A Blog Link About Toxic Leadership

[ericsauve2]

"Human Face of War" and "Something Rotten" are both good choices, but the latter book is more recent and has a stronger focus on the role of senior commanders.

Amazon proposes "Lament for an Army" from John English, renowned Canadian author. Only 10$, probably worth buying as well. 2019.

 

[KevinB]

what about this? Two different military members. You're like St Thomas in the Bible, you need proof. I thought everyone could relate to toxic leadership, especially those who served. I guess I was mistaken.

I don’t think anyone will disagree that there is not Toxic Leadership in the CAF, but as mentioned above by several that isn’t an anomaly either in society as a whole or other Militaries.

What turned me off was the way you jumped in as a first post with a clickbait headline and no background. The CAF isn’t a big entity, and many of us on this board know each other personally and it’s hard to swing a dead cat without hitting someone here you know or you know someone that knows them.

Now you made a good point about resiliency training, very few militaries do a good job of it outside of their SOF, and even then issues pop up. There are two major gateways blocking better training in this respect, cost and time. Doing ISOPREP, SERE, Psychological training and evaluations take a lot of time and one needs an exceptionally well trained staff to conduct it - as without that you just get a gov funded multi week hazing rituals.

As much as I enjoying picking on the CAF, given my experiences in the CAF from the 80’s to the mid 2000’s, I’ve seen much worse in several other militaries during that time and after. Can and should the CAF do better, yes, but I’d suggest that going to 360 reviews of senior officers and SNCO’s is a large step.

 

[ericsauve2]

I don’t think anyone will disagree that there is not Toxic Leadership in the CAF, but as mentioned above by several that isn’t an anomaly either in society as a whole or other Militaries.

What turned me off was the way you jumped in as a first post with a clickbait headline and no background. The CAF isn’t a big entity, and many of us on this board know each other personally and it’s hard to swing a dead cat without hitting someone here you know or you know someone that knows them.

Now you made a good point about resiliency training, very few militaries do a good job of it outside of their SOF, and even then issues pop up. There are two major gateways blocking better training in this respect, cost and time. Doing ISOPREP, SERE, Psychological training and evaluations take a lot of time and one needs an exceptionally well trained staff to conduct it - as without that you just get a gov funded multi week hazing rituals.

As much as I enjoying picking on the CAF, given my experiences in the CAF from the 80’s to the mid 2000’s, I’ve seen much worse in several other militaries during that time and after. Can and should the CAF do better, yes, but I’d suggest that going to 360 reviews of senior officers and SNCO’s is a large step.

Obviously I'm completely new to this platform, I knew nothing about the points thing, for instance, and that people would automatically see that I was a newcomer. That said, I'm a serious debater when it comes to military affairs, I have a long experience in the Army, I have a Masters Degree in War Studies and I've always enjoyed studying the military.

You and other say the title was a clickbait. Don't all media use what you describe as clickbaits to encourage readers to read their pieces? In my understanding a clickbait is then an article without any real substance which, you may disagree with, is not the case with my article. I did my research. In books, articles, and in interviewing people. I've heard more than my fair share of anecdotes, which I had no intention to bring to what I consider a serious article. Now if people say I didn't make my point, fair enough. But is this a reason to deny that there is indeed toxic leadership? I'd go so far as to say it was encouraged in the late 1990s, early 2000s. I'll stand my ground on that. The Army encouraged toxic behaviour. I and others were told on infantry phase training that we were "soft" leaders because we didn't yell enough to the troops. I also learned by example that I had to swear profusely to be recognized as a "real" leader. Is that what I want today's Army to teach to my sons and daughters, no way. I believe - very strongly - in toughening (better said in French: aguerrissement), but I don't believe that leaders should act as assholes, and kiss up while kicking down. That's my point.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Obviously I'm completely new to this platform, I knew nothing about the points thing, for instance, and that people would automatically see that I was a newcomer. That said, I'm a serious debater when it comes to military affairs, I have a long experience in the Army, I have a Masters Degree in War Studies and I've always enjoyed studying the military.

