Letters to the Editor of the Australian Army Journal

Dear Editor,

I am writing to comment on the article by Dr Jason Mazanov regarding how to deal with the aftermath of toxic leadership which appeared in the autumn edition of the Australian Army Journal (vol. XV, no. 1). Whilst it is disturbing to discover that toxic leaders / workplace psychopaths have migrated from Australian corporate and government workplaces to the Australian Army, it is encouraging to see that this issue is recognised and debated.

It is to be hoped that the Australian Army will investigate allegations of toxic leadership and re-educate toxic leaders, rather than covering up misdeeds. If the Australian Army fails to deal with toxic leaders and their aftermath, then it will be to its detriment. Those interested in toxic leadership should consult Dr John Clarke’s book Working with Monsters: How to Identify and Protect Yourself from the Workplace Psychopath.

It is my long-held belief that toxic leadership is one of the manifestations of the vestiges of the feudal system which exist in the Australian Army, and probably in all armies which have their roots in Western European culture. The existence of vestigial feudalism within Western armies should not be surprising, as the feudal system was designed to deliver military capability. Within the Australian Army, I believe, vestigial feudalism can be seen in both the officer promotion system and unit command. In the case of the officer promotion system, promotion to Lieutenant Colonel and above requires senior officers to ‘speak up’ for those displaying the potential for higher command. This system encourages those seeking promotion to seek a sponsor or mentor. In return for sponsorship, the candidate pledges allegiance to the sponsor, supporting him or her in their struggles with the higher levels of Army bureaucracy.

Unit command provides an officer with the opportunity to exercise his or her command presence within their unit. Good commanders encourage and train their units and leave the unit in better shape than they found it in. Unfortunately, in an Army where results count, toxic leaders manage up. They deliver for their formation commander, but often at high cost to their unit. The power available to unit commanders allows them to reward followers and punish those who do not share their vision/methods.

Rewards may include deployments, course nominations, plum postings etc. Punishments may include over-tasking, denial of opportunities to deploy, denial of opportunities to undertake courses, and unfavourable postings. Some toxic leaders go to great lengths to ensure that their opponents cannot get a hearing outside the unit.

The adverse impact of toxic leadership can be immense. High morale is a combat multiplier. Poor morale reduces unit efficiency and effectiveness. I believe that formation personnel staff can play a critical role in identifying toxic leadership. Indications of poor morale in a peacetime setting may include high levels of illness, low rates of Army Individual Readiness Notice (AIRN) compliance, high numbers of requests for transfer, and a high level of applications for discharge. When formation personnel staff see a unit displaying higher than normal levels of illness, AIRN noncompliance, requests for transfer and requests for discharge, they should investigate. Data like this is not merely collected for reporting purposes! Once toxic leadership is identified, the toxic leader should, if possible, be re-educated and the unit repaired/rebuilt along the lines suggested by Dr Mazanov.

I congratulate you on publishing Dr Mazanov’s article, which I hope will contribute to a debate on how to deal with toxic leadership in the Australian Army.

Yours sincerely,

Jim Sinclair 
Lieutenant Colonel