Destructive Leadership in the Military - Essay Example

? DESTRUCTIVE LEADERSHIP IN THE MILITARY: A QUALITATIVE INVESTIGATION INTO THE PERCEIVED EFFECTS THAT IT CAN HAVE ON JUNIOR ENLISTED MARINES by Darnell E. Patton CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION After the suicide death of Private Keiffer Wilhelm, an American soldier serving in Iraq, a military panel convicted Staff Sergeant Enoch Chatman of offenses, most prominently for mistreating subordinates, which is consistent with destructive leadership tendencies (Viviano, 2010). Further investigation into this soldier’s mistreatment revealed destructive leadership practices were endemic among leaders in the soldier’s squadron (Tann, 2009). Captain Holly Graft was dismissed as captain of a billion-dollar warship in 2009 after repeated mistreatment of subordinates and using the position for personal gain (Thompson, 2010). Chatman and Graft’s actions and the results that occurred from their actions, potentially underline the growing problem of destructive leadership tendencies in the United States military contexts. Einarsen (2007) defined destructive leadership as leadership repeatedly and systematically pushing against the organization’s functional interests by sabotaging or undermining the organization’s goals, resources, or effectiveness. Reed (2009) suggested military leaders make poor leadership decisions that can ruin their career or the career of others. Schilling (2009) noted destructive leadership has also been referred to as negative leadership. Schilling’s 2009 research on the meaning of negative leadership, suggested negative leadership may be related to certain behavior categories such as laissez-faire, insincere, restrictive, and active/passive avoiding leadership. Additional studies have tied leadership to poor actions such as bullying, managerial abusive behavior, and discrimination (Hauge, Einarsen, Knardahl, Lau, Notelaers, & Skogstad, 2011; Johnston & Marie, 2010; Simmons, 2009). While the above leadership studies provide a broad overview of destructive leadership behavior, the proposed study plans to take a different approach from previous research conducted in the area of leadership; it will specifically explore the perceived effects of destructive leadership and investigates the perceptions of subordinates based on experiences. Australian School of Business (2010) posited destructive leadership is on the rise. Destructive leadership is a topic rarely mentioned, and is often considered the dark side of organizations (Goodspeed, 2009; Popper, 2001; Lipman-Blumen, 2005; Reed, 2004). Oftentimes, subordinates are afraid to come forward with claims of verbal abuse and bullying because management has the control (Ashkenas, 2011). Witnesses of the abuse and bullying may also be afraid to come forward because of the possible repercussions. Cameron (2008) defined positive leadership as the ability of transforming poor behavior of subordinates to good behavior with positive influence and established how positive leadership influences the performance of subordinates and increases a better working environment. According to Mundy (1995) the greatest responsibility for Marines is leading Marines. Mundy further suggested the Marine Corps has achieved great success over those years, and leadership has played a vital role in that success. Cheneworth noted the Marine Corps came into existence in 1775. Since then, the Marine Corps has been in the forefront when defending the United States of America, along with the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard (Cheneworth, 2010). According to the National Security Act of 1947 (1947), the Marine Corps’ mission consists of different elements such as providing forces to conduct amphibious operations, defend naval bases, and serve as a force in readiness in defense of the United States of America. Ultimately, the effective functioning of these elements is contingent on strong and positive leadership (Cheneworth, 2010). Leadership consists of traits, principles, and behaviors, which includes integrity and setting the example. Edney (1998, p. 12) stated: In the military profession, a breach of your integrity, ethics or honor is always accompanied by a leadership failure. The bottom line for our military leadership requirements is that integrity and ethics cannot be taken for granted or treated lightly at any level of training or interaction. All our personnel must be inculcated repeatedly with the requirement that military leadership must evolve from a foundation of trust and confidence in our ethics and core values of honor, courage and commitment to do what is right. Doing what is right based on the whole truth must be natural and automatic for the American military officer. The Headquarters Marine Corps (2010) indicated the purpose of leadership traits and principles are to focus on leadership development and skills to promote success. Headquarters Marine Corps also believed these attributes, along with experience, skills, and problem-solving approach affects the outcome of an event. Slattery (2009) indicated a person’s abuse of a position of authority and lack of regard for leadership traits or principles, can negatively affect other workers in the organization and the organization’s mission. Workers in the organization can lose motivation and the organization’s mission may become derailed. Slattery (2009) further suggested if workers lose motivation, the loss of motivation could cause friction in the workplace, substandard performance, and a lack of concern for rules and regulations. Benson and Hogan (2008) argued poor leadership can result in short-term performance success but inevitably will lead to long-term problems and dysfunctional performance. Ultimately then it’s clear destructive leadership is an issue that demands further consideration. Chapter one