Toxic Leadership

[Eclipse]

There are three kinds of people:

1. Those that need to be managed, can't move without someone telling them,
2. Those that need to manage others and are empty without it,
3. And, those that can self manage.

My point, #1 wants needs feedback, lives for the review. #2 loves to give the review, it fills the empty spot. #3 can work alone or in a team, as a member or as the leader. He/she doesn't have the ego that is fragile and will crush others to protect his/her position. A review is useless to him/her. He/she knows when they are performing at, above, or below standard. They are the hardest on themselves.

The above is feel-good for people who think they are "lone wolfs", need no guidance, and for whom "teamwork" is a 4-letter word.
They tend to bristle at authority or direction because "they know better", even when their experience or performance does not warrant
the arrogance.  Most people tend to believe they are more like Hawkeye Pierce than Frank Burns, when in fact the majority are somewhere in the middle like Henry Blake.

Who sets the standard?  The member or employee?  Who decides when the standard has been met? The member or employee? 

No.

Worse, the #3's in your example often tend to fall into the trap of assuming everyone else is a #1 or 2 but themselves.

Initiative is positive trait, self-actualization, in the absence of any other guidance or leadership is a problem, one CAP has in large quantity.

[Spaceman3750]

EDIT: In full disclosure, we don't use them at my squadron. I just make sure there's enough people around to attest to my good deeds and do my bad deeds when nobody's looking .

You spend a lot of time alone, don't you?

*rimshot*

[bflynn]

There are definately different kinds of people.  Everyone is motivated by different things.  One of the reasons for leaders to have a relationship with those they lead is so they can understand what motivates their people.  That is the key thing I'm talking about, leaders building relationships.  When the relationships are in place, paperwork doesn't enhance the leadership, it becomes an admin task.

[Larry Mangum]

You can have a highly motivated self starters out the kazoo  and still need to provide guidance in order to make sure they are headed down the right path.

[Pylon]

I'll say it over and over again that I feel like I've gotten more from CAP than I'll ever be able to give back.  Specifically, Civil Air Patrol has refined and grown my own personal leadership abilities well beyond what I've gained in my civilian career or even as a grunt in the Marine Corps.  I constantly find myself drawing on the lessons I've gained from CAP.  If constructive and positive leadership feedback from a more seasoned CAP officer can help me grow, it not only helps the organization (because it'll make me a better volunteer) but it helps me as a person. 

Good leadership feedback is practically a membership benefit for those who want to take advantage, not a tool with which to beat members over the head, denigrate them, or give them extra work.

[FARRIER]

You can have a highly motivated self starters out the kazoo  and still need to provide guidance in order to make sure they are headed down the right path.

There are three kinds of people:

1. Those that need to be managed, can't move without someone telling them,
2. Those that need to manage others and are empty without it,
3. And, those that can self manage.

My point, #1 wants needs feedback, lives for the review. #2 loves to give the review, it fills the empty spot. #3 can work alone or in a team, as a member or as the leader. He/she doesn't have the ego that is fragile and will crush others to protect his/her position. A review is useless to him/her. He/she knows when they are performing at, above, or below standard. They are the hardest on themselves.

The above is feel-good for people who think they are "lone wolfs", need no guidance, and for whom "teamwork" is a 4-letter word.
They tend to bristle at authority or direction because "they know better", even when their experience or performance does not warrant
the arrogance.  Most people tend to believe they are more like Hawkeye Pierce than Frank Burns, when in fact the majority are somewhere in the middle like Henry Blake.

Who sets the standard?  The member or employee?  Who decides when the standard has been met? The member or employee? 

No.

Worse, the #3's in your example often tend to fall into the trap of assuming everyone else is a #1 or 2 but themselves.

Initiative is positive trait, self-actualization, in the absence of any other guidance or leadership is a problem, one CAP has in large quantity.

The regulations are their for members to reference and comply with. The #1's wait for the regs to be read to them and the #2's can't wait to give their translation. That's micromanagement.

#3 knows the regs, doesn't need someone standing over their shoulder every second. #3's trust each other.

[FARRIER]

You can have a highly motivated self starters out the kazoo  and still need to provide guidance in order to make sure they are headed down the right path.

The regulations are their for members to reference and comply with. The #1's wait for the regs to be read to them and the #2's can't wait to give their translation. That's micromanagement.

#3 knows the regs, doesn't need someone standing over their shoulder every second. #3's trust each other.

