Toxic Leadership Reflection

A toxic leader can be defined as leader motivated by egocentrism, self-interest and show no concern for those below him, and his actions negatively affect the organizational climate. They exalt themselves in turf protection, fighting and controlling their followers instead of uplifting them. Toxic leaders are very destructive and they only focus on short term accomplishments and they destroy their followers to achieve those objectives. Their decisions are made hasty and they change their decisions without any justified rationale. Mostly, they lazy around only to make hasty decisions when it is too late and the crisis is already in place. Such decisions have no time to be thought over and therefore, they are continuously changed throughout implementation so as to work effectively and may even be altered completely thereby making the whole process messy (Seeger, 2005).

The book Black Hearts by Jim Frederick is an in-depth narrative about the 1st platoon, Bravo Company 1-502nd Infantry 101st Airborne Division deployed to Iraq in 2005. The leadership failures documented in this book range all the way from the general officer level down to the lowest private. LT general Ricardo Sanchez failed to understand the climate his command group was entering as they were deployed into Iraq. From then on the entire leadership failures continued to compound upon each other with improper time to plan. It is customary to have a six month lead time to have a proper battle hand off when preparing to take over an AO from another unit. To compound this problem, the entire time the 502nd was in pre-deployment training, they

The book Black Hearts opened my eyes to how leadership from a single Officer can have a grappling effect on such a wide range of soldiers from the lowest of ranks. One of the best takeaways from Black Hearts is to never do anything: illegal, unethical, or immoral. Although this is a easy statement to repeat, Black Hearts demonstrates the difficulties that lie behind these words. It has also painted a picture of how leadership can topple extremely quickly from a top down view. The Army is portrayed in a bad light throughout the book relentlessly. This is due to the concentration of poor leadership of the 1-502nd Regiment (Referred to as “First Strike”), a battalion of the 101st Airborne Division.

Toxic leadership and climate defines the critical leadership problem within 4th ABCT. In conjunction, a lack of care for Soldiers and their families, favoritism, SHARP issues, and hazing have caused a unit to lose all trust in the previous Command Team. To correct these issues I will develop and implement my vision and a way ahead for the BCT using the 7 Step Model. Furthermore, I will place a great deal of emphasis on a specific portions of the Rocket Model, Organizational Culture “Iceberg”, and correcting the Five Dysfunctions of a Team

The principles of Mission Command are build cohesive teams through mutual trust, provide a clear commander’s intent, exercise disciplined initiative, use mission orders and accept prudent risk. Toxic leaders who micromanage subordinates disregard these principles. Their micromanagement hampers subordinate’s ability to conduct operations defined by mission statements. The move to make Mission Command a doctrinal part of the Army education system should go a long way to minimizing the effects of toxic leadership on operations and

those leadership traits we learned as NCO’s. I have seen, and heard, too many times about fellow 150A’s that take a very hands off approach to leadership when they go to the company level as platoon leaders. I feel this happens because those individuals now think they don’t have to work as hard anymore simply because they are now a warrant officer, when it is the exact opposite. As a warrant officer you are now looked upon as the subject matter expert not only by your Soldiers, but your NCO’s and commander. As an NCO Soldiers look to you as someone whom sets the example on what to do, this is exponentially truer as a warrant officer. Furthermore,

Consequently, this often creates an impression with the leader’s supervisors that he/she is the ‘irreplaceable element,’ or the ‘go to guy’ and can be justifiably depended upon to handle this area, thus creating an agency sponsored sense of expertise. Furthermore, this confirms to the toxic leader that the path they have chosen, and the method they have employed is the best choice; thus, actions taken in self-interest are now perceived by the toxic leader as serving the interest of the agency.

Poor leadership, or the more widely known phrase “toxic leadership”, has been a topic of concern throughout the history of the Army. The Army’s recently published leadership doctrine says that, “Army leaders motivate people both inside and outside the chain of command to pursue actions, focus thinking, and shape decisions for the greater good of the organization.” (ADP 6-22, 2012) There are many examples of leaders in recent years that have been relieved due to negative effects on their organizations. Poor leadership is commonly portrayed by telltale characteristics of those in leadership positions, revealed by detrimental effects on subordinates and mission accomplishment, and must be addressed through consistent education and

Toxic leadership and climate defines the critical leadership problem within 4th ABCT. In conjunction, a lack of care for Soldiers and their families, favoritism, SHARP issues, and hazing have caused a unit to lose all trust in the previous Command Team. To combat these issues I will develop and implement my vision and a way ahead for the BCT using the 7 Step Model. Furthermore, I will focus on specific portions of the Rocket Model, Organizational Culture “Iceberg”, and correcting the Five Dysfunctions of a Team to solve the problem.

