Toxic leadership - a real problem or sour grapes?

Started by JohhnyD, July 10, 2021, 04:07:20 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

JohhnyD

In a thread on PA training, I posit that the major issue facing CAP is toxic leadership.

Your thoughts? Opinions?

If this is a real issue, in your opinion, what PRACTICAL solutions do you suggest?

dwb

A major problem in leadership is bad leaders. Hardly a problem unique to CAP.

The question is, are those bad leaders just the naturally occurring left end of the bell curve? Or is there something systemic in CAP that fails to root them out, or worse yet, promotes them?

I would argue it's a localized problem, not systemic. I think particularly since the governance reforms, the median quality of region and wing commanders has gone up, and those commanders pick better subordinate unit commanders too.

I'm not wearing my rose-colored shades here. There are definitely instances of bad leadership. But that's because CAP is made up of people. There are bad leaders in the USAF, in government, in the private sector, in elected office, etc.

To say it's a "major issue" for CAP implies there is something in CAP's culture from the top down that fails to halt bad leadership, and I just don't think that is the case nationwide.

baronet68

I wonder if it's the use of the word "Commander" in the title?

Some people see "CAP" as meaning "Control And Power" and will gravitate toward positions of authority to fill their personal needs. 

Maybe, if we changed the title from Squadron Commander to something like "Squadron Director" or "Squadron Manager", the number of "Control And Power" types would be lowered and those seeking true leadership roles would increase?

Michael Moore, Lt Col, CAP
National Recruiting & Retention Manager

Eclipse

Quote from: JohhnyD on July 10, 2021, 04:07:20 PMIn a thread on PA training, I posit that the major issue facing CAP is toxic leadership.

Unfortunately you don't offer the actual issue as an alternative, though members with sour grapes
over not getting their way is an ongoing issue, usually due to a fundamental misunderstanding
of the situation as a whole.

"Toxic" Leadership requires malevolent intent - that is rare in CAP. Few people join
to make other people's live difficult.

The primary issues with CAP leadership are inexperience coupled with inappropriate posting,
lack of choice in the selection, and lack of ramifications or even remediation for poor performance.
Nepotism is sprinkled in there as well, which can exacerbate already bad situations by perpetuating
the cycles and the number of inappropriately posted people, then it's geometric from there
as people with the requisite skills get fed up and leave, with only less-capable members in their wake.

Rewarding in appropriate behavior and poor performance also feeds on the problems, and the organizaiton
espouses one set of behaviors, and then often rewards the opposite.

Being poorly prepared for a job you should not have taken, or only took because no one else would do
it, puts people on the defensive, and the higher the waves of "good iders" coming at them, the less
inclined they are to listen, because it makes them feel weak, and they have not been mentored to understand
that asking for help is not weakness.

The above is bad for the membership and the organizaiton, and worst for the respective member, but isn't "toxic"
in any meaningful way that this '90s buzzword implies.

"That Others May Zoom"

N6RVT

Quote from: baquote author=Eclipse link=msg=438138 date=1625967262]"Toxic" Leadership requires malevolent intent - that is rare in CAP. Few people join to make other people's live difficult.

The primary issues with CAP leadership are inexperience coupled with inappropriate posting, lack of choice in the selection, and lack of ramifications or even remediation for poor performance.  Nepotism is sprinkled in there as well, which can exacerbate already bad situations by perpetuating the cycles and the number of inappropriately posted people, then it's geometric from there as people with the requisite skills get fed up and leave, with only less-capable members in their wake.

I was going to add to this, but just said the same thing in different words.

JohhnyD

So the opinion of some here is that in experience and lack of training is the issue. That certainly hard to coral with.

What are the solutions?

RiverAux

Well, this is a solution that has been roundly criticized here in the past, but good old fashioned democracy can certainly help.  Squadron members (senior only) elect their commanders, Squadron commanders elect group/Wing Commanders, etc. Each with definite terms (2 years for squadron command) with the prospect for only 1 additional term if elected again.

This system works just fine for the CG Aux and there is no better direct analog to CAP.  It addresses the toxic leadership issue in multiple ways and offer other benefits:
1.  If someone is just an obvious toxic personality they won't get elected in the first place.
2. If it becomes clear that they are toxic, then they won't get re-elected. 
3.  Everyone knows that any individual will only be in command for a brief period of time, so even if they dislike them, they know that they only have to wait a short bit before someone new takes over.  I think that the current 4 year term for squadron commanders is too long to alleviate this concern. 
4. Increases the diversity of leadership such that pretty much anyone that stays in for 5-10 years will probably have a shot at squadron command or higher at some point in their career if they are interested. 
5.  The definite limits on time in command make it easier to ask someone to take the job.  They know they won't be stuck in it for 8 years until some other sucker takes it.