will provide and overview of the research problem, and the emphasis of this study will be to determine the perceived effects destructive leadership can have on enlisted junior Marines. To explore the core of the research problem, chapter one will cover leadership styles and practices. In addition, chapter will discuss the background of the problem, the nature of the study, and introduce research questions. The study’s scope, limitations, and delimitations will provide an understanding of the nature of the study and the composition of the research sample. This chapter will also recognize the problem, define terms, and show the importance and need for this study. Background According to Goodspeed (2002), the military is successful because quality leadership is provided by military leaders. Goodspeed (2002) further indicated the Marine Corps has principles intended to support its essence of leadership. Varljen (2003) extended these concerns, noting that leadership is the most essential element to success. Cheneworth (2010) suggested the Marine Corps has proven itself on multiple occasions by fighting and winning various wars and battles since 1775. LeJeune (1921) presented a perspective on military success that combined elements of leadership and integrity when he stated, One must put himself in the place of those whom he would lead; he must have a full understanding of their thoughts, their attitude, their emotions, their aspirations, and their ideals; and he must embody in his own character the virtues which he would instill into the hearts of his followers (p. 1). Through training and mentorship by more experienced members of the armed services, less experienced service members would learn valuable traits and gain valuable knowledge that would otherwise fall to the wayside (LeJeune, 1921). LeJeune (1921) further noted that if senior leaders want to have a positive impact on their subordinates, senior leaders must understand those they are leading. Hagee (2007) suggested most Marines will verbalize mentoring as a part of everyday leadership, and indicated there are some Marines who have never had mentorship and are unclear about what path to follow. According to Melanson (2009), every military leader is responsible for mentoring but due to experience, the degree of mentor/mentee success will vary. Reiter (2008) further extended these concerns and indicated there were advantages for organizations that implemented mentoring and personnel development such as development of subordinates, personal support, increased confidence, and cost effectiveness. Other perspectives have considered specific tenants of successful mentorship. Ayinde (2011) suggested guiding proteges, requires coaches and advocates, and the development of proteges solely depend on mentors and their mentoring practices. In this way, if mentoring is not present, the development of junior service members will be a slow process. Indeed, Ayinde (2011) indicated progress for mentees without mentors and can, increase the time in the development process. Contreras (2008) further supported these arguments, as Contreras suggested more organizations are establishing mentoring programs because they recognize the advantages of mentoring. Contreras further suggested organizations realized creating mentorship programs could improve organizational performance and create organizational success. While the benefits of leadership are addressed by a number of studies (Contreras, 2008; Melanson, 2009; Hagee, 2007), other perspectives have considered the nature of destructive leadership and potential avenues for reducing and eliminating it. Pomeroy (2008) suggested destructive leadership practices reduce the quality of work generated and create an uncomfortable working environment. Slattery (2009) augmented these perspectives and suggested when faced with destructive leadership, workers lose motivation and performance becomes substandard. The aforementioned theoretical perspectives are supported by Kelly, Zellars, & Tepper (2002), who investigated more than 400 Air National Guard members, and found that those who were mistreated by supervisors withheld information and actions that would improve the organization. Destructive leadership has also been considered in terms of the long-term impact it can have on individuals (Illies and Reiter-Palmon, 2008; Reed, 2009). Illies and Reiter-Palmon (2008) believed destructive leadership damaged organizations over a long period. In terms of military organizational culture, destructive leadership has already been demonstrated to have a deleterious impact. Reed (2009) implemented a quantitative methodology that empirically demonstrated destructive leadership patterns among Marine leaders directly influenced subordinates job satisfaction. Additionally, Thoroughgood (2011) asserted when leaders of an organization display destructive leadership, it becomes an accepted behavior in the organization. Although subordinates may consider destructive leadership unacceptable in the organization, subordinates may consider destructiveness as part of the organization’s climate and culture (Thoroughgood, 2011; Ulmer, 2012; Yukl and Becker, 2006). The military additionally considered potential avenues of counter-acting destructive leadership. Steps have been taken to guard against destructive leadership. Larsson, Brandebo, Nilsson (2012) developed a psychometrically sound instrument designed to measure destructive leadership behaviors in a military context. However, Nilsson’s study lacked the conceptual refinement for use in military contexts. Tan (2011) indicated the military has implemented mandatory evaluations for military leaders. The mandatory evaluations will be completed by subordinates and will factor into upper-level decision making processes as a means of identifying leaders that are potentially destructive. Ultimately, destructive