Willie Fortes, right, and Briza Covarrubias, left, humiliate actress Cassandra Babcock who plays sexually assaulted victim during skit performed by Pure Praxis group aboard Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii, November 4, 2015 (U.S. Marine Corps/Jonathan E. LopezCruet)
Toxic Culture Enabling Incivility in the U.S. Military and What to Do About It
By Kenneth Williams
ore values are the heart and soul practice of which creates organizational impact, cost, tolerance, enabling, of U.S. military Services and culture. Yet even with the emphasis on and reduction of toxicity. This article C their cultures. Military organi- core values such as respect and selfless applies private-sector research to assess zational, strategic, operational, and service, the Department of Defense DOD policies and practices and to rec- tactical strength lies in the degree to (DOD) continues to experience toxic ommend courses of action. Although which the Services’ systems, processes, and counterproductive behaviors that the implications and cost of toxicity are and behaviors of personnel align with sabotage culture and values, as well as beyond the scope of this article, a brief their stated core values, the collective performance, productivity, force protec- discussion is relevant for demonstrating tion, health, readiness, and actions of its significance. Private-sector research personnel.1 Although DOD has not has identified relationships between conducted comprehensive research toxic behaviors and adverse effects on Chaplain (Colonel) Kenneth Williams, USA, is a Senior Military Fellow in the Department of Ethics on toxic behavior, there is extensive mental and physical health (including at the National Defense University. private-sector research regarding the suicide, stress-related illness, and post-
JFQ 87, 4th Quarter 2017 Williams 57 traumatic stress), increasing demands of others, either aggressively or passively, the environmental factors in its culture, on an already overburdened healthcare in the name of high performance on policies, and systems that are creating system; job satisfaction and commit- the surface, but with the goal of self- the conditions for the toxicity to flour- ment; individual and collective perfor- advancement, resulting in the sabotage ish.13 This is like a gardener failing to mance (cognition and collaboration); of interpersonal and organizational trust. prepare the soil in advance of planting employee turnover; and the creation of Toxic personnel are experts in manag- by removing all rocks and unwanted an organizational culture that tolerates ing upward, simultaneously giving the vegetation, only later to pull weeds one other inappropriate behaviors including appearance of high performance to their by one. Within DOD, what are the sexual harassment and discrimination.2 supervisors while abusing others to get rocks and weeds—the factors that create In addition to the impact on direct ahead.10 In other words, they kiss up and a toxic culture? targets of toxicity, research has identi- kick down. A common misconception Leaders often take a strong stance fied the transmission of adverse effects is defining a toxic person as explosive against incivility yet respond to allegations to bystanders and family members.3 and verbally abusive, when in fact most of workplace toxicity with surprise, denial, Private-sector research has also as- toxic behavior is passive and “under the excuses, and disbelief. Toxic personnel are sociated toxicity with the monetary costs radar.”11 Therefore, detection involves frequently highly competent, dedicated to of medical care, legal representation, observing the wake of wasted resources task accomplishment, possess skills or ex- personnel replacement and training, lost and demoralized workers left by toxic pertise needed by the organization, and at man-hours due to leaders addressing personnel. Signs of toxicity include a least appear to be productive in the short toxic behavior, complaint investigations, change in climate when the toxic person term. Leaders, assuming the organization absenteeism, decreased performance of is present and consistently unproductive is healthy, either disbelieve or are unaware targets and bystanders, avoidance of the meetings as the toxic person sabotages that someone could be so malevolent toxic person, time spent job searching, the process to remain the center of atten- toward others when he or she appears and wasted resources.4 The monetary cost tion and maintain his or her narcissistic so dedicated.14 Most toxic personnel are to DOD could be upward of $4.7 billion, self-validation. Robert Sutton suggests experts in presenting an image of high or 8 percent of the 2016 DOD budget,5 two tests for detecting toxic people: first, performance to their superiors. While calculated by a model assessing the rate of after interacting with the person, do you toxic personnel may be productive, they private-sector personnel who experience have a feeling of oppression or humilia- simultaneously create “a trust tax” that toxicity (10 to 16 percent6) and a cost tion? And second, does the alleged toxic debits from results.15 per case ($23,000 to $32,000, consider- person focus his or her toxicity on “tar- A leader may be aware of but willing ing inflation7), and full-time civilian and gets” who are less powerful?12 to tolerate toxic behaviors due to the military personnel strength (734,000 and Because toxic personnel excel in pre- personal or professional benefits resulting 1.3 million respectively8). The purposes of senting a positive appearance, effective from the toxic person’s short-term factual this article are to discuss how toxicity and detection requires leaders first to accept or perceived productivity. Toxic protectors incivility are tolerated and enabled within the reality of toxic personnel in their or- practice a subtle form of quid pro quo, DOD and to provide recommendations ganizations, not assuming all is well; and either having a