Toxic Leadership

[Cliff_Chambliss]

In the aviation related page I posted a reference to Anthony Kern's (LTC USAF (Ret)) paper Darker Shades of Blue A Study in Failed Leadership which examined many of the factors that led to the tragic B-52 Crash at Fairchild AFB some years ago.    Several readers identified with the article and felt they could "see" some of the same mindsets, thought trains, etc developing within their CAP Units.  Not being in the units I can't say yay or nay,  However, I would like to present this article written by Col George Reed at the US Army War College on Toxic Leadership and published in the July-August edition of the Military Review for their consideration.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/milreview/reed.pdf

After reading this article, I would invite the reader to "google" Toxic Leadership in the US Army for several follow up articles and ideas and programs to identify, correct or eliminate toxic leaders. 

[a2capt]

I could swear I read a whole long post with the same title earlier today .. and was wondering why this one showed up again as new with zero replies. Did that one run afoul?

[bflynn]

An interesting article - this is definately going in my read file.  I scanned it and see that one of the key elements is a review system for leadership.  I hate doing reviews at work, I certainly don't want to do them at CAP.

[Spaceman3750]

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/F040_C73A311F4FC74.pdf

[Eclipse]

Periodic performance reviews are the only way people really know where they stand in an organization.

The lack of their requirement in CAP is a key factor in many of our personality-based performance issues.

[Cliff_Chambliss]

I could swear I read a whole long post with the same title earlier today .. and was wondering why this one showed up again as new with zero replies. Did that one run afoul?

Yes, the original copy I had was really messed up so I thought I would copy-Paste and post.  Well the error or my ways was brought to my attention (not to mention possible copyright infringmnet) so the original was deleted by the powers that be and I was asked (directed) to use links instead of copy paste.   Which worked out great for I found other articles and updates I had not seen before.

[bflynn]

Periodic performance reviews are the only way people really know where they stand in an organization.

Let me categorically state this is not true.  Not only is it not true, but I regularly teach NOT to use periodic performace reviews as a way to tell people where they stand...this is like dieting on your birthday and wondering why you don't lose weight.  It makes for crumby management.

The absolute best method I've seen for keeping someone informed of where they stand in an organzation is frequent communciations.  It's as easy as talking...talking with a purpose, yes, but just talking.  Professionally, at work, I meet every week with every direct report I have for 30 minutes.  Yes, we do quarterly reviews, but they are ho-hum affairs mandated by HR.  Nothing new comes into them, it's a rehash of what we've been talking about weekly.  Annual reviews are the same thing.

Could this be adapted to CAP?  Sure to some extent.  You don't need to talk for 30 minutes weekly, but spending time with those assigned to you or with your commander ought to be simple enough, assuming you attend meetings.

Periodic reviews are a management antiquity of the past.

[Eclipse]

L...I regularly teach NOT to use periodic performace reviews as a way to tell people where they stand...

I have no doubt of that whatsoever.

The absolute best method I've seen for keeping someone informed of where they stand in an organzation is frequent communications.

Absolutely, however your 30-minutes each week, unless they are documented mean little to an employee's compensation, advancement, or long-term
retention, especially in the face of downsizing.  If you're ticket-punching the HR stuff, then everyone is equal and who knows who will get tossed.

I've had any number of cases both in business and CAP where I've had to clean up the mess of a manager who felt that informal reviews were all that were necessary.  It later comes out that the employee had a prolonged history of "issues", yet there is next to nothing documented which could substantiate a termination or adjustment.

Not only do proper reviews help people understand expectations, in this litigious universe of employee-centric regulations, they are critical just to keep yourself out of court.

[bflynn]

I think you didn't understand and you don't realize that you didn't understand it.  Or maybe the idea is just too foreign to you.  Try re-reading it again.

Quarter reviews is not the mechanism for correcting someone.  You let someone go off track for 3 months, then try to reign them back in with a single review?

Are quarterly reviews done?  Yes, they're required by HR and they're used as a part of the bonus structure.  Annual reviews are done too and these are the ones that affect compensation as well as bonus.  But these are administrative features, not feedback to the employee.  By the time we get to quarterly or annual reviews, there are no surprises because we've talked about everything before this.  When they go off track, there's feedback, there's coaching and there's weekly talking that we do.  It's like breathing, we do it all not time.  Trying to use quarterly feedback is like holding your breath...and who wants to work that way?

And my 30 minutes a week?  It means everything to employees if it comes to advancement and downsizing.  Every minute I spend with them, I'm building relationships and trust so that when I say "you're not ready", the response isn't a hissy fit.  They know because I've been completely up front with them about their status.  People get upset when expectations aren't met.  In 25 years of professional life, I've never been through a downsizing as a manager - it happened once to me as a worker over a decade ago - and I never want to.  But if it comes, I know the guy who is at the bottom of totem pole won't be surprised because he knows he is first in line.

Look, if you're not a manager, you probably don't get this.  It's ok, most people don't, it has to be taught.  If you'd like some links and suggestions on understanding it better, PM me, I'd be happy to share.

[Eclipse]

Look, if you're not a manager, you probably don't get this.

One should not make assumptions about things one knows little about, CAP or otherwise.

[bflynn]

One should not make assumptions about things one knows little about, CAP or otherwise.

No assumptions at all, other than you appear to severely dislike me.  My mere presence seems to offend you since your responses to me are...to borrow the subject....toxic.  But that's ok, it's your right to respond as you see fit and my right to respond how I see fit. 

You also hide your identity here, so no, I don't know who you are.  I've been told that you've led multiple encampments, so perhaps that is indicative of what you're about.

