Effective leadership is certainly crucial for organizations to flourish. In this regard, the leaders of an organization are vital in determining how the organization will perform. This is because leaders control, as well as take charge of organizational operations and, in essence, good and effective leaders, can formulate optimistic objectives and goals while, at the same time, steering the organization’s activities towards the established goals via effective strategies. Apart from that, good leaders motivate subordinates by setting a positive organizational culture. The Military organization is a crucial organization in society today as it is through the army that civilians are protected from wars. As such, it is necessary for the military to have effective leadership that will increase unit morale, thus, increasing the efficiency of the soldiers. However, toxic leadership continues to plague the military organization and is manifested in how leaders mistreat, punish, and ignore the viewpoints and ideas of subordinates. A leader’s behavioral feature mostly determines toxic leadership, which includes the micro-manager, pretender, and an egomaniac. Thus, organizations need to develop effective monitoring and evaluating mechanisms, technical and interpersonal skill development training programs, and further create a positive command climate to combat the challenge of toxic leadership.
A Description of the Military Organization
Generally, the armed forces of the United States receive extensive training, and as such, they are always ready to respond to any human-made or natural disasters anywhere in the world or the country. Similar to any organization, the military has its language, culture, as well as ways of carrying out business. It is imperative to note that civilians control the military and the President of the United States has the ultimate authority. In this light, he or she serves as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Therefore, the president’s power is that of a civilian instead of a military capacity. The Constitution gives the President the authority to control the military. Similarly, the constitution also grants power to Congress to declare war. This separation of powers was created to prevent the military from impeding a democratic society. Also, the military is under the government of the U.S. and is tasked with implementing policies established by the President as well as Congress (SAMHSA, 2010) . The President's policy advisor is the Secretary of defense, and he or she formulates defense policies related to the concern of the Department of Defense (DoD). In this case, the secretary exercises discretion, authority, as well as control over the DoD. The DoD exercises its duties inside the Pentagon. Its primary responsibility is to provide the necessary military power required to deter war along as well as safeguarding the security of the country. It is vital to note that the Secretary of defense is the Armed Forces’ second in command. The combatant commanders are next in the command chain, and each of them is responsible for either a specific mission or a geographic location. The military advisors of the President are the Service Chiefs of Staff along with the Joint Chiefs Chairman. These individuals are also tasked with ensuring the readiness of the military’s five branches.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Markedly, there are five military branches, that is, the Navy, Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, as well as the Coast Guard (SAMHSA, 2010) . These branches are usually under the following departments: the Department of the Navy, Army, and the Air Force department. The Marine Corps is permanently under the Navy departments, whereas, during wartime, the Coast Guard is within the Navy Department and under the Homeland Security Department during peace times. The Coast Guard is, nevertheless, always regarded as among the military service branches. Additionally, there are two components within the military branches. They include the active and reserve component. In general, the active component consists of full-time service members. These people wear the military uniform daily and are typically stationed all over the globe in both noncombat and combat circumstances. These service members and their families are always on the move as they usually move every three to five years. As such, active members and their families reside either on or near military bases or posts. In noncombat situations, active soldiers mostly spend their time training for combat to prepare for deployment adequately.
On the other hand, the reserve component is made up of two organizations, namely the National Guard and the Reserves. The members of the National Guard typically serve on a part-time basis. These members are pivotal to the life of the community. They usually participate in community activities, and some even work and live in the community. Often, the National Guard has two missions. In this case, they have both a state and federal mission. For the most part, their primary task is to help States during human-made and natural disasters. It is also imperative to note that Governors control the National Guard. However, at the same time, the President can seek the support of the National Guard for Federal service (SAMHSA, 2010) . In contrast, the Reserves is a reserve force for the federal government supplements the active component. Similarly, Reserve members serve on a part-time basis. However, they can be mobilized to serve full-time. The President normally assembles the reserve force to meet the nation’s federal needs. However, unlike, active service members, the members of the Reserve do not frequently move as they can stay in one unit that has a growth opportunity.