[RADIOMAN015]

error see below please, sorry 

[RADIOMAN015]

You can have a highly motivated self starters out the kazoo  and still need to provide guidance in order to make sure they are headed down the right path.

Some adult members do need more guidance than others.
Some in leadership positions get very frustrated when everything doesn't go the way they see it.
Unpaid volunteers will always be a leadership challenge.
Hopefully the senior/adult members who choose to remain in CAP will still be able to have some fun
RM

[BuckeyeDEJ]

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". 

Oh, come on. You live for doing paperwork.

Having a paper trail is a valuable thing. Certainly, it can help if you seek a promotion for one of your members. Definitely, it can help when you have problems with a given member. It's hard to pursue disciplinary action against a member and make it stick if you don't have the paperwork to back it up.

There's nothing wrong with a formalized performance review system. The problem we might have in CAP with it is that sometimes personalities and unit politics can get in the way, and people will sometimes get evaluations that are colored by personal opinions rather than being truly objective. I've seen it happen more than once. How do we fix that that core-values issue to make such a review system truly accurate and equitable?

Maybe instead of having one person do the review, why not do a 360-degree review, where people who come in contact regularly with the reviewee can comment? It could be a lot more accurate than even a review board, and it would ensure that members know that their effectiveness, and that of those who serve around them, are interdependent.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

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.

Just prior to one of my "hiatuses" from CAP, when I was in the flying club senior squadron, I told my supervisor at work (retired AF) some of the "issues" going on.

He was familiar with CAP from having seen them on various bases, but beyond that, not much.

He asked me "Don't you guys have PE's?"  I said "no."  He said, "Then what do you use for a yardstick on whether or not someone's got their act together or not?  I'm surprised you don't do it more like the Air Force."

I didn't have an answer.

[Private Investigator]

In regards to Toxic Leadership would the New Orleans Saints coaching staff be a good example?

"If you lose, don't lose the lesson". If someone listen to the Dalai Lama they would have $7.5 million and a job next year.   

[RADIOMAN015]

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.

I told my supervisor at work (retired AF) some of the "issues" going on.

He asked me "Don't you guys have PE's?"  I said "no."  He said, "Then what do you use for a yardstick on whether or not someone's got their act together or not?  I'm surprised you don't do it more like the Air Force."

I didn't have an answer.

There's plenty of yardsticks that can currently be utilized:
1.  We get an IG compliance inspection every two years, how is each functional  section doing and the unit overall?
2.   Are cadets progressing in the program, how many got Mitchell's etc?
3.  Are seniors progressing in the program?
4.  ES wise, who's qualified to do what & do they actively participate in training exercises?
5.  How is the membership doing overall, about the same, losing, adding members?
6.  How many IG formal complaints/investigations have been lodged against the commander and or other members in the unit?
7.  Are all of the unit's pilots currently active/qualified and participating in cadet orientation rides?
8.  Does the unit only do things to meet the regulations or does it do more in the community?
Also if something is out of the norm why is out of the norm.  Maybe it is explainable.

That's just right off the top of my head.  We don't need any additionally mumbo jumbo, wanna be AF personnel performance reports.   IF something isn't going right, the appropriate adult leadership needs to sit down with the other adult(s) and have a discussion face to face.  HOWEVER,  I am not against a memo for the record (with a copy provided to the individual) being given on an agreed up improvement/correction plan.

Regarding automatic promotion in my unit and at wing level, they are NOT automatically given to a senior member who meets the minimum requirement.   

Personally, I didn't join CAP to gain rank, or to specifically plan to try to win awards, or get any special recognition.  HOWEVER,  IF I do get some recognition (promotion, which I have) and awards (3 or 4 commander's commendations & couple of wing functional/section type awards of the year), than I'm happy I did get some recognition and appreciate those others in adult leadership that took the time to recognize me  -- thank you!

My experience in dealing with other CAP adult/senior members is that sometimes they are limited to what they can do (including attendance at weekly meetings or special activities) because of work, family, other personal circumstances, or even aptitude/education.   HOWEVER, most will try their best and need to be respected for what they CAN CONTRIBUTE to the organization. 

