Case Study Failure To Foster A Healthy Command Climate

The country I chose to compare with the United States healthcare system is Japan. Access to healthcare in Japan is fairly easy. Every individual, including the unemployed, children and retirees, is covered by signing up for a health insurance policy. They can obtain insurance either through their work or through a community based insurance. For those Japanese citizens that are too poor to afford health insurance, the government supplies their insurance through a social insurance. If a Japanese citizen loses his/her job and becomes unemployed, the individual will just switch to a community

This paper will briefly analyze the case study— Rebecca S. Halstead: Steadfast Leadership, and examine General Rebecca Halstead 's career history and how through her personal attributes, skills, experiences and challenges she developed into a successful leader and commander in the U.S. Army. Although General Halstead faced a number of challenges during her career, this paper will focus primarily on her leadership style and philosophy specifically with leading teams and dealing with difficult bosses.

LTG Ulmer fully discusses the Army’s concern of compromising command authority and how that can foster toxic leaders. SF is susceptible to toxic leadership for this same reason. A sergeant major will crush a group of teammates who try to solve their toxic leadership issue through collective mutiny. The military is a top down driven organization and chain of command is more important to maintain than removal of one toxic leader.

To begin, I shall summarize the major issue regarding the case study shown on page 103, in the 7th edition book Titled, Effective Police Supervision, written by Harry More and Larry Miller in 2015. Sergeant Lou Maynard recently got promoted to the evening supervisor for the Craigview Police Department. Six months had then passed. While leading his team, Maynard came to the realization that two of his officers did not seem motivated as the rest of them were. The other officers, that were doing their jobs, started to complain about the two non-motivated officers. They began stating that the two officers did not their carry their weight when it came to the team. The two officers are noticed working as if they do not wish to be there and are just waiting to retire in the next year. They have even distanced themselves when it comes to socializing with fellow officers on duty and off.

67). Such an environment creates high turnover rates, conflicts between departments, and productivity issues (Wilson-Starks, 2003, p. 3). While the toxic leader may, at first glance, appear to be a productive member of the agency, due to his/her own self-promotion, the agency and subordinate officers lose ground through the toxic leader’s efforts to control.

However the key focus is on the task, rather than developing the team per se. For this reason this model is particularly suited to a non-static team where teams are constructed for specific projects, rather than assigning the project to an existing team.

Quoted by Ronald Reagan “The greatest leader is not necessarily the one who does the greatest things. He is the one that gets the people to do the greatest things.” A manager gets things done via planning and delegation. Tasks are usually assigned and results are obtained by other efforts. A leader gets things done by holding a vision, modeling behaviors and usually have very inspiring actions. A manager is defined as, “An individual who is in charge of a certain group or tasks” (Business Dictionary). A leader is defined as “The person who leads or commands a group, organizations” (Business Dictionary).

In today’s business environment, leadership is a major topic of discussion and concern. Having the right leaders in place could be the difference between a successful business and unequivocal failure. There are many different leadership styles that are proven to be effective and then there is the type of leadership that leads a business in the opposite direction. This type of leadership is known as toxic leadership. Research has shown there to be many defining characteristics of a toxic leader and there are identifiable signs that may be indicative of a toxic workplace. The effects of this type of leadership and the environment that it creates can be far-reaching. However, there are ways to assist individuals with protecting themselves from a toxic leader and the negative results of working in a toxic environment.

I will address your follow-up inquiry by separating it into three focus areas, which I have command and control of two. The three areas are alleged falsification of Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) data and mismanagement of physical profiles, alleged bullying and mistreatment by Tango Company Cadre, and alleged bullying and mistreatment by medical professionals at Kenner Army

Why do toxic leaders develop within the Special Forces (SF) community and how would I deal with the problem within 7th Special Forces Group? There are two reasons toxic leaders develop within the SF community; or any community for that matter. One being the 10% rule, and the other, leadership failures. The only way to deal with the problem, without undermining the system already in effect, is to prevent it from continuing to happen. These measures of prevention include reevaluating the following; counseling, annual evaluations, and how we promote.

SGT Summerville was my team leader and primary key custodian for the section and I was the alternate for both as a Private First Class. SGT Summerville was a NCO that believed because she was NCO that she did not have to learn our system, foster a cohesive team of mutual trust, led by example, or poses a military bearing and professionalism. I did not trust nor see any of the Army Attributes and Competencies instilled in her so I did all I could to minor SFC Boozer and pushed myself to learn more and become the SME on our team. I believe SGT Summerville was a toxic leader because she would not take responsibility for anything she did and would blame her Soldiers for all failures of our team. The first day of the division level exercise she did not read the SOP that SFC Boozer created and started up the CGS incorrectly, which cause a catastrophic system failure requiring over 14 hours of work for the system to be Fully Mission Capable (FMC). Instead of her telling the truth when SFC Boozer arrived, she decides to blame another PFC and myself for the system failure. SFC Boozer was very angry and upset as this was day one the exercise, and our system was one of the Commander’s top priorities. SFC Boozer instructed that whoever was responsible for the system failure would reboot the system, meaning someone would have to work 36 hours straight, to get the system FMC. SGT Summerville turn

The Department’s sergeants and other supervisors have the most influence and impact on these front-line personnel. Many of DSD’s direct supervisors are dedicated and hardworking individuals who strive to treat their employees well and support them in their daily activities. Yet our assessment revealed a number of concerns that need to be addressed by the new Sheriff and members of the command staff. Command deputies need to be more consistent in their expectations of subordinates. This will help employees better understand the Department’s priorities and what actions and behaviors they need to adopt and demonstrate in order to advance DSD goals. Direct supervisors and DSD leaders have a critical role in building morale

The structural and psychosocial subsystems are being affected. The structural subsystem is being affected by the behavior of Mr. Johnson, Mr. Ellis, and Mr. Watts. Structural subsystems are the designs, policies, and procedures set forth by the organization. (Brown, D., 2011, pg 41) The employees have followed the chain of command set forth by the organization to deal with problems and change that arise. Both Mr. Ellis and Mr. Watts failed to follow through on their duties by neglecting to address the issue. Most organizations have a policy against sexual harassment and employers have a duty to uphold a harassment free environment, Mr. Ellis and Mr. Watts failed at this measure also. Promoting Mr. Johnson to a supervisory role also disrupted the normal chain of command within the

The first factor that has led to the erosion of trust is the misalignment of ethics. The norms and values within the Brigade do not align with what is being said by the leadership. A command climate survey highlighted that COL Cutler gives messages in formations about how family is important but then does not resource anything to support that priority. This was evident in the statements made by the Brigade S6. He highlighted that the Division needed personnel to assist in the CPX.

Fatimah is a 30-year-old woman who owns and manages her own fashion brand label and design company. She started her business 2005. In addition to managing her business, Fatimah is the mother of three adorable kids, ages 5, 7, and 9. In her fashion company, she heads a team of 26 employees ranging from tailors, salesperson, drivers, and secretaries. Fatimah supervises operations, coordinates her staff, and displays good leadership and communication skills. She also interacts regularly with clients and suppliers.