Notably, rank in the military organization is about responsibility and leadership. Soldiers who receive promotions take in more responsibility for more equipment, personnel, missions, as well as resources. There are three groups of military ranks. First, there are enlisted rank or officers, which consists of ranks of corporal, private, petty officer, sergeant, and many more. Officers include captains, lieutenants, majors, captains, general officers, and colonels. Warrant officers are technical experts in a particular area such as computers, maintenance, personnel functions, aircraft, and other areas. They are usually not responsible for other military individuals. Additionally, the military organization has a very apparent chain of command, which is typically based on a person’s rank. The commander is the only officer in charge and is responsible for ensuring that service members perform at their highest level by ensuring that they train right and have the necessary equipment to perform. Also, the commander ensures that individuals follow military rules and regulations.
The military organization greatly values its chain of command. For the military unit to achieve success in its missions and perform effectively, maintaining the chain of command’s integrity is imperative. The chain of command also helps in identifying the visible lines of responsibility and authority (Ozlen & Zukic, 2013) . Furthermore, it ensures that no confusion transpires in the process of decision making. The chain of command determines how a person operates within the organization and how the unit operates in general. Service members who do not obey authority figures find themselves in disciplinary cases and, at times, they end up being discharged.
In the military organization, integrity and honor are the central values. However, other values, such as respect, loyalty, and duty, are also emphasized. According to Ozlen & Zukic (2013), recruits must learn and memorize these values. This is because these values dictate how each military personnel lives her or his life, sees and performs every duty, as well as succeeds at every operation. The value system of the military, in most cases, guide the execution of every operation as well as how decisions are reached. The policy of “Leave no one behind” is also a vital military mantra. It is because of this mantra that no soldier is left on the battlefield. In this case, soldiers in the battlefield ensure that they get the remains of the fallen soldiers to ensure that their families get the bodies for burial. They usually do this without considering their safety first.
An Analysis of Toxic Leadership in the Military
Markedly, various concerns have surfaced regarding the toxic nature of leadership in the military. It is widely known that the military organization has an organizational culture that does nothing to combat toxic leadership. This kind of leadership is evident in many military ranks, which have led to a decline in the soldiers’ productivity. Toxic leaders, in general, are people who have dysfunctional personality traits and destructive behaviors which ultimately generate adverse impacts (Aubrey, 2012) . Simply put, leaders who are considered as toxic severely damage organizations. Studies show that leaders strongly influence the organizations they lead. They also determine the organizational culture. Often, toxic leaders abuse their position and power. As a result, they severely destroy the organization leaving it worse than they found it. In this light, toxic leaders are more concerned about promoting themselves at the expense of their followers. In the case of the military, toxic leaders fail to consider the consequences of their actions to their military unit and the profession of the Army as a whole.
Notably, culture is a noteworthy factor that predicts behaviors as well as outcomes. In this case, the leadership and culture of an organization are crucial organizational life elements. This is because they indirectly and directly influence each other and, at the same time, share the same functions. According to Aubrey (2012), the culture of an organization implies a stable set of norms, values, as well as behaviors that are held by the organizational members. In this regard, the culture of an organization may affect the members’ behavior, including promoting toxic behavior. The military organization has authoritarian and bureaucratic organizational structures. All too often, these structures stress reward compliance and centralized decision-making. At the same time, these military structures depend on operating procedures that are standard over the innovation of followers. Consequently, the military organization is susceptible to tyranny and toxic leadership because of its standardized norms and values. The attraction-selection-attrition theory by E. Schnider claims that personal characteristics of leaders determine the culture of an organization. Personal characteristics play a role in how leaders establish values, goals, and norms that attract individuals with similar characteristics (Aubrey, 2012) . As a result, toxic leaders build a poisonous environment by altering the content of the organizational culture.
There are several reasons why toxic leadership occurs in the military. Generally, toxic leadership is an aspect of human nature. Humans ideally strive to fulfill several hierarchical needs. Abraham Maslow, in his hierarchy of needs theory, argues that human beings should satisfy the lower needs first before advancing to higher needs. Some individuals, unfortunately, struggle to meet the lower needs, which include safety and love and belonging. As such, they develop self-esteem issues (Williams, 2005). It is imperative to note that most toxic leaders have self-esteem issues. Unfortunately, some of these individuals find themselves in the military where they eventually occupy leadership positions. These people begin to exercise toxic leadership traits, consequently, negatively impacting unit morale. Also, the military organization is prone to toxic leadership because of its emphasis on specific ideal army leadership qualities. The Army ideally prefers a leader who has the following traits, including rigid, in control, street fighter, confident, as well as a person who can effectively enforce military rules. As such, those in leadership positions tend to apply these characteristics to an extreme extent, henceforth, resulting in a toxic environment. It is crucial to note that when these attributes are moderately applied, they often cause a positive environment. William (2005) states that toxic military leaders, in most cases, tend to do everything in the extreme. Therefore, they may demonstrate poor leadership qualities without even being aware of. Also, toxic leadership is common in the military due to inadequate development. Essentially, mentoring is a valuable aspect of leadership in the army. Soldiers are often encouraged to locate leaders who they can emulate. In this case, junior officers are, for the most part, urged to closely monitor and follow senior officers to learn the positive attributes that have helped them in achieving success. However, because the military is filled with toxic leaders, junior officers end up emulating these toxic leaders which, in turn, facilitates the replication of toxic leadership.