personal relationship for addressing these effects. second, to collect data from a variety of with the toxic person, having a need for sources and levels of the organization— power and control that the toxic person’s Defining and Detecting Toxicity peers, direct reports, stakeholders, and actions feed, or benefiting from appar- Since the terms toxic personnel, toxic customers. ent high performance. Alternatively, the leadership, and toxic workplace are toxic person may exploit the relationship used loosely to describe a wide range How DOD Enables Toxicity with the protector to advance a personal of behaviors, it is important to define An organization experiences toxicity agenda. Sadly, “protectors do not protect the construct. For the purposes of this because its culture, policies, and systems an organization from the tragic human or article, toxicity refers to a pattern of create the conditions for tolerating bottom-line costs of toxicity. In fact, they combined, counterproductive behaviors and enabling uncivil behaviors. Like a prolong the situation by making it dif- encompassing not only harmful leader- garden, which requires nutrient-rich ficult for others who have the authority to ship but also abusive supervision, bully- soil free from weeds, as well as water, take action.”16 Toxic protectors sabotage ing, and workplace incivility, involving light, air, and a caretaker to thrive, a the organization by ignoring or enabling leaders, peers, and direct reports as high-performing organization requires behaviors that degrade productivity, mo- offenders, incorporating six specific such elements as trust, respect, effec- rale, trust, and cohesion. behaviors (see table): shaming, passive tive communication, efficient processes Many times, an organization does not hostility, team sabotage, indifference, and systems, and leaders who create the know how to deal with a toxic person negativity, and exploitation.9 These ele- conditions for productivity. Typically, and either reassigns or isolates and real- ments indicate a clear but often covert an organization identifies the problem locates the toxic person’s responsibilities pattern of abuse, disrespect, and control only as the toxic individual, overlooking to other, already overworked personnel,
58 Commentary / Toxic Culture JFQ 87, 4th Quarter 2017 Table. Criteria, Description, and Examples of Toxic Behavior Type of Behavior Description Observable Behaviors Shaming Humiliation, sarcasm, put-downs, jabs, blaming Persistently pointing out mistakes intending to reduce another’s self-worth Public embarrassment Passive hostility Passive-aggressive behavior redirecting one’s anger Resenting requests, deliberate procrastination, and intentional mistakes to inappropriately on a target person or persons avoid serving others Complaints of injustice and lack of appreciation Compliments that veil criticism Always getting in the last word (punch) Team sabotage Meddling to establish one’s personal power base, Inconsistency: unclear, constantly changing expectations and unpredictable resulting in decreased cohesion and performance policies, procedures, and behaviors Dysfunctional communication: in order to maintain power and control, withholding key information, sharing incomplete information, or sharing partial items of information resulting in each person having incomplete data Indifference An apparent lack of regard for the welfare of others, Lack of compassion and empathy especially subordinates Excluding certain people Disinterested in the successes and unsympathetic to the suffering of others Negativity A corrosive interpersonal style that has a negative Malice: cruelty and degradation are more prevalent than kindness impact on individual and collective morale and Narcissism: uncaring abuse of others for personal gain motivation Exploitation The perception of getting ahead at the expense of Inequality: tolerating toxic people, who are often highly skilled, but punishing others others Favoritism: special treatment for a select few Nepotism: hiring unqualified friends or family Taking credit for other’s results and accomplishments
Sources: Paul White, “5 Ways to Tell If Your Workplace Is Really Toxic,” December 23, 2014, available at
none of which actions address the behav- by increased requirements and decreased behavior, treatment of others, and ior.17 Or, as is often the case, the toxic resources and, being unable to express it how results are obtained. According to person is left in place and the targeted to their supervisors, redirect their frustra- information shared with the author by person is reassigned out of the toxic situ- tion toward direct reports.20 In DOD, over 25 GS-15 and O-6 supervisors, this ation. As a result, the toxic person is not values such as duty, loyalty, and honor absence of values-based feedback may be held accountable for counterproductive reinforce tolerating toxicity to fulfill due to supervisors being either unaware behavior, which is then passed around the mission accomplishment. Exhortations of how to include values in performance organization. Another response is pro- of “failure is not an option,” “do more counseling and evaluations, or fearful of moting the toxic person just to move him with less,” and “I don’t care how you grievances. or her out, which justifies and reinforces do it, just get it done” tend to fuel toxic Since evaluations provide primary the behavior. The failure to address toxic behaviors. In the era of DOD downsiz- information to board members, de- behavior creates resentment and frustra- ing, delayering, and budget cuts, the emphasizing values affects selections tion among other personnel. merging of roles and expansion of span for promotion and key assignments. In toxic organizations, the value of of control are common, with apparently The ends of getting results and being “getting results” becomes the priority, little or no consideration given to stream- promoted justify the toxic means. Also superseding core