Things Change, Things Stay the Same
The intractable problem of toxic leadership, and why it keeps thriving
I was digging through some old files recently and came across a darkly fascinating detail from times past … one which demonstrates two things.
That as much as some things have changed in the Air Force in a decade, some things haven’t changed much at all.
That this isn’t a surprise, because when you don’t deal properly with a problem, it can be expected to repeat.
Back in summer of 2013, Col. Smokey Robinson handed over command of the wing at Little Rock Air Force Base to Col. Patrick Rhatigan.
By all accounts, the wing was in good shape at that point. Robinson was then and remains now an exceptional leader of the highest standard. His forte has always been building and developing teams. I say this as someone having been on his teams multiple times, and hereby publish my bias.
For whatever reason, his successor didn’t agree the wing was in good shape. His actions prove it.
In his first eight months in command, Col. Rhatigan fired three of Little Rock’s squadron commanders and one of its operations officers.
We don’t know why. The standard “loss of confidence” rationale was wheeled out at the time. But not even those relieved understood why.
None of them were in any disciplinary trouble. There were no findings of misconduct.
Just four highly-regarded officers in positions of public trust who suddenly had their careers ended. Four leaders in their roles based on an organizational decision discarded on the basis of an individual preference.
I wrote extensively about one of those firings back in 2014. I won’t recount everything I learned and exposed here, but suffice to say there was plenty of evidence that Col. Rhatigan was a toxic leader.
One of the fired commanders raised a complaint to the Inspector General (IG). In that complaint, he recounted several examples of ways Rhatigan had created a hostile command climate.
One particular excerpt from that report stands out:
“On 6 Nov 2013, during an [Airman Leadership School graduation ceremony], Col. Rhatigan crooked his finger at me in order to call me across the room. He wanted to talk to me about a TSgt from [my squadron] who was on a shaving waiver. He forced me to make the TSgt leave the event.”
Even within the range of behaviors we might call toxic, this is really bad.
A commander using his authority to eject someone from an event with their team, an event they paid to attend, not for any valid reason. But because the commander didn’t like the way they looked.
Imagine the embarrassment and dejection for that airman. Rhatigan’s actions lack any trace of empathy for how the imposition of his preference will make someone else feel. In this case, someone he’s been entrusted to lead and support.
There are two reasons this matters.
(1) , this incident was reported to the IG. This should have and hopefully did result in Rhatigan’s conduct being made visible at higher headquarters. Though admittedly, IGs are there to protect the chain of command rather than hold it accountable.
Throughout 2014, I was one of many publicly imploring generals at Air Mobility Command (AMC) to notice and do something about the mess at Little Rock. Rhatigans serial firings and myriad other actions had crushed morale and left the previously strong wing an unstable and dishevelled mess.
AMC could not deny being aware of the problem because I made sure they knew, as did the IG report and actions by many others.
The command did nothing in response. Rhatigan was not investigated, suspended, or disciplined. He was permitted to ride out his command tour and retire with a document saying he served honorably as a Colonel.
Those subject to his toxicity absorbed the consequences and made out much worse.
The message was clear: toxic leadership will be tolerated.
The command shrugged it off. Didn’t take it seriously.
(2), because it was tolerated, it continues to the present day.
It was only a few weeks ago that a Chief Master Sergeant at Langley, soliciting nominations for an excellent-performing airman to be recognized during a Chief of Staff visit, forbade anyone on a shaving waiver from being nominated.
He deemed this “the price of the waiver.”
That, my friends, is toxic.
Everyone is entitled to a personal opinion on whether the Air Force should allow airmen to grow beards or not.
But in the meantime, airmen are permitted (and where good leadership exists, encouraged) to seek a waiver in cases where shaving causes them a painful skin condition which can lead to permanent facial scarring.
It is perfectly acceptable to expect airmen to obey the process of obtaining a waiver if they need to grow a beard for medical reasons.
It is toxic to punish or marginalize airmen who follow that process, and as a result, look different than some individual prefers them to look.
Now, in this recent case, after a social media kerfuffle, Gen. David Allvin made his own decision about who to recognize. And that airman happened to be a superior performer who is also on a shaving waiver.
I believe this was intended at least partially as a signal that the service disapproved of the approach taken by the Chief at Langley.
It sets a strong example.
But it’s not enough. That Chief also needs to be dealt with, and the blast radius of that accountability needs to be big enough to foster deterrence.
Otherwise we will be back here discussing another example.
Toxic leadership is not just about leaders yelling or being openly hostile.
We associate toxicity with leaders who belittle or demean people, kick people out of meetings, or threaten to fire people over minor issues.
It can be much more subtle than that.
It happens when a leader's self-obsession uses an organization as a psychic playground.
The leader's preferences become commandments. The team becomes an extension of their persona.
The leader's ideas become scripture. The team is a vehicle to parade their intellectual vanity.
The leader's need to control extends to every issue, large and small. They need control not just to feel empowered enough to compensate for their own insecurities, but to ensure the organization reflects their own appetites and whimsies.
The organization is there for the leader's gratification.
And when any of this is questioned or resisted, it will be taken as a threat.
Threats will be dealt with using total measures. The challenger will be fired, transferred, or simply marginalized and isolated into irrelevance.
So, when a parent command or corporate headquarters is noticing inordinate numbers of previously well-regarded people being fired or marginalized, it’s time for senior leaders and executives to get curious.
Charles Dickens wrote that "it is an old prerogative of kings to govern everything but their passions."
Placing power-seeking egotists in charge of organizations is an invitation to toxicity.
People who seek responsibility are leaders. People who seek power are not.
People whose charisma and connection help them support a team are leaders. People whose ego needs the constant stroking of positional superiority are not.
People with strong moral convictions and backbone are leaders. People who disguise their personal preferences as convictions in order to strangle dissent are not.
This all seems clear to many of us, even most of us.
And yet, companies and military organizations get it wrong all the time.
Many of you reading this will be thinking to yourselves that if this is the definition of toxic leadership, then toxicity is pervasive in our commercial and public organizations.
Most of the leaders we encounter seem more focused on themselves than serving their teams.
Until we start promoting differently, this will continue.
Promotion systems measure operational and business results. They sometimes consider education. They decide how much someone’s performance seems to resemble that of others who succeeded at the next level.
They do all of this in an attempt to measure potential.
What they don’t do is assess and promote based on character.
Until they do, toxicity will continue.
TC is an independent writer, speaker, coach, and consult on organizational leadership. He is an accomplished senior leader with more than three decades in the arena in military and commercial organizations, and holds graduate degrees in law, strategy, and management.