You and other say the title was a clickbait. Don't all media use what you describe as clickbaits to encourage readers to read their pieces? In my understanding a clickbait is then an article without any real substance which, you may disagree with, is not the case with my article. I did my research. In books, articles, and in interviewing people. I've heard more than my fair share of anecdotes, which I had no intention to bring to what I consider a serious article. Now if people say I didn't make my point, fair enough. But is this a reason to deny that there is indeed toxic leadership? I'd go so far as to say it was encouraged in the late 1990s, early 2000s. I'll stand my ground on that. The Army encouraged toxic behaviour. I and others were told on infantry phase training that we were "soft" leaders because we didn't yell enough to the troops. I also learned by example that I had to swear profusely to be recognized as a "real" leader. Is that what I want today's Army to teach to my sons and daughters, no way. I believe - very strongly - in toughening (better said in French: aguerrissement), but I don't believe that leaders should act as assholes, and kiss up while kicking down. That's my point.

I don't recall the messaging about yelling and continual swearing connected with leadership but, if you've done Infantry Phase Training, you should be able to tell us what really makes the grass grow

 

[SeaKingTacco]

So the main criticism is that I didn't provide examples, fair enough. In order to conduct the interviews I had to convince people I would not provide names or examples so they wouldn't think they're in danger.
You want examples, boy, where do I start:

• A WO on Phase 3 infantry threatening to "pierce" us (Je vais vous percer mes tabarnaks, those were his exact words.).
• A Major in Haiti belittling his young lieutenants, ridiculing them in front of their troops for the whole tour. Two of them left the Army and one went to therapy for years.
• A CO of a Bn belittling his majors constantly, to the point that half of them started suffering panic attacks, something they'd never experience before.
• A CO of a Bn having a fist fight with a CWO in front of troops.
• a MGen harassing his staff in NDHQ constantly. One of them contacted me because he went into depression and divorced his wife.

I could go on and on but I promised not to name anyone.

The US Army recognized 10 years ago they had a toxic problem (see below). This April, CWO McCann told the brass in NDHQ that they had a toxic leadership problem in their ranks (look it up). I served 22 years for those who asked, and the last 9 years I spent as a consultant in DND, surrounded by military personnel, always working for a military boss. Do I think we have superb leaders, yes. But we also have incompetent and toxic one, all the way to Generals. And that needs to be acknowledged. I'm hammering this point because I expect change, for the future generations to come.

Army Takes On Its Own Toxic Leaders

Why have so many soldiers committed suicide in recent years? The Army is looking beyond post-traumatic stress and asking whether bad commanders and destructive leadership are taking a toll.

www.wbur.org

Thank you for you examples. I note that none of them are RCAF or RCN related. In fact, they seem pretty confined to one Regiment. I could (but won’t) draw an inference that we have a R22eR problem. That would not be fair and misses the point. Which also gets to your original title- it misleads.

I think that you are correct in stating that there are problems with leadership training in the CAF (and, we have to be very careful here, because there isn’t one CAF- a fighter Sqn is not a ship which is not a Regiment which is not a headquarters. We have many different cultures and paths to leadership. What works in one place does not work in another, necessarily.) The complete solution is not that simple.

Over 4 decades, I have noticed a real erosion in the “know your subordinates, promote their welfare” ethos. I will posit (without any real evidence, I admit) this comes from several factors. The first reason is innocent- our subordinates are generally older, with families and lives of their own; don’t live in and aren’t as much “property” of the CAF as they used to be viewed. We afford our subordinates much more privacy and many more rights, which is both good and bad. Sometimes problems fester and go uncorrected, because leaders are reluctant to wade into a potential harassment minefield. I know many leaders with a “fuck it, drive on attitude” towards correcting poor/inappropriate behaviour because some subordinates have learned to weaponize the harassment system.
The second reason is related to the first- we have stripped junior leaders of their authority and centralized that in various headquarters because we are afraid they will make mistakes that will make the CAF look bad. News flash- leaders are humans and will make mistakes. The key is for people to own their mistakes, learn from them, and to grow. I don’t see that attitude much coming from NDHQ. I see a “suspend the CO/sub-unit commander because of an allegation, investigate for a year and then quietly move them someplace else attitude”, regardless if the allegation was founded or not. That is a problem and is demoralizing. Good people are destroyed by it and the true monsters are undeterred.
The third reason is that we have over-officered the CAF. Many functions/problems that used to be solved at a low level by MCpl or a Sgt now seem to require an officer to be involved.
I wonder how many problems have been created by short staffing so many units, so that when any kind of deployment comes along, we rapidly throw together many augmentees from many units and just expect that to work out ok?
I look in horror at the changes to the military justice system and wonder how discipline can be truly enforced now with now nearly empty tool kit that a CO has?
I have watched Commanding Officers work for two solid years to kick a complete miscreant out of the CAF, only to be over-ruled by a staff officer in CMP who does not know the subordinate, because “that trade is red”. Tell me, do you think that helps?

