COL Reed's Arguments On Toxic Leadership
I concur with COL Reed’s comments on toxicity but believe that further emphasis is required on the individual leader responsible for the behavior. The paper comprehensively researches toxicity and its fall-out. He goes to great length to define and list the effects of toxicity on unit morale, cohesion, and retention. Accurate pitfalls with existing assessment tools address how toxic leaders continue their ascent to positions of increased spheres of influence. Techniques for raters to frankly discuss issues with their toxic subordinates are made. Subordinate Soldiers' inability to directly address the toxic leader is also addressed. One area not delved into was the toxic leader's perception of how they affect the unit.
The …show more content…
Testing would take place throughout the officer's career to track and address areas that could develop a toxic command environment. It would be cost effective as there are a number of tests already in the Army inventory, psychologists are already on the unit manning documents, and a bi-annual session between the commander and the psychologist wouldn’t unduly burden either’s schedule. An argument could be made that a toxic leader may not care about the results of their assessment. I believe that instituting this process early in an officer's career will elicit the appropriate attention to any toxic behavior potential. It could also enhance traits of leaders who already significantly enhance unit morale. Having worked for a toxic commander I'd say he would have been receptive to this proposal and adjusted his attitude to a point where his time in command would have been far less destructive to the unit and personal lives of many of his officers. At the very least a mechanism that forces a self-reflection certainly couldn't hurt an existing assessment process that COL Reed describes as ineffective in ending toxicity. Precedent for behavioral assessment has already been set by Special
The …show more content…
Testing would take place throughout the officer's career to track and address areas that could develop a toxic command environment. It would be cost effective as there are a number of tests already in the Army inventory, psychologists are already on the unit manning documents, and a bi-annual session between the commander and the psychologist wouldn’t unduly burden either’s schedule. An argument could be made that a toxic leader may not care about the results of their assessment. I believe that instituting this process early in an officer's career will elicit the appropriate attention to any toxic behavior potential. It could also enhance traits of leaders who already significantly enhance unit morale. Having worked for a toxic commander I'd say he would have been receptive to this proposal and adjusted his attitude to a point where his time in command would have been far less destructive to the unit and personal lives of many of his officers. At the very least a mechanism that forces a self-reflection certainly couldn't hurt an existing assessment process that COL Reed describes as ineffective in ending toxicity. Precedent for behavioral assessment has already been set by Special