Toxic Leadership in the Canadian Armed Forces

The Canadian Armed Forces do not have a monopoly on foolish leaders, sociopaths, tyrants, or people lacking emotional intelligence. They can be found leading large companies, directing schools, heading major hospitals, and even within the church, basically wherever they can climb the ranks. The Canadian Armed Forces are not exempt from this problem of toxic leadership. I would even argue that the Canadian Armed Forces, due to their strict and highly regimented nature, provide an environment conducive to toxic leadership.

For the first time on this blog, I took the time to interview several people in order to write this article. The process was easy: everyone wants to talk about their experience under a toxic leader. Through these testimonials, I tried to better define what is meant by toxic leadership. I also wondered what causes a leader to become toxic. Finally, I attempt to provide some solutions to eliminate this scourge.

Defining Toxic Leadership

Leadership can be defined as the art of influencing human behavior. There are formal leaders (those who have received « authority ») and informal leaders (those who have charisma or a natural gift for influencing others). There are positive leaders and negative leaders.

« A positive leadership attempts to maintain a friendly and warm working climate within the team in order to bring out the best in each of its members. Negative leadership, on the other hand, influences the members of his team through judgment, negativity, opposition, or disinterest in the project. » (source: HEC).

At one end of the positive-negative leadership spectrum is the toxic leader. What distinguishes them from negative leaders? In my interpretation, a leader becomes toxic when the unhealthy influence they have on their personnel has severe impacts outside the workplace.

The Dark Triad

Psychologists have identified three traits that make up the sinister « dark triad of toxicity »: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy.

The Narcissist

Narcissists need to see themselves as the best in everything. They don’t seek to elevate the people around them; they only seek to elevate themselves by belittling others. Despite this, they are convinced that they are good leaders, that they are humane. To convince themselves of their benevolence, they sometimes say good words to their staff. They do it because they keep what I call « the book of the perfect platoon commander » closely guarded. They have learned what they should say – « take care of yourself, seek a good work-life balance, it’s not a sprint but a marathon, you need to think about yourself too, etc. » – but they are fundamentally incapable of applying these fine principles. They are tyrants, their true nature remains. Narcissists don’t end up in therapy: they send others to therapy.

The intelligent toxic leader know that they need certain key people to achieve their goals: these are often their inner circle. To ensure their loyalty, they charm them, cajole them, they treat them like royalty. But these people can never leave the organization because they are responsible for the tyrant’s success. In the long run, they too must forget their dreams and ambitions. This is commonly called a « punishment for success ».

The Machiavellian

The Machiavellian leader – an adjective derived from Niccolò Machiavelli’s work « The Prince, » published in the 16th century – uses multiple stratagems to achieve their ends. For them, the end justifies the means entirely. They will not hesitate to regularly throw their colleagues or subordinates under the bus. Why do they target their peers and subordinates? Because they pose direct threats to their power; these are the men and women who could want to take their place or, worse, snatch away the position they covet at the higher level.

Machiavellian leaders tend to assess the people they work with very quickly. Like on the Tinder app, they quickly swipe left or right depending on whether they judge a person competent or incompetent, or rather, useful or detrimental to their goals. And they don’t spare those who swipe the wrong way. Some will even go to great lengths to ensure that those they consider weak or detrimental are not considered for promotion. They won’t hesitate to call their superiors about them to ensure they don’t have an equal chance compared to their peers. They engage in a real undermining, which is defined by actions carried out more or less secretly to destroy someone.

The Psychopath

« The personality traits associated with psychopathy include a lack of empathy or remorse, antisocial behavior, and being manipulative and unstable. It is important to note that there is a distinction between psychopathic traits and being a psychopath, commonly associated with criminal violence » (Source: MindTools). There are psychopaths in all armies, but generally, we do a pretty good job of identifying and eliminating them. Nevertheless, some leaders exhibit the personality traits mentioned above. When we think of a psychopathic leader in uniform, we generally think of a sergeant yelling in a soldier’s face, but it’s much more insidious.The toxic leader denigrates, belittles, plays on emotions, and erodes trust slowly. They don’t just shout once; they consistently rant. For those who constantly receive their insults, it’s death by a thousand cuts.

Beyond the character traits associated with the dark triad, there are other characteristics of toxic leaders. For example, some toxic leaders hide a significant lack of self-confidence under their tyrant facade. To mask their fear, they constantly yell, without realizing that yelling is losing one’s composure, a sign of weakness. They believe they are protected by a shell, but in reality, they wear a tactical vest filled with mines and grenades that sow chaos in the ranks. It’s not an armor they wear; it’s an arsenal.

In light of what we’ve seen, it appears that toxic leaders need to feel better than others, they need attention, they need to belittle, or even crush. In short, they don’t just break careers; they go as far as breaking lives.

