Divorce and Spirituality

The Dangers of Toxic Followership in the Military

Lieutenant Commander Harrison Bergeron, USN

            “One day you will come to a fork in the road. And you're going to have to make a decision about what direction you want to go.  If you go that way you can be somebody. You will have to make compromises and you will have to turn your back on your friends. But you will be a member of the club and you will get promoted and you will get good assignments.  Or you can go that way and you can do something — something for your country and for your Air Force and for yourself. If you decide to do something, you may not get promoted and you may not get the good assignments and you certainly will not be a favorite of your superiors. But you won't have to compromise yourself. You will be true to your friends and to yourself. And your work might make a difference.  To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That's when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?"

                                                                                                            -Col. John Boyd, USAF¹

            Much has been written and discussed about toxic leaders.  In 2010, Captain Holly Graf, Commanding Officer of USS COWPENS (CG 63), was famously relieved of command for cruelty and maltreatment of her crew. Numerous stories then emerged about how she had exhibited much of the same toxic leadership while in command of USS WINSTON S. CHURCHIL (DDG 81) and even while serving as the Executive Officer of USS CURTIS D. WILBUR (DDG 54).²

            The coverage of CAPT Graf across a plethora of journalistic and social media illustrated the causes and consequences of toxic leadership.  But given the complexity of the world in which we live and operate, it is worth examining the causes and consequences of toxic followership.

We as an institution have a mandate to “graduate leaders who are dedicated to a career of naval service and have potential for future development of mind and character.”³ We also make it clear that one must follow in order to lead.  Even more, we also make it clear that leaders are still followers.  Some of us are leaders, but we are all followers.⁴ Thus, it is worth examining what toxic followership is, how to identify toxic followers, and understanding the causal factors that enable toxic followership.

            Toxic followership is, simply, the willful failure of a subordinate to support their superior.  This willful failure can become manifest in various forms.  The toxic follower is often the alienated follower who is a critical independent thinker who acts passively, becomes cynical, and descends into “disgruntled acquiescence.” ⁵ Leadership and Management Consultant Julius Babatunde describes 10 distinct types of toxic followers:

            1. Arrogance followers who feel superior to others.

            2. Victimhood followers who always blame others and never take responsibility

            3. Controlling followers who know best

            4. Envious followers who believe they should get all the good deals

            5. Liars

            6. Negative followers who are angry and resentful

            7. Greedy followers who want it all

            8. Judgmental followers who are quick to jump to conclusions

            9. Gossipers

            10. Character deficient followers who lack honesty and integrity⁶

I also believe there are “spotlight performers” who are one or more of the above types of toxic followers.  These are the people who will perform admirably whenever the boss is present, exhibiting the highest vertical loyalty.  These people will exhibit a gross lack of horizontal loyalty in the absence of their boss.

                        Identifying and managing a toxic follower is tricky.  A toxic follower often has an innate gift for knowing how to adapt to the situation.  The toxic follower is that person who will tell you all the right things.  They will complete tasking, even if they had to cut corners or act unethically while executing that tasking.  The toxic follower often will be charming and will frequently compliment you or laugh at all of your jokes.  You will very likely develop a liking of that toxic follower.  That toxic follower could lead you, as a leader, to shift your view power to a means to your own selfish desires and entitlements vice an instrument of service.⁷ Recall the old adage about how “absolute power corrupts absolutely”?

            Toxic followership happens because leadership enables it.  In the famous Milgram Shock Experiment, two thirds of test subjects complied with Dr. Milgram’s direction to increase the severity of the shocks despite the increased urgency of the “victim’s” screams.  Only one third refused to go farther.  This experiment revealed what Harvard Business School Dean Nitin Nohria refers to as “moral overconfidence,” which is the “gap between how people believe they would behave and how they actually behave.”⁸

            Even if, as Dr. Nohria suggests, we overestimate our inherent morality, it is plausible that most people join organizations for the correct reasons because they see themselves as being moral and ethical individuals.  In the early 2000’s, two large corporations collapsed in a rather spectacular fashion: WorldCom and Enron.  In the case of WorldCom, their CEO “ridiculed” and denied a proposal to institute a moral code while simultaneously pressuring his subordinates to deliver double-digit growth.⁹ At Enron, it was the same kind of top-down pressure to present impressive earnings to investors. ¹⁰ In both instances, the accountants “cooked the books” and both corporations declared bankruptcy.  The accountants knew they were wrong to falsify the numbers or to portray them in a misleading way, but they sacrificed their integrity under pressure.