leadership in the military has been considered from a variety of perspectives. Problem Statement The general problem of this study is the lack of leadership development and understanding the possible effects destructive leaders can have on their subordinates. The specific problem of this study is potential existence of destructive leadership experienced by junior Marines and the potential negative effects destructive Marine leadership can have on these junior Marines. While the background section examined many of the foundational concepts in this area of investigation, further research considers the problem of destructive leadership in the military. General Ormar Braldey (1967) suggested the military is built on leadership. Taylor and Rosenbach (2005) supported this perspective and conveyed that most agree leadership is an influential process which builds the relationship between leaders and their subordinates. Walden (1994) noted for many decades, the military was predominantly led by an authoritarian style of leadership. Subordinates were assigned orders, and leaders expected orders to be carried out. However, according to Loughin and Arnold (2007), service members in the 21st Century are required to think more independently because of the dynamics and complexity of the military in the new millenium. Finally, Varljen (2003) suggested that although military leaders do not generally institute a holistic approach to leadership, leadership is still an essential component of military success. The central position of leadership in the military is problematized when it is considered in relation to perspectives on destructive leadership. Bardes and Piccolo (2010) asserted negative outcomes follow destructive leadership. Aasland, Skogstad, Notelaers, Nielsen, and Einarsen (2010) argued destructive leadership is the cause of many problems within an organization. According to Hu, Wu, and Wang (2011), empirical studies on abusive leadership implies abusive leadership cause a reduction in employees job satisfaction, personal life satisfaction, and commitment to their organization. Kelloway, Sivanthan, Francis, and Barling, (2005); Tepper, (2007) further suggested that abusive leadership is proven to cause an increase in employee resistance, mental and emotional exhaustion, and can create friction in both the workplace and home. Finally Hu, Wu, & Wang (2011) argued abusive supervision can have a harmful affect on an organization and its members. In all of these instances, destructive leadership had a detrimental impact subordinates in the organization. Literature that comprehensively identifies how and to what extent destructive leadership affects junior enlisted Marines is minimal. The specific population is a group of junior Marines in the southeastern United States. The intended audience will be both the Marines Corps, and broader ranging readers interested in the potential occurrence of destructive leadership styles and the perceived impact these styles can have on the organization. Purpose The purpose of this study will be to explore the perceived existence and potential effects of destructive leadership by military leaders on junior Marines stationed in southeastern United States. To accomplish this goal, a qualitative, phenomenological research study involving historical leadership documents, studies, and peer-reviewed articles will be used in the research study. Klenke (2008) suggested qualitative leadership studies with validity and quality have advantages over quantitative by offering more opportunities to explore leadership phenomena in significant depth. The experiences and perceptions will come from junior enlisted Marines who have had direct involvement working for senior enlisted leaders who may have displayed destructive leadership practices. The possible behaviors of destructive leadership will be established through the researchers' qualitative analysis. This study will inform military leaders of the effects destructive leadership may have on service members. Senior leaders, such as commanders and senior enlisted advisors may be encouraged to develop unit level leadership programs. These leaders may also send both senior and junior leaders to leadership training schools. They may also enforce a Marine Corps’ policy by ensuring each Marine has a mentor. Additionally, the purposed study may aid senior leaders of different types of organizations in becoming more involved in leadership development at every level. For this study, the population will be Marines stationed in the southeastern geographical area of the United States. According to Vitaliano, DeWolfe, Maiuro, Russo, and Katon (1990) lived experiences provide the establishment of a thematic approach to understanding methods used by those who experienced the phenomenon. The population sample will range from 5-25 active duty service members with a minimum of two years of active duty service. Marshall and Rossman (2006) suggested collecting data using a phenomenological approach with a minimum of 20 subjects through open-ended question formation will provide a solid foundation. This sample group will not be limited to a certain race or nationality. The sampling technique will consist of quota sampling because this will allow for carefully selected diverse groups. Significance of the Study Bodakin and Tziner (2009) believed organizations had received negative attention because of destructive behavior. Bodakin and Tziner (2009) further suggested minimal research has placed emphasis on destructive leadership. Reed and Olsen (2010) supported the claim of minimal research on destructive leadership and suggested most research about leadership put emphasis on leadership skills, traits, and behaviors that make a good leader. The proposed study is significant because it will attempt to address the gap in the literature by