Toxic Leadership in the US Army
By LTG Walter F. Ulmer Jr.
U.S. Army retired
he American Army is, of necessity, a hierarchical bureaucracy. Disciplined response to authority remains a bedrock value. Ten years of complex operations conducted typically with notable professionalism by a true volunteer force must be unique in history. And that noteworthy effort followed decades of erratic funding and potentially traumatic alterations of structure. Our Army is also a remarkably introspective institution. Studies of leadership and command climates abound. Since “good leadership” is commonplace, headlines about “toxic leaders” should (and do) draw attention. Recent military journals provided sad details of conspicuous relief of Army and Navy commanders. The reason for concern about any toxic leaders, particularly in our senior ranks, is apparent: Talented people in the 21st century expect to work in healthy climates, where strong bonds of June 2012 I ARMY
47
Defining toxic leader is the first priority before addressing numbers, impact, cause and solution. Webster’s defines toxic as poisonous, not far from destructive or harmful. Naturally, the definition varies with the culture: Some routine styles of command aboard the HMS Bounty would not be tolerated today. Soldiers today have suitably high expectations about the kind of leader behavior we have identified as doctrine. In response to a Secretary of the Army tasking in 2003,
U.S. Army War College faculty and students stated that toxic leaders “are focused on visible short-term mission accomplishment … provide superiors with impressive, articulate presentations and enthusiastic responses to missions … [but] are unconcerned about, or oblivious to, staff or troop morale and/or climate … [and] are seen by the majority of subordinates as arrogant, self-serving, inflexible, and petty.” This definition reminds us that not all elements of a toxic personality are independently destructive. We prize “articulate presentations and enthusiastic
U.S. Army retired
he American Army is, of necessity, a hierarchical bureaucracy. Disciplined response to authority remains a bedrock value. Ten years of complex operations conducted typically with notable professionalism by a true volunteer force must be unique in history. And that noteworthy effort followed decades of erratic funding and potentially traumatic alterations of structure. Our Army is also a remarkably introspective institution. Studies of leadership and command climates abound. Since “good leadership” is commonplace, headlines about “toxic leaders” should (and do) draw attention. Recent military journals provided sad details of conspicuous relief of Army and Navy commanders. The reason for concern about any toxic leaders, particularly in our senior ranks, is apparent: Talented people in the 21st century expect to work in healthy climates, where strong bonds of June 2012 I ARMY
47
Defining toxic leader is the first priority before addressing numbers, impact, cause and solution. Webster’s defines toxic as poisonous, not far from destructive or harmful. Naturally, the definition varies with the culture: Some routine styles of command aboard the HMS Bounty would not be tolerated today. Soldiers today have suitably high expectations about the kind of leader behavior we have identified as doctrine. In response to a Secretary of the Army tasking in 2003,
U.S. Army War College faculty and students stated that toxic leaders “are focused on visible short-term mission accomplishment … provide superiors with impressive, articulate presentations and enthusiastic responses to missions … [but] are unconcerned about, or oblivious to, staff or troop morale and/or climate … [and] are seen by the majority of subordinates as arrogant, self-serving, inflexible, and petty.” This definition reminds us that not all elements of a toxic personality are independently destructive. We prize “articulate presentations and enthusiastic