4/3/22, 12:40 TOXIC LEADERSHIP OR TOUGH LOVE: DOES THE U.S. MILITARY KNOW THE DIFFERENCE?

ERENCE? - War Room - U.S. Army War…

War Room – U.S. Army War College <

https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/> —
Creative Thinking about
National Security and Defense

TOXIC LEADERSHIP OR TOUGH LOVE: DOES

THE U.S. MILITARY KNOW THE DIFFERENCE?
Michael Piellusch < https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/author/michael-piellusch/>
August 25, 2017 < https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/toxic-leadership-tough-love-u-
s-military-know-difference/>
1 Comment < https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/toxic-leadership-tough-love-u-s-
military-know-difference/#comments>

https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/toxic-leadership-tough-love-u-s-military-know-difference/ 1/8
4/3/22, 12:40 TOXIC LEADERSHIP OR TOUGH LOVE: DOES THE U.S. MILITARY KNOW THE DIFFERENCE? - War Room - U.S. Army War…

a Facebook < https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?

u=https%3A%2F%2Fwarroom.armywarcollege.edu%2Farticles%2Ftoxic-leadersh
difference%2F&t=TOXIC+LEADERSHIP+OR+TOUGH+LOVE%3A+DOES+THE

d Twitter

k LinkedIn < https://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?

mini=true&ro=true&trk=EasySocialShareButtons&title=TOXIC+LEADERSHIP+
leadership-tough-love-u-s-military-know-difference%2F>

The military censures toxic leadership

where it is found, but it can be difficult to
recognize such misconduct, unlike more
actionable offenses that are easier to
identify. What constitutes good or bad
leadership often lies open to
interpretation.
Is the U.S. military confusing toxic leadership with tough love? Does it know
the difference between abusive versus firm — but effective — leadership? In
the last 15 years, dozens of leaders have been relieved for cause, including five
Marine commanders < http://www.military.com/daily-
news/2017/08/08/commanders-fired-marines-police-
mistreatment-women-ranks.html> for having inappropriate “command
climates”; a Navy commander < http://www.military.com/daily-
news/2015/09/07/navy-commander-hospitalized-after-fist-fight-
relieved-of-duty.html> who was in a fist fight; 41 lieutenant colonels or
higher (to include two general officers) who were court-martialed <
http://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2015/02/02/129-
army-battalion-brigade-commanders-fired-since-2003/> for various
offenses; and an Air Force lieutenant general <
http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/467284/20th-air-
force-commander-relieved-of-command/> , relieved for undisclosed
reasons after 35 years of otherwise commendable service.

One would hope the U.S. military has learned valuable lessons from the fates
of its fallen comrades. Ironically, many of the leaders in question probably
thought they were exceeding expectations until censured. Instead, many

https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/toxic-leadership-tough-love-u-s-military-know-difference/ 2/8
4/3/22, 12:40 TOXIC LEADERSHIP OR TOUGH LOVE: DOES THE U.S. MILITARY KNOW THE DIFFERENCE? - War Room - U.S. Army War…

probably terrorized subordinates and frustrated supervisors. Has the U.S.

military learned from their mistakes? Is it moving forward with a more
enlightened perspective as to what good leadership is?

Shortly after General Martin Dempsey became the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, he shared his concerns <
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-
security/army-worries-about-toxic-leaders-in-
ranks/2011/06/25/AGThw4kH_story.html?
utm_term=.fb4c2dbb28d3> about “toxic” leaders in the military. One
senior leader defined them as tending to “belittle others” rather than building
them up; thus creating an unhealthy climate. Army Doctrine Publication
6-22 < https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/adp6_22.pdf> describes
toxic leadership as a complex state which includes elements of “self-centered
attitudes, motivations, and behaviors,” as well as “an inflated sense of self-
worth,” and actions that “deceive, intimidate, coerce, or unfairly punish
others” for selfish ends. Such leaders have a negative impact on subordinates
and their organizations, large or small. Poisonous tendencies need an antidote
to neutralize toxicity, but not all leaders who are tough are necessarily toxic by
nature. The military must be careful to discern between the two. If it does not,
it could lose some of its finer leaders.

The military censures toxic leadership where it is found, but it can be difficult
to recognize such misconduct, unlike more actionable offenses that are easier
to identify. What constitutes good or bad leadership often lies open to
interpretation. It is not even clear to many who read classic works on the
subject.

