Leadership Essay

Poor Assessment of Leadership in the United States Army
Name
Date

The United States army is perhaps one of the most revered institutions in the world. Its apex leadership is just as respected and highly regarded. However, just like every cloud, this too has a silver lining. The assessment of leadership in the United States army is nothing short of wanting.
The information obtained from assessment of leadership is of great essence, especially when establishing an individual’s merit to hold a position of authority. There are various methods set forth to aid in the practical assessment of leadership. These include; the examining of leadership qualities, examining the personality and traits of the leaders, inquiry from subordinate staff and even examining the results of a leader’s methodology (Roberts 11). These often result in positive outcomes of an assessment.
However, this is not the case in the army. Leadership positions are often awarded loosely based on merit. The yardstick for a leader’s suitability in the military is more often than not restricted to machismo, results and tangible outcomes of one’s endeavours. From my experience with an arrogant and bullish lieutenant, officers holding leadership positions in the army tend to exhibit unsavoury characteristics because this is hardly part of the criteria for their assessment. Scholars and commentators have also made this observation on the matter, and such officers have been labelled ‘toxic leaders’.
In an article on poor leadership assessment in the United States Army by Colonel Denise F.

Williams, it is evident that personality and attributes need to be taken into account when assessing leadership in the army (Williams 23). It observed that while it is not the case presently, there is a need for leadership assessors to consider undesirable traits such as arrogance, egotism, insatiable ambition or apparent lack of integrity. These sentiments were also echoed by Lt Gen H S Panag who observed that in army leadership, there is no place for individual creativity and initiative. This is because they matter least in assessment despite their importance (Panag 122).
Also, this position is held by Colonel David M. Oberlander who noted that it is wrong for evaluation of the army leadership to be done purely based on tangible results. This system of assessment, which is undeserved of its place, is the sieve through which irate individuals find their way up army ranks and into positions of leadership (Oberlander 2).

Works Cited
Oberlander, David M. Negative leadership. Army War College Carlisle Barracks Pa, 2013.
Panag, Harcharanjit Singh. “Lt Gen HS Panag recalls that:’Lost’Operation in Chorbat La.” Vayau Aerospace and Defence Review 6 (2016): 122.
Roberts, Karl A. “Correlates of law enforcement suicide in the United States: a comparison with Army and Firefighter suicides using data from the National Violent Death Reporting System.” Police Practice and Research (2018): 1-13.
Williams, Denise F. Toxic leadership in the US Army. Army War Coll Carlisle Barracks Pa, 2005.