We have problems, but they aren’t simple to solve.

 

[ericsauve2]

I don't recall the messaging about yelling and continual swearing connected with leadership but, if you've done Infantry Phase Training, you should be able to tell us what really makes the grass grow

See we all have different experiences, and I've indeed talked to people who told me they didn't think toxic leadership was an issue. To me and to countless others, it was. I've talked to many recently retired, capable ones, who said that toxic leadership was THE deciding factor in them taking their release. And what they said, especially, is that they could not tolerate the fact that obvious psychopaths, narcissistic and machiavellian kept getting promoted despite EVERYONE knowing they were toxic. Just because they delivered short term results.

 

[ericsauve2]

Thank you for you examples. I note that none of them are RCAF or RCN related. In fact, they seem pretty confined to one Regiment. I could (but won’t) draw an inference that we have a R22eR problem. That would not be fair and misses the point. Which also gets to your original title- it misleads.

I think that you are correct in stating that there are problems with leadership training in the CAF (and, we have to be very careful here, because there isn’t one CAF- a fighter Sqn is not a ship which is not a Regiment which is not a headquarters. We have many different cultures and paths to leadership. What works in one place does not work in another, necessarily.) The complete solution is not that simple.

Over 4 decades, I have noticed a real erosion in the “know your subordinates, promote their welfare” ethos. I will posit (without any real evidence, I admit) this comes from several factors. The first reason is innocent- our subordinates are generally older, with families and lives of their own; don’t live in and aren’t as much “property” of the CAF as they used to be viewed. We afford our subordinates much more privacy and many more rights, which is both good and bad. Sometimes problems fester and go uncorrected, because leaders are reluctant to wade into a potential harassment minefield. I know many leaders with a “fuck it, drive on attitude” towards correcting poor/inappropriate behaviour because some subordinates have learned to weaponize the harassment system.
The second reason is related to the first- we have stripped junior leaders of their authority and centralized that in various headquarters because we are afraid they will make mistakes that will make the CAF look bad. News flash- leaders are humans and will make mistakes. The key is for people to own their mistakes, learn from them, and to grow. I don’t see that attitude much coming from NDHQ. I see a “suspend the CO/sub-unit commander because of an allegation, investigate for a year and then quietly move them someplace else attitude”, regardless if the allegation was founded or not. That is a problem and is demoralizing. Good people are destroyed by it and the true monsters are undeterred.
The third reason is that we have over-officered the CAF. Many functions/problems that used to be solved at a low level by MCpl or a Sgt now seem to require an officer to be involved.
I wonder how many problems have been created by short staffing so many units, so that when any kind of deployment comes along, we rapidly throw together many augmentees from many units and just expect that to work out ok?
I look in horror at the changes to the military justice system and wonder how discipline can be truly enforced now with now nearly empty tool kit that a CO has?
I have watched Commanding Officers work for two solid years to kick a complete miscreant out of the CAF, only to be over-ruled by a staff officer in CMP who does not know the subordinate, because “that trade is red”. Tell me, do you think that helps?

We have problems, but they aren’t simple to solve.

I like the factors that you put out, they are real issues.

Now, yes I was a van doos, but many people I talked to are not. I do believe though that the problem is more prevalent in combat arms because, let's face it, we are full of A-type personalities. That said, I have worked in Int for 10 years, and the last 9 years as a consultant, and toxic leadership can be found everywhere. In civilians too. And in females too -- there, I said it. As I stated in the very beginning, the CAF don't have the monopoly on toxic leadership. But that happens to be the world I know better. I can't talk with confidence about other milieus.