How about we just be civil to each other and leave it there?

********************

Putting this back on topic, I read through the first page of the posted PDF and pulled out some words and phrases indicative of toxic leadership:

bullies
threatens
yells
backbiting
belittling
poor interpersonal skills
maladjusted
malcontent
malevolent
malicious
tearing others down
controlling
arrogant
self-serving
inflexible
petty
demotivational behavior

Have you see these in CAP?  I know I have.

[Spaceman3750]

You know, I've gotta agree with bflynn on this one. Casual feedback is way preferable to bringing all of someone's problems down on their head once and expecting something good to come of it - when I was a trainer in fast food, one of the first things they taught me was that "fast correction produces the best results". If I point something out to someone 3 months later that they don't even remember, how can I expect it not to happen the next time?

[Eclipse]

I am far from hidden, here or otherwise.  You may have noticed people referring to me by my first name?

Within your first 100 posts you referred to me as an encyclopedia with a negative connotation, and made a comment about my mother.

Did I miss anything?  Because I don't recall a single time I made a personal comment about you or challenged anything other than
what experience you have to make some of your assertions, which by your own admission is limited in a CAP context.

Toxicity may also be considered a factor when people with little-to-no practical experience try to "lead" people who
have been doing things for a while, especially when that "instruction" comes with accusations of systemic problems when the
ideas are not immediately met with acceptance.

[Майор Хаткевич]

You know, I've gotta agree with bflynn on this one. Casual feedback is way preferable to bringing all of someone's problems down on their head once and expecting something good to come of it - when I was a trainer in fast food, one of the first things they taught me was that "fast correction produces the best results". If I point something out to someone 3 months later that they don't even remember, how can I expect it not to happen the next time?

Why can't both be done?

If I saw a cadet behave inappropriately, I corrected it on the spot (and in private). If the issues persisted, they were brought up at their next review board. At this "periodic" (promotion, for cause, etc) review, the cadet would be told what they need to improve on, or they do not get promoted/miss an activity/etc.

Guidance should be provided constantly, but to say that anything periodic is junk misses the whole point of doing any sort of formal reviews.

[Spaceman3750]

You know, I've gotta agree with bflynn on this one. Casual feedback is way preferable to bringing all of someone's problems down on their head once and expecting something good to come of it - when I was a trainer in fast food, one of the first things they taught me was that "fast correction produces the best results". If I point something out to someone 3 months later that they don't even remember, how can I expect it not to happen the next time?

Why can't both be done?

If I saw a cadet behave inappropriately, I corrected it on the spot (and in private). If the issues persisted, they were brought up at their next review board. At this "periodic" (promotion, for cause, etc) review, the cadet would be told what they need to improve on, or they do not get promoted/miss an activity/etc.

Guidance should be provided constantly, but to say that anything periodic is junk misses the whole point of doing any sort of formal reviews.

You're right - I didn't mean to imply that the two were mutually exclusive. What I mean is pretty much what bflynn is saying - a 3 or 6 month review isn't the time to bring everything down on someone's head that they've done bad in the last 6 months that you want corrected. That just leads to employee confusion and frustration. I know because I've been there - to go into an office thinking you're doing a good job and to come out finding out that you aren't is very, very disheartening and makes you angry because you want to know why it wasn't brought up sooner.

An evaluation may be the formal instrument that goes on your personnel record, but it shouldn't be the first time you've heard of your problems.

[Eclipse]

An evaluation may be the formal instrument that goes on your personnel record, but it shouldn't be the first time you've heard of your problems.

I agree, but what was said was that the weekly ones were important, and the HR ones just a rubber stamp.
That means the actual "meat" of the evaluations is never (presumably), documented, and the ones that are important
to a career are an afterthought.  I guarantee you that's contrary to what most corporations intend when they invest in the
performance review process.

He also said he has no interest in doing them in CAP at all, and in my experience, the first thing good commanders do when they
take over is implement formal performance reviews programs.

[bflynn]

.

[Pylon]

No, the thing I hate doing is writing down performance reviews.  Paperwork, for paperwork's sake is a waste of time.  I know you don't believe that, you live for doing paperwork.

Can you tone down the grumpiness?  It's really starting to bother a lot of us.


Writing down performance reviews is not paperwork for its own sake.  Believe me, I hate unnecessary paperwork.  I was buried by it while managing a squadron, and vehemently despised every report or extra suspense higher headquarters added to our plate.


But cadets have written performance evaluations required as part of the cadet program's very structure: the CAPF 50.  Cadets have to get a written performance eval at minimum once per phase and anytime grade is withheld or revoked, but they are often also done as part of regular leadership feedback, promotion boards, adverse actions, and as part of after-activity reviews.   They're great tools when used properly, and looking at a cadet's CAPF 50's over time shows demonstrable trends, helps identify improvement as well as weak areas, and gives cadets something concrete with which to improve themselves.


Why would doing this for a senior member be completely pointless?  I'm not advocating we have a formal SM review policy nation-wide, but if a unit commander is implementing a more formal process and it works for his or her unit, I don't see the reason to deride it as a "waste of time". 


And lastly, the tongue-in-cheek sarcastic remarks like "you live for doing paperwork" can stop at the door. Thanks.

[FlyTiger77]

...

belittling
poor interpersonal skills
malicious
tearing others down
controlling
arrogant
self-serving
demotivational behavior

Have you see these in CAP?  I know I have.

Heck, I have seen these just recently in this thread.

[bflynn]

Yes, and some of it from me.  I was wrong and I apologize.