There are three basic behavioral features of toxic leaders in the military. Firstly, there is the micro-manager. Such a military leader often invades the privacy of subordinates. These leaders are interested in the private matters of peers, subordinates, and even superiors. Because of this behavioral trait, they often neglect their role in moving the organization forward. The micro-manager frequently goes through the personal properties of subordinates to locate problems (Box, 2012). In this regard, a leader with this trait does not value his or her followers’ feelings, property, dignity, and privacy. This kind of leaders are evident in the military. They listen to their subordinates’ phone calls and even read their mails in an attempt to keep their unit members in check.
Secondly, the pretender is a toxic leader who dislikes hearing subordinates’ ideas and views. In most cases, they are usually involved in immoral and unethical activities, thus, compromising the organizational values with their self-interest. Such leaders ignore counsel from subordinates, and they do not listen to others because they feel that they know everything. Such leaders do not value feedback, and more importantly, they do not ask for feedback. As such, they create a negative organizational culture. Some military leaders dislike hearing their subordinates’ input. It is common for military leaders to discourage their subordinates from stating their opinions and views as the leader believes that they know everything and that their opinions are always right. When subordinates attempt to provide their insights, they are met with outright rejection, which adversely affects the self-esteem of the soldier. Additionally, as Box (2012) cites, it is common for military leaders to mistreat soldiers, especially the recruits. They bully junior soldiers, consequently affecting the functioning of the entire army unit. Also, toxic military leaders physically punish and ridicule soldiers to maintain “discipline and order.” During punishment, some soldiers end up being injured, which affects their ability to perform effectively.
Thirdly, egomaniac toxic leaders are highly competitive. Such military leaders want to get to the top positions at all costs, regardless if they hurt the soldiers beneath them in the process (Box, 2012). Such toxic leaders view subordinates as less competent as well as capable. The toxic military leader establishes priorities the way he or she feels like. His or her ideas come first. He puts himself first instead of the unit he is in charge of. These military leaders dislike being wrong and hate competition. It is common for these leaders to be arrogant and display threatening behavior. Because of this, they end up driving their military unit to the ground and fail to see the ramifications on the well-being and morale of the soldiers. Unit members often describe these leaders as monsters, and they derive happiness from making the lives of their followers miserable.
Toxic military leaders continue to lead the military organization mostly because service members are afraid to speak out concerning their abuses. Most soldiers have come across a toxic leader during their period in service. Ordinarily, toxic leaders typically direct their inappropriate behavior to subordinates because they are aware that subordinates fear reprisal. For this reason, toxic leaders continue to dominate the military organization without being identified. Soldiers are normally worried about the unintended consequences if they report a toxic leader. Further, senior military leaders tend to believe a leader over the subordinate in case a subordinate brings out an issue concerning the leader.
Markedly, the military needs to come up with strategies to eliminate toxic leadership in its midst because it has serious repercussions. Under worst-case circumstances, toxic military leadership can result in death and mutiny and other less severe ramifications. They include dwindled effectiveness, trust erosion, retention and commitment, communication breakdown, as well as reduced well-being of the followers (Gallus, Walsh, van Driel, Gouge & Antolic, 2013) . Moreover, toxic leadership destroys subordinates’ self-initiative and unit morale, which can lead to losing valuable personnel.