Impact on the Organization

A toxic leader gets results quickly, which reinforces their belief that they are using the right approach. In the short term, the technique works, that’s undeniable. However, in the long run, they cause immeasurable damage, leaving behind what I call a « trail of destruction »: shattered careers, personnel in therapy, individuals completely jaded and cynical, and sometimes shattered lives. To quote a friend who is an officer, a toxic leader:

« …manipulates, lies, humiliates you, abuses their power, verbally assaults you, denigrates you, corrupts your environment with lies about you, harms your career, envies you, is jealous of you to the point of making you lose confidence in the chain of command, isolates you, and slowly destroys you, creating impacts at all levels: mental, physical, emotional, etc. »

Another friend wrote to me that, during his deployment in Afghanistan, his superior « tested and broke his resilience. » These are strong words, coming from a senior officer in combat arms. We are taught everywhere to create an environment where subordinates can develop. Nevertheless, there are still leaders who seek to demolish those they deem lacking the necessary skills to lead.

Toxic leaders eventually establish an unhealthy climate within their team, a climate of « every man for himself. » This leads subordinates to experience anxiety and, sometimes, depression. Peers no longer take the time to inquire about the mental health of their teammates because there is no team spirit. Sometimes, there isn’t even a team. Like the leader who is the chief intimidator, some subordinates become bullies themselves. You quickly choose your side: the strong weigh down on the weak. Everyone says to themselves, « I won’t let myself be trampled on anymore; now I’ll be the one trampling on others. »

Why Are Toxic Leaders Sometimes Rewarded?

Why, knowing all this, are toxic leaders rewarded? Firstly, part of the blame must be attributed to the regimental system (or its equivalent in other services/environments). Regiments quickly identify their favorites, the chosen ones, those who will rise to the rank of general. These individuals are identified very early, even during training phases. Too often, those selected are the ones who speak loudly, have attitude, a big ego, in short, those considered to have « the look for the job. » Then, the regiment pushes them forward and, if necessary, sweeps their small missteps under the rug. What happens if the regiment is wrong? It still pushes forward because admitting you’re wrong is worse than pulling a candidate out of the race.

Toxic leaders are also pushed upward because they are generally effective, very effective even. With a toxic leader, you walk on eggshells. You strive to give 100% of yourself, especially at the beginning, because you want to avoid the ground suddenly disappearing from beneath you. But these leaders are not just demanding; you can be demanding without being a jerk. No, they don’t just demand; they break their personnel to a point of no return. They squeeze the fruit until the seeds and core are crushed.

In the long run, the entire organization loses out. Firstly, the toxic leader exhausts their personnel. Secondly, without necessarily rebelling openly, subordinates increasingly keep their good ideas to themselves. A good leader fosters ideas, while a bad leader believes they have a monopoly on good ideas. Over time, their staff engage in what I call « passive resistance. » Some will even go as far as sabotaging a project if they believe they can do so with impunity. The toxic leader thinks they are getting the most juice possible when, in reality, they are shooting themselves in the foot. Instead of seeing effectiveness in toxic leadership, the chain of command should realize that tyrants don’t think about common success; they only envision their own success. The institutional problem with this approach is that another leader will succeed the toxic one and inherit a completely drained and demoralized unit.

I am aware that much more is demanded of military personnel than civilians; in fact, it’s one of the few areas of employment where the ultimate sacrifice can be asked. I am also aware that troops must be toughened to prepare them for the brutality of combat, a concept called toughening. I believe strongly in toughening. It’s an essential process for creating fighters. Troops are toughened through training and exercises; the leadership model exercised during these trainings and exercises is necessarily tough, severe, and intense. But it’s possible to be very demanding without falling into abuse, denigration, and harassment. The line between severe authority and abuse is thin, but it exists, and one must always be aware of it. You can be feared and respected as a leader without being hated (for those who appreciate the teachings of Machiavelli).

How to Prevent Toxic Leadership

How can toxic leadership be prevented? Here is a non-exhaustive list:

Initially, supervisors who become aware of a toxic leader under their command must show managerial courage and take the necessary steps to restore the climate.

Conduct more psychometric assessments and 360-degree evaluations where subordinates are asked to assess leadership.

Assign caring mentors to promising officers and non-commissioned officers to help them develop suitable leadership styles.

Conduct organizational climate surveys to obtain employees’ perceptions and perspectives. These surveys address attitudes and concerns that help the organization work with employees to bring about positive changes.

Invest in personal development (soft skills) and raise awareness among leaders about emotional intelligence.

Bring in leaders from outside at various ranks (for example, a business leader becomes a lieutenant colonel), an idea from retired American General Stanley McChrystal that remains quite controversial but is worth considering.

Integrate unions into the ranks, as done by the police and some foreign armies, to prevent abuses and avoid rash decisions. Another controversial but certainly effective proposal.

Conclusion

When I went through my infantry officer training, I was instilled with this simple phrase: Mission First, Men Second. Toxic leaders only apply the first half of this motto. Fortunately, mindsets have changed over time. We now say Mission First, People Always. One of the undisputed « truths » of special forces is that « humans are more important than equipment. » We realized that humans were central to the enterprise and that they could break like a piece of equipment.

Once, narcissism was sometimes confused with efficiency and arrogance with leadership. Fortunately, times are changing. Trainings on diversity, harassment, and concerns about integrating LGBTQ+ members, for example, are being provided. In recent years, people have also become more outspoken. There is less hesitation to escalate abuses of toxic leaders to higher levels of command.

The more these leaders are eliminated, at all levels, the fewer bad role models are offered to junior officers and non-commissioned officers. There is hope.