Literature, Tarnished - Toxic Leadership in the US Military, military, George E Reed, toxic management, leadership, US Army, Thibaud Brière, supervision, intimidation, anger, bad leadership, Jean Lipman-Blumen, assessment, leadership style, dysfunction
The book written by Reed (2015) reports the challenges of the American Army in terms of leadership. At first, soldiers have all the notions required to act like a perfect leader (Ibid). However, each leader develops a style of leadership according to his/her personality and his/her environment (Reid, 2018). Having a narcissistic personality, some will adopt a very authoritarian way of supervising, which can become destructive for their subordinates (Reed, 2015). Such a leader is called a toxic leader. Toxic leadership is a term first used by Lipman-Blumen (2005), and the author emphasizes the difficulty in describing what is a toxic leader as he says "my toxic leader may be your heroic saviour" (Ibid). Reed (2015) mentions that although it is difficult to define exactly what toxic leadership is, it is nevertheless easy to describe. Often, toxic leaders emerge through their aggressive interactions with their subordinates that range from outbursts of anger, public humiliation, and intimidation (Ibid). Nevertheless, the military context of leadership is unique because it is "more structured and professionalized" (Reed, 2015) than in any other industry. Reed (2015) explains that the American public is very confident about the military's leadership skills. However, this positive view exists because citizens are not informed by actual practices within the military.
[...] At Gadama, employees are classified according to three types of animals (Brière, 2021). The seal represents the model employee, he is confident, not at all suspicious, malleable and "acts spontaneously in the direction desired by management". The bear is a follower who just needs to be "educated" in order to become a seal. Finally, the snake employee "concerns" management because he threatens the entire system. Distrustful by nature, he is unable to show radical transparency and to operate in a truly collective mode (Ibid). [...]
[...] This therefore explains the great tolerance from the commandants towards toxic leaders and the reason why they are not stopped in their progression (Reed, 2015). Schedlitzki & Edwards (2015) made a distinction between "good" as a leader's competence and "good" as morally ethical. However, in the case of the US military, leaders are neither ethical nor effective because of the negative long-term effect (Reed, 2015). Whistle-Blowers According to Reed (2015) the rigid framework imposed by the commandants makes the task of the whistle-blowers extremely complex. [...]
[...] The ineffectiveness of processes for identifying toxic leaders is partly explained by the fact that commanders believe themselves to be largely immune to the problem. However, it has been shown that all organizations, sooner or later, will probably have to deal with the presence of a toxic leader (Ibid). In this sense, adding toxic leadership to the vocabulary of the organization would already demonstrate that the commander is aware of its existence and its redundancy. An additional challenge arises for senior officers, as toxic leaders usually have good performance as well as adequate interpersonal relationships with them. [...]
[...] Impact of Toxic Leader on Subordinates Reed (2015) also highlights the impact of the toxic leader on subordinates. Generally, victims of toxic supervision experience low job satisfaction, high level of stress, a greatly reduced self-esteem and significant emotional fatigue. They will be less receptive and will show some resistance to following the directives issued (Ibid). However, their interpersonal relationships will not only deteriorate with their supervisors, but also deteriorate with their peers and subordinates. Consequently, many will consider quitting their job, without putting their plan into action. [...]
[...] To conclude, the organization has become toxic because the leader is toxic. Gadama's CEO has a tyrannical behavior (Einarsen, 2007) because he "manipulates subordinates in order to get the job done." What is important to highlight is that even if the style of leadership is considered positive (Goleman, 2000), the toxicity of a leader can appear in any style of leadership. Thus, whether the style is coercive like in the US military, where the hierarchy and environment seem conducive to the development of toxic leaders (Reed, 2015) or in a company with a collaborative style that seems very ethical (Brière, 2021), no one is safe from a toxic leader. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