values. For example, lining processes and extending timelines. problematic is that in a zero-defects, performance metrics are useful in organi- The combination of factors such as the highly competitive promotion system, zations characterized by trust and respect. pressure to produce, uncertainty, submis- any marginally negative entry could However, in organizations characterized siveness, downsizing, abuse, and lack of influence selection, resulting in values by toxicity and incivility, metrics become peer support results in decreased motiva- becoming an affirmative, literal “check oppressive and prescriptive as person- tion for individual and collective effort.21 the block” on evaluations. This rein- nel often adjust statistics to present the In DOD, both military and civilian forces toxic behavior, as toxic personnel appearance of productivity and to avoid merit-based evaluation systems empha- are promoted and selected through the becoming targets of hostility.18 size performance-based achievement. system and mistreat others along the way. Organizational downsizing is associ- Although values are included in varying Military lore is replete with examples of ated with increased abusive supervision to degrees on each department’s military toxic senior leaders who were promoted maintain productivity, including manipu- and civilian evaluations, the achievement through a results-driven system and lation, coercion, and threats.19 Leaders, of results determines the individual’s rat- thereby enabled to abuse others.22 amid downsizing, tend to be frustrated ing, with little emphasis on values-based
JFQ 87, 4th Quarter 2017 Williams 59 Chief selects run in formation during Applied Suicide Intervention Skills Training 5k run on flight deck of aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, August 17, 2017 (U.S. Navy/Alex Perlman)
A results-driven culture in a downsiz- Respectful engagement is “treating each the organization’s core values, which ing organization that overemphasizes individual with dignity and fairness, provide the principles and standards for productivity and tolerates toxic behavior with the operational premise that you norms and practices.25 Core values are the without accountability creates the condi- treat others in concert with the way you key nutrients for organizational culture tions for toxicity, diminished readiness, would like to be treated.”24 It involves and must permeate the organization’s and waste. Toxic people undermine pro- behavioral norms of authenticity, affir- daily activities—formal and informal dis- ductivity, organizations allow mediocrity, mation, attentive listening, transpar- cussions and meetings, decisionmaking, and targets of toxicity develop survival ency, open communication, trust, and systems, processes, and performance. techniques, all of which drain energy and mutual support. Also, successful change The culture should create the ex- resources. Current private-sector research requires focusing on the enabling con- pectation that all personnel practice has identified several actions that DOD ditions and not narrowly on the toxic the core values, not permitting anyone could implement or improve to address individual whose ingrained behavior is in authority to abuse the standards the problem of toxicity. reinforced by a results-rewarding system they are responsible for supporting. that tolerates toxicity. How do leaders It is insufficient merely to create a list How to Detox and Create prepare the soil, remove the rocks and of values assuming the desired culture a Culture of Respect weeds, and nourish the plants of orga- will automatically follow. Values must Since a cultural status quo produced nizational culture? The answer is to feed be communicated regularly and in a by the combination of multiple toxic and reinforce the culture, confront toxic variety of ways, since, as research shows, factors is difficult to change, effective personnel and those who protect them, “toxicity will be significantly reduced in detox requires a systems approach, and teach leaders to create a culture of organizations that clearly define values implementing and integrating multiple respectful engagement. in concrete ways, identify the kinds of actions at each organizational level Creating the conditions for produc- behaviors the organization will and to reinforce respectful engagement.23 tivity involves aligning and reinforcing will not tolerate, and have a clear set of
60 Commentary / Toxic Culture JFQ 87, 4th Quarter 2017 consequences when an individual does suggestion is that evaluations consist of behavior; implementing a sequential not live up to the values. Of course, the 60 percent competence and 40 percent process to target a resolution by clarify- leader must model these behaviors as values.29 Since workplace relationships are ing the behavior as a problem; allowing well.”26 Enduring culture change requires a key factor in job satisfaction, retention, response and discussion; obtaining agree- leaders at each level to clarify acceptable and performance, initial and subsequent ment about the problem, if possible, and and unacceptable behaviors by translating performance counseling should establish brainstorming courses of action; and and operationalizing the department’s a clear relationship between values-based selecting a course of action with goals values for their specific organization, by behavior and its effect, either favorable or and a timeline for regular follow-up. enacting policies of universal account- adverse, on team performance. In other While most people respond positively ability, and by reinforcement. Former words, personnel must hear how their to feedback, toxic people are resistant, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter behavior is consistent or inconsistent with requiring a specific plan and persistent emphasized this clarification and his ex- organizational values and how they either accountability. pectation that empower or sabotage the