Army Survey Raises Worries Over Damage Caused by Toxic Leaders
July 24th, 2011
The Washington Post reports that a U.S. Army survey of leadership and morale showed 80 percent of 22,000 Army officers and sergeants had observed a “toxic” leader in the last year. The same survey found 97% had observed an “exceptional leader” in this same time frame.
The survey defined toxic leaders as those who put their own needs first, micro-managed subordinates, behaved in a mean-spirited manner or displayed poor decision making. The army is exploring whether subordinates views should be factored into the evaluations of commanders being considered for promotion with a questions like “Does the senior officer engender a climate of trust?”
First, let’s applaud the 97% “exceptional leaders”. That is an outstanding figure. I conduct an exercise in my workshops in which we collectively identify about 40 characteristics of an ideal leader. I then ask how many of those in the room work for a leader with at least 90 percent of those characteristics. It is rare that more than 5 to 10% feel they do work for such a leader. While the 97% percent “exceptional leader” figure is arrived at somewhat differently it is an extraordinary percentage.
But the 80 percent figure is also remarkably high. Partly this may be a result of the definition used for “toxic”. It is arguable whether “poor decision making” qualifies as toxicity. In her book “The Allure of Toxic Leaders” , Professor Jean Lipman-Blumen offers a more complete list of toxic behaviors and their destructive impact.
Nevertheless, almost anyone who has worked in the military structure at some point finds themselves in a command with a toxic leader. Given the value placed on rank differential in the military, and the tremendous responsibility borne by most commands, this becomes an extremely dysfunctional situation.
The policy the military is contemplating could help alleviate the most egregious cases of toxic leadership. But as Lipman-Blumen argues in her book, the leader is only part of the equation. It is equally important to focus on how followers prop up and propel toxic leaders into the positions at which they ultimately arrive. The military already requires junior aviation officers to learn how to assert themselves in instances where the flight commander is about to make a potentially lethal error. Given the power placed in the hands of senior military officers, all mid-level and junior officers would benefit from similar training.
3 Comments »
Studying and Transforming Extremist Followership
June 30th, 2011
Some of the best thinkers in the field of Followership have at one time or another called for more research into why people follow toxic leaders.
In the Art of Followership, Robert Kelly asks “Why are we not making a followership inquiry into the issue of suicide bombers?”
In The Allure of Toxic Leaders, Jean Lipman-Blumen observes “Once we fall under a toxic leader’s spell, escape is likely to be painful, sometimes nigh impossible.”
In her book Followership, Barbara Kellerman describes one of five follower types: “Diehards are as their name implies – prepared to die if necessary for their cause … We wonder why ostensibly ordinary men and women are willing to blow themselves up because someone somewhere asked or ordered them to do so.”
These critical observations and questions are being addressed at this moment in a unique conference being sponsored by Google Ideas, a self-described “think/do tank.” Some 120 former members of extremist organizations are being brought together to examine how technology can be used to create alternative paths for those who would otherwise be called to the dark side of followership.
A conference organizer stated the aim of the conference this way: “The hope from the conference is that we will figure out some of the ‘best practices’ of how you can break youth radicalization.”
This is a worthy endeavor that I trust will be followed up with more research and application. Ultimately, it is only by transforming the dark tendencies of followership into courageous and principled followership that we will break the hold that toxic leaders can exert on whole populations.
No Comments »
Courageous Leadership and Followership in Congress
June 20th, 2011
Several years ago I had the honor of facilitating the design of a meeting of the Club of Madrid.
The 80 members of the rarified Club of Madrid are former Heads of Government or Heads of State from Democratic countries who have been invited to lend their experience to help other newly formed or emerging democracies. At least 75% of members must come from countries that have transitioned to Democracy since 1975. Some of them are true heroes of the transition of their country from authoritarian regimes.
One of the outstanding Members I met at that time is Dame Jenny Shipley, former Prime Minister of New Zealand. I shared with her the Op-Ed I wrote on Congress’s Tragedy of the Political Commons that was recently published in The Washington Post. Dame Shipley sent me back a typically poignant observation:
“I read your OP-ED with interest. It is a fascinating conundrum that so many people around the world are fighting for democratic freedom and yet those of us who enjoy it do not really understand how we are in our own way unwinding its very strengths.”
Whatever combination of leadership and followership roles we play as citizens, as elected officials, as the staff who support them and the constituents who vote for or against them, we must relearn to deeply value the freedoms we have, the institutions designed to defend them, and the processes and tools that exist for correcting them. We each must take our own stand against behavior that tears down our institutions and for behavior that works to improve them. THAT is courageous followership and courageous leadership.
No Comments »