A totally separate way to avoid this problem is to reduce the authority given to those in command as much as possible.  If the squadron commander only has very limited authority there isn't much they can do to any given individual.  CG Aux does this by basically giving no authority to any of the Aux leadership at any level ---the CG makes pretty much all the decisions on anything worthwhile, with the exception of some spending decisions.  This would require some restructuring of the CAP/AF relationship to make it work and the AF doesn't seem interested in assuming more responsibility for CAP so probably isn't workable. 

dwb

Quote from: RiverAux on July 12, 2021, 12:32:32 AM1.  If someone is just an obvious toxic personality they won't get elected in the first place.

Let me tell you a story about Florida (Wing) Man...

I don't think our current system is all that terrible. Everyone is accountable to someone, including CAP/CC who is accountable to the BoG. The people doing the selecting at the wing and region level understand what the job entails and are probably better informed to make a good selection.

Where we fall down is building bench strength at the unit level. It's just a really hard problem when the modal unit is being held together by two or three seniors. Elections aren't going to fix that problem.

N6RVT

Quote from: dwb on July 12, 2021, 12:28:01 PMLet me tell you a story about Florida (Wing) Man...

I don't think our current system is all that terrible. Everyone is accountable to someone, including CAP/CC who is accountable to the BoG. The people doing the selecting at the wing and region level understand what the job entails and are probably better informed to make a good selection.  Where we fall down is building bench strength at the unit level. It's just a really hard problem when the modal unit is being held together by two or three seniors. Elections aren't going to fix that problem.

As another member of both orgs, I can tell you the elected leadership model of the USCGAUX worked because elected leaders do not actually command. I say worked because I have not seen a contested election in over a decade.  What we now see is units disappearing for lack of anyone to command them, even when the position is open to anyone who will take it.  My own Division (equivalent to a CAP Group) has lost half its flotillas (equivalent to a squadron) since I joined in 2005.  And it had just just merged with another division.

It wasn't toxic leadership, it was essentially no leadership at all.

And the USCGAUX's main competition had been US Power Squadrons, who after a 100 year existence folded up in 2017 and became "Americas Boating Club".  Dumping the uniforms and flotilla structure cost them half the members they had left and its basically a website now.

JohhnyD

From FB Group "Civil Air Patrol"

Recruiting and retention. We can, as a group do better.

I travel a lot and always try to visit, and even help, units at my various destinations. The experiences have been widely varied, both good and bad. I showed up at a gulf coast squadron one night, in senior pilot polo, and was greeted warmly by the commander. "You're a pilot! What are you checked out in and what for?" Everything and everything.  "Want to fly a sundown patrol tomorrow night, we'd love the help! Here's the lockbox code and you can take Rodney along as an MO to show  you our routes and comm procedures".
Juxtapose that against two different units in another state. Visited the first twice and NOT A SINGLE PERSON spoke to me out of the 20 or so in attendance unless I initiated the conversation. Then, during the meeting, they lamented about how hard it was to keep members and their critical shortage of pilots. "I" initiated a conversation with the commander and told him to ping me if they needed to crew a mission and needed a MP, MO or MS. The response floored me: "Pilots from other wings can't fly here unless you do a FULL F5, at your expense of course".
Was in another city in the same state and sent an email / left VM for every contact listed in the 'find a unit' page as well as the unit's FB page letting them know I'd be in town, with full kit, for a week and would be delighted to help out if needed. Crickets.


Guess which of the three units has NO PROBLEM finding and keeping people!


We, each of us, ARE the ambassadors for CAP!

Eclipse

Quote from: RiverAux on July 12, 2021, 12:32:32 AM1.  If someone is just an obvious toxic personality they won't get elected in the first place.

The last 8 or so years of presidential elections show that to be false, regardless of
which side of the aisle you are on.

"Bad" leaders are generally the ones you don't agree with, but regardless all it takes is a small number
of people to care enough to vote with a limited selection of candidates to wind up with "bad".

And with CAP often the election would make our AWOL friend Майор Хаткевич homesick.

"That Others May Zoom"

JohhnyD

One solution proposed - elections.

Any other solutions?

Holding Pattern

Unit Climate Surveys and Wing Climate Surveys.

RiverAux

Quote from: dwb on July 12, 2021, 12:28:01 PMIt's just a really hard problem when the modal unit is being held together by two or three seniors. Elections aren't going to fix that problem.

Well, that describes most units, but they usually have more members on the books that aren't quite as involved. 

I will say that elections may not work as well at cadet squadrons where it is common for there only to be a bare minimum number of senior members in the first place.

