Military Review English Edition September-October 2013 | Page 37

LEADERSHIP

While the report clarifies perceptions of toxic leaders and attempts to separate them from “derailed” leaders, “the vast majority of U.S. Army leaders observed a toxic leader in the last year, and over a third indicated that they had first-hand experience with three or more toxic leaders.”35 The study closely links toxic leadership to ethics, which perhaps helps to explain why 12 percent of respondents in a 2011 Army survey stated that “they had been pressured to cover up issues or act unethically.” Eighteen percent “agreed that it would be hazardous to their career to speak up about ethical violations.”36 In examining the data describing the number of toxic leaders as well as the number of “derailed leaders,” one must naturally ask a difficult, but simple question: why does toxic leadership exist to the extent that it does in the force? Answering this question quickly becomes uncomfortable when we consider the possibilities. Perhaps individuals have failed to develop themselves properly and the Army as an institution has failed to properly assess, evaluate and eliminate them, or, alternatively, perhaps that a significant number of Army leaders are simply unprepared and unable to serve in a profession whose “values and standards are too high for just anyone to live by.”37 In considering the evidence provided by leader criminal behavior, the survey data on perceptions of other leader character and ethics, and the degree of toxic leadership in the Army, one cannot help but conclude that the Army’s assumption that soldiers and leaders as a group inherently know what is right and want to live ethically is seriously in question if not conceptually flawed. Assumption: Consistent ethical conduct develops strong character. The second assumption the Army makes is that individuals develop strong character by engaging in consistently ethical behavior, or more simply, they become good by doing good. This is a reversal of the “Be, Know, Do” pattern in which the “Be,” or character, in conjunction with the “Know,” drives the “Do,” or action. Army doctrine appears to contradict itself when it states that “ethical conduct must reflect genuine values and beliefs.”38 In effect, the Army proposes that actions must be in accordance with our values and beliefs (character), and that character is developed by correct conduct and proper actions. This circular logic produces an
MILITARY REVIEW ? September-October 2013

obvious “chicken or the egg” argument; one that Army doctrine neither adequately addresses nor resolves. While no group of individuals can be expected to be entirely without the moral failings common to humanity, the number of senior leaders felled annually by unethical conduct requires us to at least consider whether the cause in each case was either a brief lapse in judgment, a change in the nature of an individual’s character for the worse, or whether the leader’s true character may have been hidden at lower ranks through pragmatic adherence to rules at the expense of genuine character development. If the latter case is true in some situations, then the implication is that skillful rule following at lower levels can potentially cover character flaws. These individuals were able to provide the appearance, or “presence” in terms of Army leadership doctrine, of character until such time as they were promoted to a higher level of responsibility than their character could handle. This, in effect, could be interpreted as the “Peter Principle” as applied to character in which people are “promoted beyond the level of [their] ability.”39 The weaknesses pointed out by both the beliefs/ actions argument (circular logic) along with the Peter

U.S. soldiers and counterparts of the Afghan National Army halt while marching during Operation Saguaro in Bargay valley, Kunar Province, Afghanistan, 27 February 2012. (U.S. Army, Sgt. Trey Harvey)

35