 

[ericsauve2]

I don’t think anyone will disagree that there is not Toxic Leadership in the CAF, but as mentioned above by several that isn’t an anomaly either in society as a whole or other Militaries.

What turned me off was the way you jumped in as a first post with a clickbait headline and no background. The CAF isn’t a big entity, and many of us on this board know each other personally and it’s hard to swing a dead cat without hitting someone here you know or you know someone that knows them.

Now you made a good point about resiliency training, very few militaries do a good job of it outside of their SOF, and even then issues pop up. There are two major gateways blocking better training in this respect, cost and time. Doing ISOPREP, SERE, Psychological training and evaluations take a lot of time and one needs an exceptionally well trained staff to conduct it - as without that you just get a gov funded multi week hazing rituals.

As much as I enjoying picking on the CAF, given my experiences in the CAF from the 80’s to the mid 2000’s, I’ve seen much worse in several other militaries during that time and after. Can and should the CAF do better, yes, but I’d suggest that going to 360 reviews of senior officers and SNCO’s is a large step.

I learned a new expression: to swing a dead cat! I had to google it to make sure I understood the exact meaning. That's a keeper!

 

[SeaKingTacco]

See we all have different experiences, and I've indeed talked to people who told me they didn't think toxic leadership was an issue. To me and to countless others, it was. I've talked to many recently retired, capable ones, who said that toxic leadership was THE deciding factor in them taking their release. And what they said, especially, is that they could not tolerate the fact that obvious psychopaths, narcissistic and machiavellian kept getting promoted despite EVERYONE knowing they were toxic. Just because they delivered short term results.

Despite my user name on Army.ca, I did phase training in Gagetown, many moons ago when the earth was cooling. I gotta say- the francos got it way worse than the anglos. The franco instructors were way harder on the franco students, almost to the point of cruelty. Even at Phase 2, an Anglo instructor rarely raised his voice at me except if it safety related- in fact, I almost worship those Sgts and Warrant Officers almost 40 years later, they were that good. That isn’t the only time I have seen that divergence. I saw it in Petawawa with 1 Cdo, too (yeah, I am really that old). It is an unscientific observation, but there it is.

 

[ericsauve2]

I just saw this on LinkedIn and I thought it applied well to our discussion!

 

[KevinB]

Obviously I'm completely new to this platform, I knew nothing about the points thing, for instance, and that people would automatically see that I was a newcomer. That said, I'm a serious debater when it comes to military affairs, I have a long experience in the Army, I have a Masters Degree in War Studies and I've always enjoyed studying the military.

You and other say the title was a clickbait. Don't all media use what you describe as clickbaits to encourage readers to read their pieces? In my understanding a clickbait is then an article without any real substance which, you may disagree with, is not the case with my article. I did my research. In books, articles, and in interviewing people. I've heard more than my fair share of anecdotes, which I had no intention to bring to what I consider a serious article. Now if people say I didn't make my point, fair enough. But is this a reason to deny that there is indeed toxic leadership? I'd go so far as to say it was encouraged in the late 1990s, early 2000s. I'll stand my ground on that. The Army encouraged toxic behaviour. I and others were told on infantry phase training that we were "soft" leaders because we didn't yell enough to the troops. I also learned by example that I had to swear profusely to be recognized as a "real" leader. Is that what I want today's Army to teach to my sons and daughters, no way. I believe - very strongly - in toughening (better said in French: aguerrissement), but I don't believe that leaders should act as assholes, and kiss up while kicking down. That's my point.

Yelling isn’t toxic in an of itself. I’d argue that yelling in the days pre inter team radios and linked ear pro, was a leadership requirement to be able to ensure that troops understood what was going on when in contact.

Yelling never personally bothered me, I’d unfortunately usually get a nervous smile/smirk that then initiated more yelling.

Personally I think that after the Capbadge shenanigans the CA’s various Hockey Mafias where a bigger impediment to things, as the CA lost sight of what the goal should be for a military and tended to protect and promote certain people due to their Regiment, or their team.

