...have to love university. Anyway take a look.

-------------------------

<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 unctuationKerning /> false false false ontGrowAutofit /> MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> <!--[if gte mso 10]> Upon reading “Toxic Leadership”, by Col. George E. Reed, one can not help but think about times past where such leadership has been witnessed. For some this has been in a military capacity, while I have only civilian experience of which to speak.

 

The environment in which ‘toxic leadership’ appeared to be most prevalent was during my time at the Casino in my city. Due to the staff being moved around between various venues and working varying hours, there was little chance to build any sort of rapport with any of the managers. However, during these short times of exposure allowed the staff to see the true nature of a persons leadership without the inherit bias of friendship. Unfortunately, with a significant number of the management exhibiting traits of toxic leadership, this was not a positive light.

 

There was one in particular that stood out as being the most unpleasant to work with, an opinion shared unanimously among the staff I knew. He was incessantly finding fault and passing the blame to those around him, although on a number of occasions the blame should have squarely rest on his shoulders. This behavior produced a lack of morale within the staff under him, and ultimately led to a decline in the service provided. I am sure that many would agree that when one enjoys their job and relate well with their colleagues, that they are more likely to work to their full capacity and to the highest quality.

 

It should be noted, that in this environment, due to the ever changing staffing and casual employment contracts, the fear of repercussion was minimal. As such, many of us ignored the constant criticisms and berating and continued with our work. Similarly, any complaints we may have had about our managers were ignored as we were contracted from a separate company.

 

This situation is vastly different from a military environment, where fear of repercussion seems to be constantly present. While many people may have issues with the leadership style of their superior, few choose to take action against it. I believe this to be attributed to the feeling that one must make a decision between doing what is right, and what is most beneficial to them.

 

From my understanding, a member of the military is taught to follow any instruction given to him by his superior to the best of his ability. Furthermore, this superior has a great influence on his chance of promotion. It appears to be because of this influence that the attitude of “shut up and color” is so prevalent. This of course leads into the concept of careerism. It could also be said that careerism, is in fact a manifestation of the human tendency towards greed. With promotion comes an increase in pay and ‘perceived power’, both of which are sought after by a vast majority of people.

 

As such, it would appear that the only way to truly expose “toxic leadership” is to remove this fear of repercussion as well as ensuring complaints are heard. However this is seemingly difficult to implement and should be a further point of discussion.

 

Sources:

My own Experience

Late night random thoughts