organization. Toxic protectors, although often unaware of their actions, protect the leaders at every level of the Department Confront Toxic Personnel toxic person from being exposed and [should] engage personally with their and Their Protectors responsible.34 Leaders at all levels should subordinates in both formal and informal A gardener who observes weeds, pests, intervene with toxic protectors by first discussion about values-based decision- or disease must take immediate action realizing they exist and are identifiable making . . . as a part of their official so that the undesirable elements do not by the benefits gained from their rela- duties. These values include, among others, grow, multiply, and exploit the plants tionship to a toxic person; second, by honesty, integrity, loyalty, accountability for and their nutrients. In the same way, discussing with personnel their collective actions and decisions, fairness and impar- leaders must take immediate action performance, work relationships, and tiality, respect, and responsible citizenship. using a variety of individual, collective, climate assessments, carefully analyzing Importantly, this engagement must begin and organizational interventions. the information for toxic behaviors; third, with top leaders and cascade down to each A 360-degree assessment, whether by discussing with personnel toxic themes subordinate organization’s leader. Leaders mandatory or optional, is valuable for and patterns; and fourth, if a protector at all levels must foster a culture of ethics increasing self-awareness, developing is identified, by confronting him or her with their organizations by setting the ex- personnel, and identifying toxic behav- using targeted feedback. ample in their own conduct and by making ior.30 Its effectiveness for influencing values-based decision-making central to all change could be increased by three Provide Training in aspects of the Department’s activities.27 actions: the rater or senior rater could Respectful Engagement select respondents to provide unbiased The focus of professional military Effective clarification involves regular, feedback; the feedback should be used education and organization-sponsored continuing dialogue on the meaning in values-based performance counseling; professional development is primar- and practice of core values related to and the feedback should be utilized in ily on developing technical skills and such items as communication (includ- a coaching relationship for improved competencies. Leaders also need skills ing email), collaboration, addressing performance.31 Organizations can also in creating an organizational culture failure, correcting mistakes, giving praise, use a 360-degree assessment to identify that reinforces values, norms, and trust, acknowledging achievement, customer and address a toxic situation, not for the and in confronting toxic behavior.35 service, decisionmaking, ambiguity, purpose of obtaining evidence for firing Values-based experiential methods that goal setting, and respect for diversity. an individual, which can become a tool incorporate role-playing, active listen- Leaders must ask, “What does respect for retaliation, but for identifying coun- ing, conflict resolution, negotiation, (or honor, integrity, and so on) mean in terproductive behavior and creating a dealing with difficult people, stress how we communicate (or collaborate, healthy environment. management, and discussion of dilem- correct mistakes, and so on) with each Most toxic people are unaware of mas are effective methods of teaching other?” Then, to determine the extent of their uncivil behavior and its effects and, respectful engagement, as contrasted clarification, leaders should have informal when confronted, typically respond with with ineffective information-based conversations with personnel throughout denial or excuses.32 A change in behavior instruction.36 One-fourth of public- the organization and collect feedback requires a specific performance im- sector workers attributed their incivil- from customer and stakeholders. provement plan, also known as targeted ity to “not knowing any better” and Performance feedback that includes feedback, focusing on toxic behaviors and to a lack of organizational training in details on not only what personnel have effects on individual and collective per- respectful treatment.37 An excellent done but also how they get it done formance.33 Targeted feedback involves example of values-based training is the is extremely effective in reinforcing identifying the problem by respectfully U.S. Army 3rd Infantry Division’s sexual the organization’s core values.28 One and nonjudgmentally describing the toxic assault prevention program, “Bystander
JFQ 87, 4th Quarter 2017 Williams 61 Airman shares his experience being in toxic work environment at Storytellers event on Ramstein Air Base, Germany, February 23, 2017 (U.S. Air Force/ Savannah L. Waters)
Intervention,” in which Soldiers engage appear to be productive, and excel in Notes scenarios to translate the Army core managing upward, leaders should not values into norms, develop ownership, simply assume the culture is healthy. 1 Michelle Tan, “129 Army Battalion and wrestle with values-based action. Organizational toxicity is increasing in Brigade Commanders Fired since 2003,” The program’s premise is that individual the civilian sector, and it seems that the Army Times, February 2, 2015, available behavior to intervene is influenced by Department of Defense is not immune at
62 Commentary / Toxic Culture JFQ 87, 4th Quarter 2017 Sector,” International Journal of Qualita- ing the Work Go By or Aiding and Abetting?” 15 Franklin Covey, “The Business Case for tive Studies on Health and Well-Being 1, no. 2 Management 16, no. 5 (December 2013), Trust—Leadership Training and Organizational (January 23, 2010), 109–119; Heinz Leymann 680–696; Pamela Lutgen-Sandvik and Virginia Culture Change,” available at
JFQ 87, 4th Quarter 2017 Williams 63