To me the worst sorts of leaders were the ones who casually dismissed injuries to their soldiers and degraded the legitimate injuries they suffered in training. I suspect that many soldiers suffered unreported concussions during Pugil stick training, as I know at least 1/3rd of my battle school course was knocked out, as it’s hard to fight 3:1 in that situation and there was no headgear. Three of us kept falling over when marching to lunch afterwards. Of course we were young and dumb and just soldiered on.

I can think of a slew of situations now where I see a lot of training was executed poorly without proper preparation or equipment- but at the time it was the norm. The CAF like a number of other militaries tended to view some taking some course or courses as making one an SME without fully understanding what a SME is.

However I don’t believe that one can look back in hindsight and simply say that was Toxic leadership, there definitely was Toxic leadership - but there is also a difference in not knowing and doing something dumb, and being a utter piece of garbage and doing something wrong when knowing it is wrong.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Eric, you are coming across like a consultant, again.

I don’t want memes about farming.

I want actionable, thoughtful observations about soldiering.

 

[Lumber]

what about this? Two different military members. You're like St Thomas in the Bible, you need proof. I thought everyone could relate to toxic leadership, especially those who served. I guess I was mistaken.

The first quote is not an "example" of toxic leadership in the CAF. Notice that nowhere in the quote does that person reference a leader in the CAF, they are just describing toxic leadership.

The second example, yes, is an example of a toxic leader in the CAF. One toxic leader. From Afghanistan, which we pulled out of in 2014, so I imagine this experience comes from sometime before that. How does one example from 10+ years ago prove that there is toxic leadership in the CAF today?

Further, there a lot of ways a leader can test and break someone's resilience without necessarily being a toxic leader; perhaps that particular leader was insane about PT, and was maintaining a PT routine that was not conducive to the heat in Kandahar. Perhaps your friend worked at an HQ, and his boss wanted quad slides twice a day everyday and the process of building them was exhausting. The point is I have no idea, your friend never actually says "I had a toxic leader", and you never even connected the dots. Was the leader actually trying to "demolish" your friend, or was he just a hard-ass CO? There's a difference between being toxic and being unnecessarily hard on your troops.

I don't know who St.Thomas is, but I'm not acting like him. I'm acting like a peer who is critiquing your blog post.

 

[ericsauve2]

Despite my user name on Army.ca, I did phase training in Gagetown, many moons ago when the earth was cooling. I gotta say- the francos got it way worse than the anglos. The franco instructors were way harder on the franco students, almost to the point of cruelty. Even at Phase 2, an Anglo instructor rarely raised his voice at me except if it safety related- in fact, I almost worship those Sgts and Warrant Officers almost 40 years later, they were that good. That isn’t the only time I have seen that divergence. I saw it in Petawawa with 1 Cdo, too (yeah, I am really that old). It is an unscientific observation, but there it is.

I don't disagree with this! On my phase 2, the instructors did an amazing job at turning each candidate against each other. To the point where one was the victim of a "code red", or what we call "passer à la couverte". Only 2 of us didn't take part in this ritual. When I learned about it the following day, I wanted to bayonet just about everyone in my platoon. When I reflect on that specific phase, I don't recall being taught about how to lead an infantry section, but more about how to be an asshole when you're in command.

 

[ericsauve2]

Eric, you are coming across like a consultant, again.

I don’t want memes about farming.

I want actionable, thoughtful observations about soldiering.

Ok ok. Send me the "unwritten" rules about behaving on Army.ca because clearly I'm not familiar with the culture here. I can - and do - debate seriously. I also like to joke but I'll keep that for myself. ACK.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I don't disagree with this! On my phase 2, the instructors did an amazing job at turning each candidate against each other. To the point where one was the victim of a "code red", or what we call "passer à la couverte". Only 2 of us didn't take part in this ritual. When I learned about it the following day, I wanted to bayonet just about everyone in my platoon. When I reflect on that specific phase, I don't recall being taught about how to lead an infantry section, but more about how to be an asshole when you're in command.

I am sorry you had to go through that.

That was not my experience in Gagetown, at all.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Ok ok. Send me the "unwritten" rules about behaving on Army.ca because clearly I'm not familiar with the culture here. I can - and do - debate seriously. I also like to joke but I'll keep that for myself. ACK.

It is not an unwritten rule about Army.ca.

