Military Review English Edition September-October 2013 | Page 36

(National Archives)

Gen. George C. Marshall, U.S. Army chief of staff, and Gen. Henry “Hap” Arnold, commanding general, U.S. Army Air Forces, arrive at the residence of Prime Minister Winston Churchill for a dinner given by the British prime minister for President Truman and Soviet leader Josef Stalin during the Potsdam Conference, 23 July 1945.

that subordinates achieve results rather than the methods used.”28 Additionally, respondents indicated that while 83 percent believed that their immediate superior demonstrated the Army values, only 72 percent believed that the leaders they interacted with displayed good ethical behavior.29 The perception that over a quarter of Army leaders do not display good ethical behavior runs contrary to the Army’s assumption that “Army soldiers and leaders know what is right and want to live ethically.” While these data provide valuable insights into the current perceptions of Army leaders, an assessment of the validity of this assumption would be premature without examining actual leadership practices as documented in the Army’s 2011 report on toxic leadership. The 2011 Toxic Leadership Report was the Army’s first exclusive report on toxic leadership and relied heavily on the CASAL reporting data sets from both 2009 and 2010 as well as other academic studies. The report documented several dangerous trends within Army leadership. The report broadly defines toxic leaders as those who “work to promote themselves at the expense of their subordinates, and usually do so without considering long-term ramifications to their subordinates, their unit, and the Army profession.”30
34

The report frames the corrosive effects of toxic leadership in its impact on “soldier wellbeing, retention, and mission accomplishment” and clearly states that “the best soldiers are the ones who are most likely to be affected by toxic leaders.”31 Paradoxically, toxic leaders are often viewed as effective and reasonably likely to achieve increased responsibilities.32 Perhaps their greatest damage to the Army as a profession comes from the ability of toxic leaders to produce a disturbing and self-replicating legacy whereby 18 percent of subordinates admit to emulating them.33 As this would be an unflattering self admission, one can only wonder if the actual number of emulators is higher. In assessing just how much toxic leadership exists in the Army, the survey data are not encouraging. The report documents that “not only is toxic leadership prevalent, but the majority of leaders considered it a problem,” to include: ? 55 percent of field grade officers. ? 61 percent of company grade officers. ? 60 percent of warrant officers. ? 60 percent of senior NCOs. ? 66 percent