The Corps of the Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) has been around since the formation of the Continental Army in 1775. The basic responsibility of the NCO was to fill gaps in the lines and keep soldiers quiet on mission while leading (Perkioniemi, 2009). Currently, the responsibilities of the NCO focus on soldier welfare and accomplishing the mission (NCO Creed). Toxic leadership is a serious concern for the military, and it is undermining the reputation of the NCO Corps. What is toxic leadership, how can it be addressed, and what will happen to the Corps if it is allowed to continue?

This quote by Colin Powell describes toxic leadership in the Armed Forces. Toxic leadership is a failure of leadership. A toxic leader does not lead, they poison the workforce and tarnish the reputation of organization. Toxic leadership can exist anywhere, from the private sector to the government, to our military Armed Forces.

Leadership is critical and it refers to the process of influencing followers towards achieving the groups’ goals. Toxic leadership refers to the leadership offered by leaders who abuse power and leave the group they lead in a poorer condition after they are left. Toxic leadership is associated with incompetence, insularity, evil, intemperance (lack of self control), callousness, rigidity and corruption among other bad leadership characters. The leaders involved in toxic leadership are not concerned about uplifting the people they lead (followers). Instead, they make sure they satisfy their self interests. They fight and control instead of caring for their followers. In most cases, the leaders with this leadership style are leaders who bully, abuse, and discriminate the subordinates. In addition, they create a hostile climate, self serving and arrogant, threaten and even yell at their followers among other fierce characters. They do not lead based on their qualifications. However, they apply force to be in leadership positions thus making the lives of their followers a misery . They are selfish in that they work to promote themselves without regard to the welfare of their followers. In most cases, do this by not minding about the future of their group and its members. This paper explores the effects of toxic leadership in the United States.

In the book this was a constant and consistent factor and an obvious hint as to what to expect further along in the chapters which was a vicious tailspin out of control. Chapter 8 talked about a series of communication break downs. LTC Tom Kunk, the commander of the 1-502nd infantry regiment, set the standard of how the communication was going to exist within the platoons. The book talked about how he would lose his temper at his soldiers regardless how minor the issue. You could leave your weapon unattended or leave trash on the ground either way he would confront you in the most unprofessional way about it. This made his whole leadership style completely ineffective. I personally understand how much this can influence a soldier especially those who are still trying to figure out their leadership styles. If this is the only leadership style you deal with on a regular bases after a while it will start to become the standard for you. LTC Kunk being the commander of the regiment should be demonstrating better discipline and restraint. Instead this makes him appear to have no self control. He should have been setting the standard in a more positive way on communicating with members of the platoons, and creating a more cohesive environment. There were many other leaders in the platoon who made similar mistakes. This example doesn’t just apply to this particular situation but can also result the same in a family. If your mom and dad are constantly bickering and your always

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

As an educational leader, I have encountered several new and existing school policies. I never thought deeply about the various processes and the stakeholders involved in policy formulation and implementation. This semester I am engaged in the course Managing Educational Policy as School Leaders (EDLM 6005). This is Semester III, 2016/2017. My course coordinator is Dr. Timar Stephenson. Dr Stephenson was my course coordinator once before and was very helpful whenever I needed clarification or when I had a difficulty. I am thrilled to embrace the new ideas and learning opportunities embedded in this course since it teaches issues which I experience at work. Dr Stephenson, during his introduction reminded his entire class that success in this course would only be realized through hard work, dedication, and commitment. Therefore, it is imperative that I have the right attitude as I navigate this course. The course involves seven weeks of intense work. I am pleased to have a wonderful group facilitator by the name of Rhonda Joseph who has already given us a BBC to explain the requirements of the course and our first two modules.