We can stamp out toxic leadership in Canada’s Armed Forces

Eric Sauvé says that in the past, narcissism was sometimes mistaken for efficiency and arrogance for leadership. Fortunately, times are changing.

Published Jun 11, 2024 • Last updated 2 hours ago • 3 minute read

Canadian Armed Forces members of NATO’s enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group Latvia take part in a training exercise. Soldiers should be toughened, but never abused. Photo by Cpl. Lynette Ai Dang /DND

The following is written in response to Soldiers leaving Canadian Forces over ‘toxic leadership’, top adviser warns, which appeared May 28:

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

Advertisement 2

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.

Exclusive articles from Elizabeth Payne, David Pugliese, Andrew Duffy, Bruce Deachman and others. Plus, food reviews and event listings in the weekly newsletter, Ottawa, Out of Office.Unlimited online access to Ottawa Citizen and 15 news sites with one account.Ottawa Citizen ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.

SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES

Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.

Sign In or Create an Account

Article content

How do we define toxic leadership? In my interpretation, a leader becomes toxic when the unhealthy influence he/she has on their personnel has severe impacts outside the workplace.

A senior officer wrote this to me about her superior: she said that her supervisor “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.”

Why are toxic leaders tolerated? Because they achieve results quickly, reinforcing the belief that they are using the right approach. In the short term, the technique works; that’s undeniable. However, in the long term, such leaders create immeasurable damage, leaving behind what I call a “trail of destruction”: shattered careers, personnel in therapy, individuals completely jaded and cynical, and sometimes, broken lives.

Over time, toxic leaders foster an unhealthy climate within their team, a climate of every person for themselves. Peers no longer take the time to inquire about the mental health of their teammates because there is no teamwork spirit. Sometimes, there isn’t even a team at all.

Advertisement 3

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Article content

Toxic leaders are often pushed upward because they are effective, very effective even. But with a toxic leader, people walk on eggshells. They strive to give their best, especially at the beginning, because they want to avoid the ground suddenly disappearing from beneath their feet without warning. But these leaders don’t just demand excellence; they break their personnel to a point of no return. They squeeze the fruit until the seeds and core are crushed. Ultimately, the entire organization loses out.

Instead of seeing effectiveness in toxic leadership, the chain of command should realize that tyrants do not think of common success; they only envision their own success.

I am aware that much more is demanded of military personnel than civilians; it is one of the few employment areas where the ultimate sacrifice can be asked. I am also aware that troops must be prepared for the brutality of combat, a concept called toughening. I believe strongly in toughening. It is an essential process for creating fighters. Troops are toughened through training and exercises; the leadership model practised during this trainings and these exercises is necessarily tough, severe and intense. But it is 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 must always be recognized.

Advertisement 4

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Article content

When I underwent my infantry officer training, I was instilled with this simple phrase: “Mission first, troops second.” Toxic leaders only apply the first half of this motto. Fortunately, mentalities have changed over time. Nowadays, it is “Mission first, troops always.”

In the past, narcissism was sometimes mistaken for efficiency and arrogance for leadership. Fortunately, times are changing. Training on diversity, harassment and concerns about integrating LGBTQ+ community members, for example, are being provided. Voices are also being raised. There is less hesitation to escalate concerns to higher levels of command and to denounce the abuses of toxic leaders.

The more we eliminate these leaders, at all levels, the fewer poor role models we offer to junior officers and non-commissioned officers. There is hope.

Eric Sauvé is a former infantry and intelligence officer. He served from 1992 to 2014, and is a defence consultant.

Recommended from Editorial