           

            According to Dr. Daniel Kahneman, the human brain operates according to two systems: System 1 that operates automatically and quickly, and System 2 that required effort and the “subjective experience of agency, choice, and concentration.” ¹¹ In a perfect world, we are able to think rationally and, generally, are able to make morally and ethically correct decisions because we have the luxury of applying System 2.  When we are suddenly under pressure, System 1 will nearly always override System 2.

            The pressure that leads even the best of us to sacrifice integrity and act in an immoral or unethical way could be sudden or could be a long-festering issue.  Consider the Midshipman who, under pressure to pass a course, is caught looking at a neighbor’s laptop during an exam and who, under pressure, compounds the matter by lying.  We might ask if that Midshipman ever thought they would be entered into the Honor System when they came to Annapolis.  We might conclude that the Midshipman committed the Honor Violations under both the pressure to pass the exam and then the pressure to mitigate the first violation by lying about it.  The long-festering kind of pressure could be the way the military services promote their officers.  Officers eventually reach a point in their careers when they face ethical dilemmas and are faced with two options: to act with integrity and risk career damage, or to act in the manner that will preserve their promotability. ¹² 

Even within a system that lends itself to rewarding the “Yes People” over effective followers, leaders have the power to shape their organization’s climate and, by extension, the culture.  I have personally discovered two ways to combat toxic followership: have a critical view of your people (especially the one you like most), and create a climate where your people feel empowered to tell you the full truth regardless of what you might prefer to receive.  Prof. Lynn Offermann of George Washington University offers a more-extensive set of methods to counter toxic followership:

1. Keep vision and values front and center

2. Make sure people disagree

3. Cultivate truth tellers

4. Do as you would have done to you

5. Honor your intuition

6. Delegate, don’t desert¹³

            I frequently saw toxic followership during nearly twelve years of sea duty.  I saw I most during my second Division Officer tour in an old AUSTIN-class Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD).  In this particular ship, the Commanding Officer (an EA-6B pilot) was a “screamer.”  He never took bad news in stride.  I watched him practically destroy the table in the Wardroom Lounge when the Chief Engineer (Cheng) briefed him that we would need to delay getting underway on account of bad boiler feed water in the ship’s de-aerating feed tanks (DFT).  I watched him berate my fellow Junior Officers on the bridge over trivial matters.  He also frequently held open non-judicial punishment (NJP, “Captain’s Mast”) before the entire ship’s company, invariably screaming obscenities at the accused and destroying the wooden podium with his fists.

            While this particular CO was affable and even likeable when the machinery was humming along, the behavior he exhibited as described above made it so that the Junior Officers and Chiefs were afraid to tell him anything.  I was obtaining my Officer of the Deck, Underway qualification (OOD U/W) and standing an “under instruction” watch under a Senior Chief Quartermaster (QMCS).  Having read the Standing Orders that this CO signed, I knew that I had to call him to report vessels with a closest point of approach (CPA) and provide him with a contact report.  I called the CO and provided my contact report.  He thanked me and hung up.  The Senior Chief walked over to me and asked, “Sir, what the hell are you doing?  We never call the Captain unless it is a no-shit emergency.” 

I quickly earned my letter and eventually stood the OOD watch (and even became one of the CO’s most-trusted OODs).  As I progressed through the tour, I noticed none of the other OODs would call the CO.  They were exhibiting a classic characteristic of the toxic follower: willful withholding of information.  In this case, these OODs were more concerned with not being verbally assaulted by the CO than with standing a proper watch per that CO’s Standing Orders or the Navy’s Standard Organization and Regulations Manual (SORM).  Nonetheless, I stood my watches properly, made the right phone calls, got yelled at sometimes, but I stood the watch properly and encouraged the others to do so.

Another time where I encountered toxic followership was in one of my many Department Head tours.  This Hull Technician First Class (we’ll call him HT1 X) recently reported to the command from a Regional Maintenance Center where he (according to himself) was the best Quality Assurance Manager in the whole Navy.  He talked with enthusiasm and charisma and would regale anyone with his extensive knowledge. 

