TOXIC SALINITY
Adam Christensen
MGMT 783
01DEC19
Executive Summary:
The United States Navy, long a bastion of hard charging people, known for its rough, gritty exterior and
for accomplishing the mission regardless the cost has been working hard to improve its image and become more in
line with modern society. Over the past 10 years they have been cracking down on the so called “toxic command
climates” and attempting to hold leaders responsible for their actions and hold them not only to rules established
by US law, but also by Navy policy. Often this accountability is done through a process known as a Departure for
Cause (DFC).
A DFC to put into layman’s terms is a firing, you are removed from your position and sent to another job
while an entire package of evidence is reviewed, and the powers that be in Millington TN decide whether or not
the behavior is so egregious that you are removed from the Navy altogether. This is a non-judicial process and is
simply an administrative review of the investigation that was completed against you, and all other documents of
your overall performance in the job. All too often in these toxic workplace complaints people are just shuffled to
other Navy jobs, and thus there is no real deterrent to abhorrent behavior. They still collect their paycheck, and
upon reaching retirement eligibility will still retire at the grade they are at currently and collect a significant
pension for the rest of their lives.
Couple this with the fact that at the end of the day the most important thing to the Navy’s continued
success is mission accomplishment and we still see far too many of these toxic leaders promoting and advancing
through the system. In the short term these sorts of leaders often get results, and those results are what gets
them noticed, and promoted, but also has an extremely negative effect on the people they leave behind and
ultimately on the Navy’s reputation. Its time for a change but what form can that change take.
Perhaps the time has come to truly hold people accountable for these actions. If it is completely
determined that a leader’s actions are detrimental to the command and against long standing US law and Navy
policy, then a simple non judicial punishment is not enough. The message isn’t being received because ultimately
there are little to no consequences of ill behavior. It is time to fully leverage US law and military law and truly hold
people accountable for their actions.
A toxic workplace is defined as an environment that as an environment that negatively impacts the
viability of an organization, any organization can be considered toxic if it is ineffective as well as destructive to its
employees
1
. In the United States Navy this is an issue that they have been battling for many years. The military
has long been a culture of Type A personalities that work hard, play hard and endure a great deal of challenge.
Often this challenge is borne on the back of the people serving, and can have disastrous consequences to a
command, and to its mission effectiveness. To quote a fellow Surface Warfare Officer in an online forum who
stated to a toxic leader (who was later involved in a major incident) “You make people not want to do their best
for you. They know whatever they do will never be enough, they will always get picked on, so they do the absolute
minimum.”
2
As a result, over the last 10 years or so the Navy has been lashing out against these toxic climates and
attempting to hold leaders accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, despite all of these efforts, these toxic
climates still seem to exist, and in actuality seems like there are more all the time. Why are the numbers of toxic
command climates increasing, and what if anything can be done to change it moving forward.
Background Cases:
It is January 2006, at my first duty station after graduating from college and commissioning as an Ensign in
the United States Navy. Our new Executive Officer (XO), the ship’s second in command has just checked in. She’s
an unknown but has a reputation of being intense but dedicated officer, who demands a lot, but who ultimately
has the best interest of the command at heart. I was to serve as her Administrative Officer, working directly for
her, in charge of a shop of 10 administrative clerks responsible for all correspondence and paperwork on board the
ship. My first meeting with her did not go well, in fact her first words to me was a demeaning, “your shave looks
like shit, go shave.” This would set the tone for how the rest of the tour would go.
Routinely onboard that ship the XO would demean people, especially Junior Officers to the point that
many dreaded coming to work every day. Rarely did I day go by where I wasn’t threatened, “I’ll tie your testicles in
a knot” or “I’m going to shit down your throat.” Several fellow officers even had complete nervous breakdowns,
due not only due to the stress of being on an operational unit, but ultimately due to her maltreatment. Numerous
1
Housman, Michael; Dylan, Minor (1 November 2015). “Toxic Workers
2
www.sailorbob.com “What is Toxicity” 18AUG17
conversations were had with her by several of her Department Heads, to which she’d routinely respond that she
was “just old school, and people needed to toughen up and deal with it. This behavior triggered numerous Navy
Inspector General investigations and complaints, but ultimately nothing was done, and her annual Fitness Reports
were outstanding, because her superiors saw that she got results, not how she got them. These Fitness Reports
would get her selected for promotion and ultimately for command of her own ship.
Things would start to fall apart though in 2011, while in command of USS Ponce (LPD 15). She’d continue
to execute the same behavior she had as an XO, but now her superiors were listening. In April of 2011
Commander, Sixth Fleet would launch an investigation into her behavior, particularly around an alleged hazing
incident that would ultimately culminate in her receiving a DFC
3
. Much of what was discovered in this
investigation was the same behavior she had exhibited throughout her career, the only difference was now people
paid attention to the complaints, likely because now in a position of ultimate authority these actions were no
longer getting results, and were truly undermining the command and its mission effectiveness while deployed.
Ultimately these actions were against not only US Law (10 USC Section 5947) and against long standing US
Navy policy on Equal Opportunity
4
. Some can say she was held accountable for her actions, but in 2012 she retired
as a Commander with all her benefits, despite the Navy having provisions to determine appropriate retirement
rank through a process known as a Show Cause Board
5
. This show cause board could have determined her last
rank where she performed admirably and forced her to retire there. Doing so may have helped to set an example
to others that such unlawful treatment would not be tolerated and help curb it going forward. Instead much of
the same behavior continues today, in fact in many ways as the tide of never-ending war and deployments
continues its only gotten worse.
In a far more recent case, there was an uptick of suicides onboard one ship, the USS GEORGE H W BUSH
(CVN 77), where 3 Sailors committed suicide, marking five total suicides on that ship in the past 2 years. Those
3
Commander US Fleet Forces, “Navy Hotline Complaint 20110107; Alleged abuse of position, failure to report
hazing, failure to report alcohol related incidents and preferential treatment given to female officers by
Commander Etta Jones, Commanding Officer USS Ponce. 19JUL11.
4
U.S. Navy Regulation 1130 and 1131
5
MILPERSMAN 1611-010
numbers are particularly staggering, even with a crew size of upwards of 4000. Navy officials were quick to point
that there was no connection between any of the Sailors, however one can easily see at least one, they are all at
the same command
6
. Interviewing several Sailors onboard that ship investigators discovered numerous people
stating that they were incredibly overworked and were not offered access to mental health services because their
work schedule did not allow for it. Many even suggested this was an implied order from the Commanding Officer.
This sounds eerily like reports from yet a third ship, USS SHILOH (CG 67) in 2017. SHILOH made news
when a Sailor who reportedly went overboard was discovered hiding in one of the ships engine rooms after having
been missing for nearly a week
7
. Sailors onboard reported that the Commanding Officer, “ruled unilaterally and
aggressively, “neutered” the chiefs mess, and punished minor infractions with time in the brig, where sailors
subsisted on bread and water. The result was “dysfunction from the top, suicidal thoughts, exhaustion, despair and
concern that the Shiloh was being pushed underway while vital repairs remained incomplete
8
”. They also stated
that routinely they were denied access to medical or mental health services because their schedule was too
packed, and getting any help was a sign of weakness. This was all happening in the Forward Deployed Naval Force
Japan, while the area was reeling from two major collisions that killed 10 people and took two major ships out of
action. Despite this, nothing happened to this Commanding Officer, and he retired as a Captain in July of 2019.
