We have been talking about this for a decade now, at least since Colonel George Reed published his paper on toxic leadership in Military Review, an article that has fueled innumerable leadership journal clubs in and out of the military. It happens that in the ensuing years the military has been embroiled in a series of increasingly unpopular wars that have asked much of leaders at every level. It is very likely as General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said, that our system has favored “competence over character.” The need for short term results (within the two years or less of a short command tour) instead of an investment in the long term – including leader development – may be an unanticipated consequence. Regardless, senior military leaders are increasingly characterized in the press as toxic and displaying poor moral judgment.
Toxins are poisons. Toxic leaders poison those around them, particularly subordinates. One colleague of mine characterized a toxic leader he knew as an “equal opportunity yeller” who “used to spit and slobber” as he yelled at you. This is not a new trend. Fifteen years ago in his monograph on generational challenges in the officer corps, Dr. Leonard Wong referred to a common theme among young leaders, “They have lost faith with the senior leadership of the Army. They believe they [senior leaders] are either out of touch with reality or liars. We’re losing a generation of good leaders.” That was before 9/11.
An antidote is a substance which can counteract poisoning. The term derives from the Greek αντιδιδοναι (“antididonai,” “given against.”) The Good Book teaches “He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much” (Luke 16:10). Phillips Brooks, a nineteenth century American clergyman said, “Character is made in the small moments of our lives.” Continue reading

