Counterproductive Leadership

March 7, 2022

What is Counterproductive Leadership in the Army?

This article address counterproductive leadership in the Army. This term is defined by AR 600-100 and ADP 6-22, paragraphs 8-45 to 8-50. It has a very broad definition. According to AR 600-100, it is the following:

"The demonstration of leader behaviors that violate one or more of the Army's core leader competencies or Army values, preventing a climate conducive to mission accomplishment." The regulation goes on to define the Army core leader competencies as leading others, building trust, extending influence beyond the chain of command, leading by example, communicating, preparing self, creating a positive environment, developing others, being stewards of the Army profession, and getting results. Therefore, counterproductive leadership in the army is behavior inconsistent with these core leader competencies or the Army Values (Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honesty, Integrity, Personal Courage).

AR 600-100, paragraph 3-3e(3) separates counterproductive leadership in the Army into the following categories: abusive behaviors, self-serving behaviors, erratic behaviors, leadership incompetence, and corrupt behaviors.

Obviously, the definition of counterproductive leadership is very broad, and it is designed that way on purpose. If the Army continues in the direction it is headed, all leaders will find themselves accused of being a counterproductive leader at some point in their career.

A paragraph in the regulation that is often ignored is AR 600-100, paragraph 3-3e(2). This paragraph states what is NOT counterproductive leadership:

"Army leaders can and will make mistakes, so distinguishing between occasional errors of judgment and counterproductive leadership is important. Counterproductive leadership includes recurrent misconduct that has a damaging effect on the organization's performance and the well-being of subordinates. Infrequent or one-time negative behaviors do not define counterproductive leadership. Often, counterproductive leadership behaviors have harmful effects on individuals or a unit when several instances occur together or happen frequently."

For some reasons, IO's that investigate these accusations seem to forget about the above paragraph. Clearly, counterproductive leadership should be a pattern, and not occasional mistakes. Anyone accused of being a counterproductive leader in the Army should site the above provision.

Despite the above provision, leaders are more frequently finding themselves accused of counterproductive leadership and having to respond to 15-6 investigations. The typical process for these accusations will be explained in the paragraphs that follow.

Typically, these investigations begin when a Soldier, or Soldiers, make a complaint. This complaint could be done in a formal manner, such as an EO complaint, or an informal manner, such as an open-door meeting or an email. Additionally, sometimes an investigation into counterproductive leadership can be initiated after comments made during a command climate survey are reviewed by a higher commander.

Once the decision has been made, Commanders will appoint a 15-6 investigation, explained more at this link. The investigating officer must out-rank the individual accused. Typically, investigating officers will gather a large number of statements from many different Soldiers. The investigating officer will also approach the subject of the investigation and confront them with specific questions regarding what other Soldiers have reported. It is advisable for any subject of a counterproductive leadership investigation to consult an experienced military defense lawyer before agreeing to sit-down with any investigating officer.

Once the investigating officer has completed his/her findings, certain individuals are given the opportunity to rebut them (Officers). 15-6 investigation rebuttals are explained more at this link. If the subject is not an officer, he/she is not entitled to rebut the findings of the investigating officer. In such cases, the first chance that the subject will get to review the investigation, and what everyone has alleged, will be when they are responding to an adverse action.

If an adverse finding is made against an individual regarding counterproductive leadership, it is likely that an adverse action will result. This could include a letter of concern, a GOMOR, a referred OER, a referred NCOER, and/or an Article 15. Furthermore, the Command may initiate elimination (Officers) or separation (Enlisted). Even if the local Command doesn't initiate separation and/or elimination, enlisted Soldiers/NCOs should be aware of the Army QMP Board, if any adverse information is filed in their AMHRR. Furthermore, for Officers, HRC could initiate elimination at a later time for substantiated allegations contained in an Officer's AMHRR.

Anyone who is accused of counterproductive leadership should be immediately concerned and recognize that they are fighting to keep their career. A proper defense against any allegation starts with making smart, and informed decisions during the investigation and continues with making appropriate and thorough responses to any adverse action that may result. Any Officer or NCO accused of counterproductive leadership should immediately consult a military lawyer. It is likely that the JAGs available (TDS or Legal Assistance) will not provide the time and attention needed to successfully defend yourself. Those accused have the option to hire a Civilian lawyer to assist.

This article was written by Attorney Matthew Barry.

The Law Office of Matthew Barry represents clients worldwide. He has offices on the East Coast, West Coast, and in the Central U.S.