- Joined
- Dec 12, 2012
- Messages
- 2,252
Recently I have read of the reassignments of 3 USAF female generals due to founded toxic leadership charges. I want to make clear that my intentions are not to bash these women in any way, or belittle the experiences of their subordinates. Being promoted to general is a continuation/culmination of a very, very successful career. I’ve read that out for every 100 Coronals, seven make 1 star. Seven. For women, I’ll assume that bar is even higher. For these 3 women in particular, (Goodwin is the other: her charges have been the subject of prior posts on the SA forum) as for everyone else who becomes a general, it is a true accomplishment. This also does not reflect in any negative way towards the other 97 Coronals who had the admittedly large obstacle of attaining that rank: The job only needs 7. And to get a 2nd star...as one female achieved...you get the point.
I want to examine the leadership style that seems to be able to get 2 of these women to 1 star level, 1 to 2 stars, & not only no higher, but reassignment. I watched this YT video of The Devil Wears Prada Miranda Priestly's leadership style (link below). To summarize: there are 3 types of perfectionism. Miranda's is defined as having the other-oriented perfectionism meaning: “Expecting perfection from others & being highly judgemental of their performance.” The next day I read the Gen. Grant article (link below) & the charges made against the general fit the definition other-oriented perfectionism to a "T". When I shared my thoughts to my wife, she asked if it was the 1st time her leadership style was ever questioned. IDK but it’s hard to believe that it would be the case. It got me thinking. Why would a leadership style be able to get you past Coronel but no further? Why could you achieve that specific level of success then fall? Hypothetically, if the following offer was made to 100 Coronel’s: promotion to 1 star but you’ll have a toxic leadership scandal, lose the command, but not the rank, would you sign on for that? I would.
Could it be one of these scenarios: “I wouldn’t want to work for them... but I’d want them working for me!”
I wonder if this saying applied to these women? Their style was supported/tolerated/ignored/unaddressed by their supervisors happy to have a “hard charger” subordinate making them look good. They just have to keep it together for 2 years, just hope that it doesn’t all blow up...But it does blow up at the 1-2 star level. Why then?
Did these generals ratchet their perfectionisms up as they were promoted?
An understandable reaction, maybe unconsciously performed? The closer one gets to the apex of the pyramid, the competition exponentially increases. If my style got me this far, why on earth would I ever want to change it? If it isn’t broken, why fix it? Were the screws tightened until they broke at the general level?
Maybe the answer is in the last paragraphs' quote of an individual interviewed for Gen. Grant’s investigation:
"I don't challenge her intelligence. I don't challenge her vision and her direction she wants to take the wing," one person testified. "... Col. Grant has definitely made this wing a better place in terms of its warfighting capability for the joint command downrange. However, [her] leadership style has limited her ability to take the wing to where it could have been." Lastly, today in the NYT Book Review section, a reviewer of a WWII leader mentioned, "The very qualities that accounted for XXX’s astonishing rise were also what brought about his ultimate ruin.” Two sides of the same coin perhaps.
PS: Yes Male CO’s lose their commands, but I don't recall any who did over “toxic leadership” specifically due to perfectionism issues.
https://link.defensenews.com/click/...3Rhci5odG1s/5e6a8181e3a98c5ec87168d6B4713d677
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2020/08/17/maj-gen-dunlop-created-toxic-environment-in-top-secret-program-office-ig-finds/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EBB 08.18.20&utm_term=Editorial - Early Bird Brief
I want to examine the leadership style that seems to be able to get 2 of these women to 1 star level, 1 to 2 stars, & not only no higher, but reassignment. I watched this YT video of The Devil Wears Prada Miranda Priestly's leadership style (link below). To summarize: there are 3 types of perfectionism. Miranda's is defined as having the other-oriented perfectionism meaning: “Expecting perfection from others & being highly judgemental of their performance.” The next day I read the Gen. Grant article (link below) & the charges made against the general fit the definition other-oriented perfectionism to a "T". When I shared my thoughts to my wife, she asked if it was the 1st time her leadership style was ever questioned. IDK but it’s hard to believe that it would be the case. It got me thinking. Why would a leadership style be able to get you past Coronel but no further? Why could you achieve that specific level of success then fall? Hypothetically, if the following offer was made to 100 Coronel’s: promotion to 1 star but you’ll have a toxic leadership scandal, lose the command, but not the rank, would you sign on for that? I would.
Could it be one of these scenarios: “I wouldn’t want to work for them... but I’d want them working for me!”
I wonder if this saying applied to these women? Their style was supported/tolerated/ignored/unaddressed by their supervisors happy to have a “hard charger” subordinate making them look good. They just have to keep it together for 2 years, just hope that it doesn’t all blow up...But it does blow up at the 1-2 star level. Why then?
Did these generals ratchet their perfectionisms up as they were promoted?
An understandable reaction, maybe unconsciously performed? The closer one gets to the apex of the pyramid, the competition exponentially increases. If my style got me this far, why on earth would I ever want to change it? If it isn’t broken, why fix it? Were the screws tightened until they broke at the general level?
Maybe the answer is in the last paragraphs' quote of an individual interviewed for Gen. Grant’s investigation:
"I don't challenge her intelligence. I don't challenge her vision and her direction she wants to take the wing," one person testified. "... Col. Grant has definitely made this wing a better place in terms of its warfighting capability for the joint command downrange. However, [her] leadership style has limited her ability to take the wing to where it could have been." Lastly, today in the NYT Book Review section, a reviewer of a WWII leader mentioned, "The very qualities that accounted for XXX’s astonishing rise were also what brought about his ultimate ruin.” Two sides of the same coin perhaps.
PS: Yes Male CO’s lose their commands, but I don't recall any who did over “toxic leadership” specifically due to perfectionism issues.
https://link.defensenews.com/click/...3Rhci5odG1s/5e6a8181e3a98c5ec87168d6B4713d677
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2020/08/17/maj-gen-dunlop-created-toxic-environment-in-top-secret-program-office-ig-finds/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EBB 08.18.20&utm_term=Editorial - Early Bird Brief