Quote from: Dwight Dutton on July 12, 2021, 01:25:25 PMWhat we now see is units disappearing for lack of anyone to command them, even when the position is open to anyone who will take it.  My own Division (equivalent to a CAP Group) has lost half its flotillas (equivalent to a squadron) since I joined in 2005.  And it had just just merged with another division.
CG Aux has other issues, but at least one of them isn't toxic leadership.  I have only heard of maybe 1-2 cases of that being a significant problem (based on discussions on a now-defunct board).

JohhnyD


JohhnyD

Quote from: RiverAux on July 12, 2021, 06:19:41 PM
Quote from: dwb on July 12, 2021, 12:28:01 PMIt's just a really hard problem when the modal unit is being held together by two or three seniors. Elections aren't going to fix that problem.

Well, that describes most units, but they usually have more members on the books that aren't quite as involved. 

I will say that elections may not work as well at cadet squadrons where it is common for there only to be a bare minimum number of senior members in the first place.

Quote from: Dwight Dutton on July 12, 2021, 01:25:25 PMWhat we now see is units disappearing for lack of anyone to command them, even when the position is open to anyone who will take it.  My own Division (equivalent to a CAP Group) has lost half its flotillas (equivalent to a squadron) since I joined in 2005.  And it had just just merged with another division.
CG Aux has other issues, but at least one of them isn't toxic leadership.  I have only heard of maybe 1-2 cases of that being a significant problem (based on discussions on a now-defunct board).
What are the average, mean and modal unit sizes?

Eclipse

Quote from: JohhnyD on July 12, 2021, 06:59:16 PM
Quote from: Holding Pattern on July 12, 2021, 06:16:18 PMUnit Climate Surveys and Wing Climate Surveys.
Hasn't that been done already?

Essentially meaningless.

There's no requirement that anyone respond.
The data is never shared.

"That Others May Zoom"

Holding Pattern

Quote from: JohhnyD on July 12, 2021, 06:59:16 PM
Quote from: Holding Pattern on July 12, 2021, 06:16:18 PMUnit Climate Surveys and Wing Climate Surveys.
Hasn't that been done already?

No. A single omnibus survey done once for the entire org is different than members informing their unit commander with the oversight of the next level of command and IG reviewing the data every 2 years.

Rinse and repeat at the wing level and region levels and we'll start to see some change.

JohhnyD

Quote from: Holding Pattern on July 12, 2021, 10:33:16 PM
Quote from: JohhnyD on July 12, 2021, 06:59:16 PM
Quote from: Holding Pattern on July 12, 2021, 06:16:18 PMUnit Climate Surveys and Wing Climate Surveys.
Hasn't that been done already?

No. A single omnibus survey done once for the entire org is different than members informing their unit commander with the oversight of the next level of command and IG reviewing the data every 2 years.

Rinse and repeat at the wing level and region levels and we'll start to see some change.
You appear to have more faith in the IG system than I do, but in essence, I agree with the idea.

coudano

I disagree that malevolent intent is requisite for toxic leadership.   I have observed and served under a number of leaders that I would describe as toxic who, I believe, believed they were doing the right and best thing.  Depending on how you look at things... they weren't actually even 'wrong'.  They were simply completely inconsiderate (to the negative impact) of people under them.  And failed to either establish positive environment and/or eliminate negative environment.  The end result is a leader who advances themself and their interests at the cost of the health and welfare of the people under them (although the leader isn't /intentionally/ harming his subordinates).

That's almost the worse kind of toxic leadership.  The leader who is intentionally malevolent is much easier to identify.  The 'accidental' or 'ignorant' toxic leader is far more dangerous in my opinion.



I agree with dwb (no surprise).  While CAP definitely has pockets of toxicity, CAP also has pockets of absolutely outstanding excellence.  And all sorts of everything in the middle.



I think the solution to toxic leadership is accountability.  If your people don't thrive and succeed, then neither should you.  It has not been my experience that senior leaders in CAP have been particularly proactive at seeking and destroying toxic leaders subordinate to them.

I do not hate the concept of anonymous 360 degree feedback.  However no system for accomplishing this exists.  It's doable but I don't see CAP prioritizing it soon.

As has already been alluded, we are having enough trouble keeping our head above water...  360 degree feedback and leadership accountability top to bottom and left to right are a few tiers up the maslow's heirarchy of organizational needs.

In the mean time, my proposal is that the best weapon against bad leadership is we need more people to do it right.  Problem is a lot of the good folks that would do great get ejected via toxicity.  We need to find ways to identify the good ones and prop them up and sustain them through a local sucky situation so they can make positive contributions on the other side.  It has not been my experience that CAP has been particularly proactive about seeking and promoting the positive behaviors, either.