Examining how the Military has Addressed Toxic Leadership
Over the years, the military has come to acknowledge that toxic leadership exists in its premises. As such, in 2012, the army revised its doctrine publication to detail what toxic leadership implies so that all soldiers can understand the meaning of toxic leadership and recognize the signs. The army also encourages soldiers to come forward if they have witnessed a toxic leader. As a result, many soldiers have gained the courage to come forward and report leaders who demonstrate toxic leadership styles. Additionally, presently, the army asks subordinates to evaluate their leaders anonymously. This has enabled soldiers to report toxic leaders without their identities being known. Thus, it has resulted in a culture of accountability, where leaders are accountable to their followers. Also, when investigations are conducted to determine if a leader is indeed toxic, he or she is discharged from the military if he or she is found to be comprising the values of the military. Additionally, some branches of the army, such as the navy have created courses to find and remove incompetent commanders. As such, those who continue to serve as leaders are those that have been identified to be competent and possess useful leadership traits.
Strategies for Overcoming Toxic Leadership Challenge
Toxic leaders are common in numerous organizations other than the military. Therefore, to overcome toxic leadership, a systemic approach needs to be enforced. In this regard, a suitable organizational, systemic change process is warranted. The monitoring systems of an organization are essential in detecting toxic leadership. In this light, organizations need to encourage accountability within the various units of the organization. Feedback systems, especially in the military, should be created to tackle toxic leadership. Having effective monitoring and evaluating mechanisms will enable subordinates to evaluate their leaders as they are best suited to identify toxic behavior in a leader; hence, creating an environment where toxic leaders will not be able to thrive (Tavanti, 2011) . Also, organizations should encourage whistleblowing for any wrongdoing. Once a toxic leader has been identified, the organization should take appropriate actions. The lessons learned from this process can become a pivotal part of the promotion or selection process for future leaders.
Also, organizations, notably the military, should employ technical and interpersonal skill development training programs. In this case, organizations should have training programs intended to impact positive skills to leaders. In addition to training programs, organizations should also seek professional intervention, such as counselors, who can assist in reeducating deviant leaders. If the behavior has not changed even after multiple interventions, the organization can transfer the toxic leader out of a leadership position but retain the individual in the organization (Tavanti, 2011) . Further, organizations, more specifically, the military, should create a positive command climate that strives to take care of the soldiers. In establishing a favorable environment, leaders should minimize the stigma of seeking assistance, frequently engage with subordinates, as well as provide support while, at the same time, forbidding physical punishment, abuse, as well as ridicule.
Conclusion
Toxic leadership is rampant in the military organizations as such toxic leaders demonstrate behavioral characteristics such as being an egomaniac, pretender, and a micro-manager. Toxic leadership is seen in the way military leaders treat their subordinates either by ignoring their opinions, judging them harshly, and mistreating them. This has, thus, led to devastating impacts, including a reduction in unit morale and even death. Also, toxic leadership tends to destroy the self-initiative of subordinates and their self-esteem, which, in turn, negatively impact the performance of the team. Therefore, to avoid this challenge, it is paramount for organizations to develop effective evaluation mechanisms to root out toxic leaders. Also, serious actions should be taken one a leader is identified to be toxic. This will enhance not only the performance of subordinates but also their morale.
References
Aubrey, D. (2012). The effect of toxic leadership [PDF] (pp. 8-38). Retrieved from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army-usawc/aubrey_toxic_leadership.pdf
Box, J. (2012). Toxic leadership in the military profession [PDF] (pp. 1-34).
Gallus, J., Walsh, B., van Driel, M., Gouge, M., & Antolic, E. (2013). Intolerable Cruelty: A Multilevel Examination of the Impact of Toxic Leadership on U.S. Military Units and Service Members. Military Psychology , 25 (6), 588-601. doi: 10.1037/mil0000022
Ozlen, M., & Zukic, A. (2013). A Descriptive Study on the Military Leadership. International Journal Of Academic Research In Business And Social Sciences , 3 (7). Doi: 10.6007/ijarbss/v3-i7/102
SAMHSA. (2010). Understanding the military: the institution, the culture and the people, 1-38. Retrieved from https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/military_white_paper_final.pdf
Tavanti, M. (2011). Managing toxic leaders: Dysfunctional patterns in organizational leadership and how to deal with them. Human Resource Management , 2011 , 127-136.
Williams, D. (2005). Toxic leadership in the U.S army [PDF] (pp. 1-28). Retrieved from https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pdffiles/ksil3.pdf