For example, many leaders have read Niccol Machiavelli’s The Prince <
https://web.archive.org/web/20190407195030/https://constitutio
n.org/mac/prince.pdf> , a work frequently misinterpreted. One of
Machiavelli’s recurring themes is to emulate the actions of great men. His
book advises that, “A wise man ought always to follow the paths beaten by
great men, and to imitate those who have been the best, so that if his ability
does not equal theirs, at least it will have some traces of it.” Some leaders seem
to equate “great” with “ruthless,” a term not found in an English translation of
The Prince; yet, it is the very adjective most frequently <
http://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/what-can-you-learn-
machiavelli> used to describe Machiavelli’s approach to leadership. It may
be his own fault, given a question he poses in Chapter 17, as to “whether it be
better to be loved than feared.” His answer, given the rare ability of any leader
to be both was, “it is much safer to be feared than loved.” With such confusion

https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/toxic-leadership-tough-love-u-s-military-know-difference/ 3/8
4/3/22, 12:40 TOXIC LEADERSHIP OR TOUGH LOVE: DOES THE U.S. MILITARY KNOW THE DIFFERENCE? - War Room - U.S. Army War…

about the truth of what good leadership is, what are some enduring lessons for
us?

Certainly, one lesson is that the military must eliminate flagrantly toxic
leaders; but, has it also perhaps purged others who had a flair for theatrics,
but who were nevertheless fair and firm? Machiavelli advises us to observe
and obtain knowledge from (and about) great men. History provides many
role models of leaders who were influential and strong without being toxic, or
perfect.

Leaders within the U.S. military services

are carefully chosen and selectively pro-
moted on their merits, yet the process of-
ten lacks an accurate assessment of their
inner characters.
Generals George Patton, “Black Jack” Pershing, and William Tecumseh
Sherman were all imperfect leaders. If they were serving today, might any of
their careers have been shortened under the increasingly deep scrutiny of the
modern-day toxicity police? A balance between the apoplectic and the
apathetic must be sought, but where exactly the military draws the line is
critical. Anger spiked with “toxicity” needs to be eliminated, but passion
arising from strong convictions can often be marshaled into great
accomplishments and should not be confused with the former. Nevertheless,
some leaders may be advised to attend anger management training out of
concern for those whom they lead or live with. But not addressing the other
extreme of individuals, who are cold and calculating types, is surely of equal
concern.

Misconduct at either extreme needs to be identified and dealt with, regardless

of rank. During the Second World War, General Dwight D. Eisenhower <
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/twogeneral.a
spx> (“Ike”) was upset by General Patton’s having slapped more than one
soldier under his care. Eisenhower, who had earned General Patton’s trust,
responded with an ultimate form of “tough love” toward Patton: he reassigned
him — away from command.

A leader can be both strong and remarkable without being toxic or abusive.
Like “Ike,” the military’s most senior and most seasoned leaders need to
model equilibrium between the military’s cultural DNA code of “do not abuse”

https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/toxic-leadership-tough-love-u-s-military-know-difference/ 4/8
4/3/22, 12:40 TOXIC LEADERSHIP OR TOUGH LOVE: DOES THE U.S. MILITARY KNOW THE DIFFERENCE? - War Room - U.S. Army War…

and a wise application of tough love. Leaders at all levels can benefit from
applying time-proven practices in effective leadership to guide them. I offer
three: displaying servant leadership; maintaining ethical boundaries; and
demonstrating operational strength.

Servant Leadership

Servant leadership entails genuine regard for service members, civilians, and
their families. For almost 50 years now, Robert K. Greenleaf’s <
https://www.greenleaf.org/what-is-servant-leadership/> (and
others’) writings about the concept of servant leadership have inspired Army
leadership doctrine and values. In particular, the concept of selfless service is
a reflection of servant leadership. Generals Washington, Grant, and Marshall
all provide historical examples of senior leaders who answered the call to
civilian service when retirement would have provided them an easier choice,
with laurels and leisure besides. Those men epitomized the opposite of toxic
behavior. Each in his own way took care of service members and was stalwart
and mission-oriented, without displaying much ego.

Ethics-bound Leadership

Invoking the British Lord Nelson’s <

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/nelson_admiral_h
oratio_lord.shtml> renowned practice of “turning a blind eye <
https://www.aao.org/senior-
ophthalmologists/scope/article/admiral-horatio-nelson-failing-
eyesight-napoleon> ” toward an offense or omission is sometimes
justifiable. He developed a reputation for bold leadership and probably
believed that begging for forgiveness is sometimes easier than pleading for
permission. An ethical leader knows where to draw the boundary line between
circumventing certain “by the book” bureaucrats of the type found in W. E. B.
Griffin < http://www.webgriffin.com/home.html> novels (and who
appear in everyday military life) and those in authority who commit serious
ethical breaches, such as the My Lai Massacre <
http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/my-lai-massacre> .
Ethical judgment is critical in preserving Army values such as honor and
integrity. Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson, who stopped the 1968 attack on
unarmed villagers, provides a great leadership example; his superiors, who
tried to cover up the crime, do not. Good leaders need to emulate the likes of
Nelson, Thompson, and others who perpetuate a culture of doing what is right
as an antidote to the sometimes poisonous practice of “just following orders,”
even when those orders may be wrong or even criminal.

