COL Reed's Arguments On Toxic Leadership

I concur with COL Reed’s comments on toxicity but believe that further emphasis is required on the individual leader responsible for the behavior. The paper comprehensively researches toxicity and its fall-out. He goes to great length to define and list the effects of toxicity on unit morale, cohesion, and retention. Accurate pitfalls with existing assessment tools address how toxic leaders continue their ascent to positions of increased spheres of influence. Techniques for raters to frankly discuss issues with their toxic subordinates are made. Subordinate Soldiers' inability to directly address the toxic leader is also addressed. One area not delved into was the toxic leader's perception of how they affect the unit.

The
introspection by the toxic leader themselves is briefly mentioned and almost as quickly dismissed. COL Reed states that the leader will justify their behavior as necessary to accomplish the mission or is in the time honored tradition of coming in hard as it’s easier to ease off than ratchet down. This rationale will be used in each of the assessment tools that are described in the paper (MFA and UCA). The one assessment method that hasn't been utilized is an individual behavioral assessment. I’d propose that the Army’s issue with toxicity would benefit from a career encompassing behavioral self-assessment for officers at each level of command.

Army psychologists could utilize a behavior assessment testing mechanism for lieutenants and administer follow-on tests as they continue command assignments.
Testing would take place throughout the officer's career to track and address areas that could develop a toxic command environment. It would be cost effective as there are a number of tests already in the Army inventory, psychologists are already on the unit manning documents, and a bi-annual session between the commander and the psychologist wouldn’t unduly burden either’s schedule. An argument could be made that a toxic leader may not care about the results of their assessment. I believe that instituting this process early in an officer's career will elicit the appropriate attention to any toxic behavior potential. It could also enhance traits of leaders who already significantly enhance unit morale. Having worked for a toxic commander I'd say he would have been receptive to this proposal and adjusted his attitude to a point where his time in command would have been far less destructive to the unit and personal lives of many of his officers. At the very least a mechanism that forces a self-reflection certainly couldn't hurt an existing assessment process that COL Reed describes as ineffective in ending toxicity. Precedent for behavioral assessment has already been set by Special
Forces.

The SF Regiment institutes multiple levels of psychological testing. The first of which is at SFAS to ensure we select the right individual from day one. Many of us have additional assessments conducted throughout our career. 18A students in the SFQC receive a comprehensive psychological briefing and discuss how their behaviors will positively or negatively impact an ODA to include strategies to maximize the former and mitigate the latter. SWC allocates a portion of their budget to the SOCEP program to modify SF Soldier behaviors. Knowledge of what makes us tick is obviously an important part of this Regiment. Expanding this area nests with ARSOF 2022, Invest in Human Capital and would only serve to improve command climate if instituted across the Army.