Roughly ten days into his shipboard tour, HT1 X was assigned with repairing a seawater flushing station in the vicinity of the Executive Officer’s (XO) cabin.  Sailors are required to conduct maintenance of all shipboard systems in accordance with the Maintenance Requirement Card (MRC) or applicable technical manual.  These instructions delineate in great detail the required parts and tools.  Being the self-anointed Navy’s Best QA expert, HT1 X took it upon himself to use a steel monkey wrench to loosen a large brass nut, causing severe gouging and rounding of the nut.  Once the flushing station was reassembled and verified operational, HT1 X sought out the ship’s Main Propulsion Assistant (MPA, LCDR A) and Cheng (LCDR B), both Limited Duty Officers (LDO) with nearly 30 years of service, to show off the amazing work he accomplished.  The ensuing show was epic.  He charismatically and enthusiastically bragged to LCDRs A and B about how he did such an awesome job at repairing this flushing station.  After about one minute of this, LCDR A cut him off and immediately proceeded to admonish HT1 X about his failure to use a proper wrench or at least a cloth to prevent metal-to-metal contact.  LCDR B chimed in.  Then HT1 X stated words to the effect that he had more QA experience than either of the LCDRs.  The ensuing one-way conversation was truly epic and the Engineering Department Leadership, as a result, kept a closer eye on HT1 X.

A third case where I encountered toxic followership was as a Department Head serving as the Navigator of a Multipurpose Amphibious Assault Ship (LHD).  I inherited a very toxic departmental climate.  I had Sailors who were lodging accusations against one another.  I had junior enlisted Sailors spreading rumors about their Chief.  I had a Sailor who was under investigation for misconduct against another member of the Department.  The Leading Petty Officer (LPO) was known to be spreading rampant gossip among the junior enlisted about First Class ranking boards, the investigation, and other things the junior Sailors did not need to know.  Upon realizing the seriousness of the situation, I called a departmental stand-down.  I explained to the entire Department that we would, from this point forward, strive to treat each other with dignity and respect and that no name-calling or unprofessional conduct would be tolerated.  I talked with my Chief and Division Officer privately and created a strategy to improve the morale.  I talked with each Sailor individually to address what I saw as their shortfalls.  The Chief and I made it clear to the LPO that future gossip could very well lead him to Captain's Mast.  Our proactive efforts to change the climate eventually resulted in significant climate improvements and we were able to curtail the toxic followership.

 The key, then, to combating toxic followership is twofold: identifying the causal factors that enable it and applying leadership resources to mitigate it.  We as leaders have the opportunity to shape our organizational climate to promote integrity.  We owe it to ourselves as leaders and to our subordinates (and our own bosses) to encourage truthfulness and transparency so that they feel empowered to feed us the full truth.  We also need to introspectively reflect on our own performance and perceptions so that we can identify the shortfalls of our subordinates and, more importantly, of ourselves.  It is worth the effort of self-examination to ensure we are neither letting our egos get the better of us and also to ensure that we are not becoming blind to the effects of toxic followership.

Endnotes

1. Andersen, Martin Edward, “How Col. John Boyd Beat the Generals (Saga of a Pentagon Revolutionary), Insight on the News, Vol. 18, No. 32, 2 Sep 2002, https://www.academia.edu/6592389/How_Col._John_Boyd_Beat_the_Generals_Saga_of_a_Pentagon_Revolutionary_

2. Waybright, Nicole, Long Way Out: A young woman’s journey of self-discovery and how she survived the Navy’s modern cruelty at sea scandal, a psychology memoir, SpeakPeace Press, 2016.

3. Academic Dean and Provost, United States Naval Academy, United States Naval Academy Faculty Handbook, 2 April 2015: 1-4.

4. Offermann, Lynn R., “When Followers Become Toxic,” Harvard Business Review, January 2004: 55

5. Maj. Boswell, Michael USAF, “Commentary: Toxic Followership: Who, what is it?” Royal Air Force Mildenhall Website, 29 May 2015, http://www.mildenhall.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/728695/commentary-toxic-followership-who-what-is-it/

6. Babatunde, Julius “10 Toxic Leaders You Should Avoid,” LinkedIn, 7 November 2014, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141107014049-271244331-10-toxic-followers-you-should-avoid/

7. Offermann: 57

8. Nohria, Nitin “You’re Not as Virtuous as You Think,” Washington Post, 15 October 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/youre-not-as-virtuous-as-you-think/2015/10/15/fec227c4-66b4-11e5-9ef3-fde182507eac_story.html?utm_term=.ec80d0d6a210

9. Offermann: 59

10. Nohria

11. Kahneman, Daniel.  Thinking Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011: 22

12. Schuhart, Russell.  “Now Hear This – Prepare For The ‘To Be Or To Do’ Moment.”  Proceedings. Vol. 144/12/1,378, December 2017, https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/ 2017-12/now-hear-this%E2%80%94prepare-be-or-do-moment

13. Offermann: 58