Operationally-strong Leadership

https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/toxic-leadership-tough-love-u-s-military-know-difference/ 5/8
4/3/22, 12:40 TOXIC LEADERSHIP OR TOUGH LOVE: DOES THE U.S. MILITARY KNOW THE DIFFERENCE? - War Room - U.S. Army War…

Demonstrating operationally-strong leadership presents perhaps the greatest

risk for leaders, who might appear to be toxic for doing so. From boot camp
hallways at inspection time to the ever-changing dimensions of the
battlespace, military life requires adaptable and strong leadership. Strength, of
course, can be measured in many ways. Convictions, personal courage, and
depth of character are three different ways of looking at strength. Lieutenant
General Patton was perhaps our greatest battlefield commander, but he was
tragically unsympathetic toward post-traumatic stress disorder (combat
fatigue), which weakened his legacy as a great leader, regardless of his success
in the fight. Operationally-strong leadership entails strength on two fronts, on
the battlefield and in one’s spirit.

Times may have changed dramatically, but great leadership retains a

multiplicity of timeless dimensions. Leaders within the U.S. military services
are carefully chosen and selectively promoted on their merits, yet the process
often lacks an accurate assessment of their inner characters, which turns upon
convictions and values, as well as the leaders’ depths of compassion for others.
Again, not all anger is malign; not all reserve is productive. And an
organizational mandate to “not abuse” is not comprehensive enough to
distinguish the toxic leaders from the tough (but essentially caring) ones.
Knowing the difference between which leaders dispense poison and which
ones display poise, is a skill that the military would be wise to hone.
Evaluating leaders with a view towards identifying their true character should
yield more of the right kinds of leaders that the military needs. Its service
members deserve nothing less.

Michael Piellusch is a contractor serving in the Office of the Administrative

Assistant to the Secretary of the Army. The views expressed in this article do
not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Army War College, U.S. Army, or
Department of Defense.

Photo: Lt. Gen. George S. Patton Jr.

Photo Credit: U.S. Army Signal Corps (photographer uncredited)

https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/toxic-leadership-tough-love-u-s-military-know-difference/ 6/8
4/3/22, 12:40 TOXIC LEADERSHIP OR TOUGH LOVE: DOES THE U.S. MILITARY KNOW THE DIFFERENCE? - War Room - U.S. Army War…

a Facebook < https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?

u=https%3A%2F%2Fwarroom.armywarcollege.edu%2Farticles%2Ftoxic-leadersh
difference%2F&t=TOXIC+LEADERSHIP+OR+TOUGH+LOVE%3A+DOES+THE

d Twitter

k LinkedIn < https://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?

mini=true&ro=true&trk=EasySocialShareButtons&title=TOXIC+LEADERSHIP+
leadership-tough-love-u-s-military-know-difference%2F>

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

Anonymous
June 26, 2021 at 3:56 pm < https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/toxic-leadership-tough-love-u-s-
military-know-difference/#comment-135809>

Thank you for sharing. I’m reading this article several years late, but it resonates right
now with the recent events on the abuse of power by the ex-USS Forrest Sherman CO,
Frank Azzarello. Having served under him, I can vouch for each and every comment
made about his leadership and how he treated subordinates. Like a grade-school bully,
he would isolate his victims, then reprimand for every little thing they did wrong with-
out an avenue to correct themselves. When the victim would ask for help, he would rep-
rimand some more either formally, verbally, and/or physically through hard pokes or
raising his hand as if about to strike. All the while, this would overshadow his own er-
rors in judgment that nearly cost lives. The result, a wolf in sheep’s clothing that tricked
his own leadership into thinking that he was a rising star.

I’m sad to say that I have to keep this anonymous. I still have emotional trauma from
those days that I work through each and every day, but hope that articles like yours
shine a light on the need for military leaders to rise up to the challenge of eliminating
toxic leadership practices in our nation’s armed forces.

https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/toxic-leadership-tough-love-u-s-military-know-difference/ 7/8
4/3/22, 12:40 TOXIC LEADERSHIP OR TOUGH LOVE: DOES THE U.S. MILITARY KNOW THE DIFFERENCE? - War Room - U.S. Army War…

War Room – U.S. Army War College < https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/> ,

Proudly powered by
WordPress. < https://wordpress.org/>

https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/toxic-leadership-tough-love-u-s-military-know-difference/ 8/8