Surely one can get very frustrated with some members, and I think this feeds those that are always talking about "consequences".   We have enough 'consequences' already available to us .  The Adult leadership also has some responsibilities e.g.   Well the first thing is to be sure the member has the available time to commit to a functional area/projecgt.  They have the appropriate aptitude/education to understand what needs to be done.  Proper attitude, no one should be forced to do something they don't want to do (e.g. functional/section management/special projects).   If things go astray than they can basically be removed from the primary position to an assistant role (I don't think CAP wants to see anyone unassigned/assigned to no duty)  and denied any further advancement.  IF things get even worst they can be suspended with a request to come back with an improvement plan.  Finally they can dismissed from the program OR meet a membership board that can make recommendations on what the member needs to do so stay in the program.

The key to this is we are in the Civil Air Patrol, which is not a military services, and any policies developed need to be more aligned with how other non profit organizations manages their unpaid volunteer forces/resources.     Realistically, no mission in CAP can get done without the unpaid volunteer force and I think we need to be sure that the volunteer force is happy overall with policies & procedures, and are afford the protection from financial loss, personal legal liability, and are properly recognized when they/we do good things in service to communities :angel:
RM 
         

[abdsp51]

We have a basic system for cadets why not have one for seniors as well.  Any feedback can/should be good feedback.

[davidsinn]

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.

I told my supervisor at work (retired AF) some of the "issues" going on.

He asked me "Don't you guys have PE's?"  I said "no."  He said, "Then what do you use for a yardstick on whether or not someone's got their act together or not?  I'm surprised you don't do it more like the Air Force."

I didn't have an answer.

There's plenty of yardsticks that can currently be utilized:
1.  We get an IG compliance inspection every two years, how is each functional  section doing and the unit overall?
2.   Are cadets progressing in the program, how many got Mitchell's etc?
3.  Are seniors progressing in the program?
4.  ES wise, who's qualified to do what & do they actively participate in training exercises?
5.  How is the membership doing overall, about the same, losing, adding members?
6.  How many IG formal complaints/investigations have been lodged against the commander and or other members in the unit?
7.  Are all of the unit's pilots currently active/qualified and participating in cadet orientation rides?
8.  Does the unit only do things to meet the regulations or does it do more in the community?
Also if something is out of the norm why is out of the norm.  Maybe it is explainable.
       

Not one thing on that list deals with individuals. Those are all unit metrics. We need to give feedback and track that feedback to each member.

[Eclipse]

+1 Metrics are tools, not leadership.

Surely one can get very frustrated with some members, and I think this feeds those that are always talking about "consequences".   We have enough 'consequences' already available to us 

Having them available, and using them properly, if at all, are not the same thing.

Same goes for the responsibilities mentioned.  Every member carrying an active card has them, only a small percentage acknowledge them.

[bflynn]

We need to give feedback and track that feedback to each member.

Maybe this is semantics, but feedback should not be tracked.  The purpose of feedback it to reinforce good or correct bad behavior.  Feedback is about improving future behavior.  It is a demotivator to say that you're going to correct a problem and then record the error so you can hold the member accountable for it again in the future.

+2 metrics are not leadership. 

Leadership is about relationship that are used to motivate the people.
Administration is about tracking resources, including people.
Managing is about leading and administering.

[Eclipse]

So then where is the accountability for errors?

[bflynn]

If a mistake is corrected, why should there be accountability for it?

I'm not talking about "he crashed an airplane, let's teach him to fly better and forget about it."  That isn't feedback.

Feedback is about the future, not history.  "When you wear your nametag 1/2 above the pocket, your uniform looks different and it makes the unit look sloppy/make you look sloppy/impairs your ability to get promoted/....  What are you going to do to fix that? ...well gosh, I'm going to lower my nametag..."

Feedback is immediate, done and then forgotten about.

[abdsp51]

If a mistake is corrected, why should there be accountability for it?

I'm not talking about "he crashed an airplane, let's teach him to fly better and forget about it."  That isn't feedback.

Feedback is about the future, not history.  "When you wear your nametag 1/2 above the pocket, your uniform looks different and it makes the unit look sloppy/make you look sloppy/impairs your ability to get promoted/....  What are you going to do to fix that? ...well gosh, I'm going to lower my nametag..."

Feedback is immediate, done and then forgotten about.

There should always be some degree of accountability, how else do people know that they will be held responsible for their actions?  That is a big problem with society these days is that "it's somebody else who is at fault not you..." syndrome. 

Situational dependent  feedback may not be immediate and should never be forgotten.  The example you gave is informal feedback which would be immediate and done.  Formal feedback should be documented appropriately and be as clear and concise as possible, and always end on a positive note.