I am just saying that the slide did not land with me. It made you sound like a consultant, rather than a fellow soldier, with shared experiences. I am more likely to have a real conversation with one, than the other.

 

[ericsauve2]

Yelling isn’t toxic in an of itself. I’d argue that yelling in the days pre inter team radios and linked ear pro, was a leadership requirement to be able to ensure that troops understood what was going on when in contact.

Yelling never personally bothered me, I’d unfortunately usually get a nervous smile/smirk that then initiated more yelling.

Personally I think that after the Capbadge shenanigans the CA’s various Hockey Mafias where a bigger impediment to things, as the CA lost sight of what the goal should be for a military and tended to protect and promote certain people due to their Regiment, or their team.

To me the worst sorts of leaders were the ones who casually dismissed injuries to their soldiers and degraded the legitimate injuries they suffered in training. I suspect that many soldiers suffered unreported concussions during Pugil stick training, as I know at least 1/3rd of my battle school course was knocked out, as it’s hard to fight 3:1 in that situation and there was no headgear. Three of us kept falling over when marching to lunch afterwards. Of course we were young and dumb and just soldiered on.

I can think of a slew of situations now where I see a lot of training was executed poorly without proper preparation or equipment- but at the time it was the norm. The CAF like a number of other militaries tended to view some taking some course or courses as making one an SME without fully understanding what a SME is.

However I don’t believe that one can look back in hindsight and simply say that was Toxic leadership, there definitely was Toxic leadership - but there is also a difference in not knowing and doing something dumb, and being a utter piece of garbage and doing something wrong when knowing it is wrong.

There is formal teaching/instructing and then there is what one learns by observing, which is as important. I was told several time to take care of my troops, Mission First - Men Second, that type of stuff. That's not always what I witnessed though. I have seen toxic leaders say all the right things yet doing exactly the opposite. I think we were misinformed, many times. I think that toxic breeds toxic. I do think however that things are getting better, we are more professional. They are more safeguards. When I hear "humans are more important than hardware", I want proof of that.

 

[ericsauve2]

The first quote is not an "example" of toxic leadership in the CAF. Notice that nowhere in the quote does that person reference a leader in the CAF, they are just describing toxic leadership.

The second example, yes, is an example of a toxic leader in the CAF. One toxic leader. From Afghanistan, which we pulled out of in 2014, so I imagine this experience comes from sometime before that. How does one example from 10+ years ago prove that there is toxic leadership in the CAF today?

Further, there a lot of ways a leader can test and break someone's resilience without necessarily being a toxic leader; perhaps that particular leader was insane about PT, and was maintaining a PT routine that was not conducive to the heat in Kandahar. Perhaps your friend worked at an HQ, and his boss wanted quad slides twice a day everyday and the process of building them was exhausting. The point is I have no idea, your friend never actually says "I had a toxic leader", and you never even connected the dots. Was the leader actually trying to "demolish" your friend, or was he just a hard-ass CO? There's a difference between being toxic and being unnecessarily hard on your troops.

I don't know who St.Thomas is, but I'm not acting like him. I'm acting like a peer who is critiquing your blog post.

Trust me when I say that the first quote comes from a person in the CAF. It actually come from a BGen talking about a superior.

The example in Afg, yes, it's dated. But remember I left in 2014 and I made it clear in the article that I think things are getting better. And, again, I'll ask you to have some faith and trust me that that particular commanding officer was not just demanding. He actually displayed all 3 traits of toxicity throughout his entire career.

If you didn't see the link with the CAF in the article, I can take the criticism. But I'm asking you to get past that and to leave your skepticism away for just a few seconds, and to ask yourself: in my time in uniform, do I think that toxicity was encouraged? If the answer is no, good for you. I happen to think otherwise, given my own experience, and the experience of many of those who still surround me today.

 

[ericsauve2]

It is not an unwritten rule about Army.ca.

I am just saying that the slide did not land with me. It made you sound like a consultant, rather than a fellow soldier, with shared experiences. I am more likely to have a real conversation with one, than the other.

I happen to be both a fellow soldier and a consultant ;-)

I'll do my best to not base my judgement on professional bias (déformation professionnelle in French!)