investigating the potential existence of destructive leadership and behavior and the possible effects that it may have on service members. This research study and data can then be used for future studies regarding the potential effects of destructive leadership. If destructive leadership is identified, there is the potential that this study can provide leaders an enhanced understanding of the effects of such leadership. In this situation, leaders may be able to pass on the knowledge they learn through education and program development for their subordinates. “The result of this knowledge transfer is that the organization as a whole becomes more educated; in essence, it learns from itself” (Bird, 2006, p. 33). This study is significant to the field of leadership because the information gained may add to the minimal knowledge available on the effects of destructive leadership. A goal of this study is developing more effective leaders through aiding senior enlisted leaders in recognizing the potential existence of destructive leadership, and the negative effects destructive leadership can have on an organization. This study will use testimony from junior enlisted Marines to analyze leadership practice of senior enlisted Marines to determine what effect, if any, destructive leadership has on junior enlisted Marines. Still, minimal research exists in this context of investigation. Ultimately the gap in this literature will investigate the potential occurrence of destructive leadership. If the behaviors of destructive leadership are identified then the research could reveal information about why the behavior exists and the effect it may have on the service members and the organization. Nature of the Study A number of considerations were made in the establishment of the research design. The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological research study aims to identify if destructive leadership tendencies exist in the study set, and if they do, the impact of these leadership tendencies on junior enlisted Marines, and finally how the Marine Corps could reduce destructive leadership by senior enlisted leaders. As the nature of destructive leadership is slightly personal in nature (Padilla, Hogan, and Kaiser, 2006) the phenomenological method was chosen because it makes an attempt to gain an understanding of junior Marine’s perceptions, viewpoints, and understandings of a particular situation. When taking a phenomenological approach, Moustakas (1994) suggested the main source of knowledge is based on perception because it takes experiences of individuals in which they form their opinion. This method was chosen over grounded-theory or empirical approaches that work specifically to test more objective or empirical elements. The phenomenon of destructive leadership is unquantifiable, so the phenomenological is best suited because it best captures the thoughts and experiences of those junior Marines who have potentially been affected by destructive leadership. Interviews will be used to gain the data for this study, which will accomplish the researcher’s goal for this study. For this study, the sample population is a quota sample of junior enlisted Marines with no fewer than two years of active duty service. The study analysis implements the qualitative method, as the research questions aims to identify if destructive leadership tendencies exist in the study set. If these leadership tendencies exist, the study will examine the impact of these leadership tendencies on junior enlisted Marines and how the Marine Corps may reduce destructive leadership by senior enlisted leaders. This qualitative research method will allow the researcher to explore these issues, understand phenomena, and answer questions regarding the topic of the study through exploring the junior Marines perspectives on the existence and potential effects of this leadership. The study will examine themes that emerge using the qualitative, phenomenological research design. These themes will be presented in a variety of descriptive paragraphs. Ultimately, using this qualitative, phenomenological design will accomplish the goal of this study because it will most effectively allow leaders to understand the experience from the subjects through intimate details about the subject’s perspectives. , which will make this study effective. Research Questions The purpose of this research is to identify the potential existence of destructive leadership in the junior Marines and the subsequent effects this leadership may have on service members. Two discussion questions were developed to gain an understanding of the possible effects of destructive leadership. Moustakas (1994) found the development of a research question has “social and personal significance” (p. 104) to be essential to conducting phenomenological research. In addition, Moustakas noted when constructing a research question, the question must be clear and concise, so the investigation’s intent and purpose are evident. The research questions are open-ended questions, which will allow for real life experiences from the subjects. The research questions permit junior enlisted Marines to give objective answers and allow the researcher to complete the study based the Marines’ perceptions’. Many scholars have addressed leadership development (Bunker, Hall, & Kram, 2010; Giber, Carter, & Goldsmith, 2011; Maxwell, 2002; Vurnum, 2010) and mentoring (Emelo, 2011; Fragoulis, I., Valkanos, E., & Voula, 2011; Lester, Hannah, Harms, Vogelgesang, & Avolio, 2011; Rueywei, Shih-ying, & Shin-lung, 2011), but an abundance of information on the existence of destructive leadership and the effects it has on service members is limited. Answering the research questions will allow the researcher to more thoroughly identify destructive leadership and the potential effects of this leadership. Benson (2006) suggested there has been evidence destructive leadership can lead to dysfunctional performance within an organization. Answering the research questions may allow the researcher to obtain responses to why destructive behavior in leaders exists. To assist with identifying potential destructive leadership and opportunities to potentially improve service member’s behavior, two research questions have been established. Research Question One: How has destructive leadership by senior enlisted Marine leaders affected junior enlisted Marines in the Marine Corps? Research Question Two: How can the Marine Corps assist to reduce destructive leadership in its service? The first research question was designed to gain insight into how junior enlisted Marines are affected by destructive leadership from senior enlisted Marines. The second research question is designed to gain insight into what the subjects believe would improve destructive leadership. Question two allows for participants to communicate what they may have experienced from their senior leaders and/or lower-level leaders. With the participant’s military experience varying, there is a good chance the answer to question two question will vary. Theoretical Framework For this study, the theoretical framework will investigate the potential existence of destructive leadership in the junior Marines and help explain how destructive leadership negatively affects subordinates. Wolman and Miller-Steiger (2004) and Crabtree (2004), believed ineffective leadership creates disengaged workers, which ultimately costs the United States economy between $292 billion and $355 billion a year. Branham (2004) and Zonner (2002) considered the issue in terms of employee engagement and suggested ineffective leaders who are disconnected with the workers are the cause of employee disengagement and create low morale. Studer (2004) additionally maintained that many people leaving an organization stems from poor leadership. This information indicates that there is allowing destructive leadership to occur results in significant organizational shortcomings. One of the overarching considerations within the theoretical framework is the recognition that there are a variety of destructive leadership styles. Thompson (2008) established a variety of destructive military leadership styles. These styles, recognizable through their descriptive titles, include, but are not limited to the absentee leader, the incompetent leader, the codependent leader, the controller leader, the compulsive leader, the intemperate leader, the enforcer leader, the narcissistic leader, the bully leader, and the evil leader. Thompson (2008), additionally, indicated these leadership styles are not exclusive, but often overlap. The recognition in this regard is that these established leadership styles provide a theoretical framework for phenomenological analysis of destructive leadership tendencies. Much literature has considered that the commanders and their leaders must set an excellent example of conduct through high personal standards because it is their moral responsibility (Dawson, Burrell, & Rahim 2010; Forte 2005; Stevens 2011). According to Dawson, Burrell, and Rahim (2010), commanders are role models who must lead by example as well as authority and influence. Dawson, Burrell, and Rahim (2010) also suggested commanders are responsible for setting the command climate, also known as the attitude of the organization, and is normally created with locus of control. In regard, locus of control has been a prominent theoretical concept. Forte (2005) established locus of control as a means that individuals attribute their success and failures. Stevens (2011) further suggested Rotter's theory of internal-external locus of control evolved from Carl Jung's work. According to Forte, in Psychological Types (1923), Jung defined introversion and extroversion as the two opposing tendencies in personality. Eisenberg (1999) extended these considerations of locus of control as his research suggested that leaders with internal locus of control relied on their individuality and means to influence outcomes, whereas, those, who dominated external locus of control believed that others, events, or fate dictated the outcome. In the military, commanders who possess an external locus of control tend to focus on accomplishing the mission by empowering competent subordinates, providing them with resources, and keeping supervision to a minimum, to create a sense of ownership (Tiedemann, 2004). On the other hand, Tiedemann suggested commanders who dominated through external locus of control had a tendency to place the blame on subordinates when outcomes did not produce favorable results. Commanders tended to put their own careers first while neglecting the careers of their subordinates. According to Air Force Doctrine Document 1-1 (2004), when commanders placed their career ahead of their subordinates, they lost focus on mission statements and focus more on the destructive actions of their leaders. Pence (2010) articulated considerations of locus of control in terms of the actions of leaders. Pence's (2010) research extended these earlier concepts as it suggested workers view their organization based on the actions of their leaders rather than the mission statement. When commanders or leaders’ personal example is that of destructive leadership, it may affect service members. Destructive leadership can cause subordinates to lose focus on the company’s objective and shift the company’s focus to destructive behavior (Thoroughgood, 2011; Ulmer, 2012; Yukl and Becker, 2006). Destructive leadership has also been established in terms of hostile behavior. Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, and Hetland (2007) suggested that destructive leadership may occur when those in leadership positions partake in the constant display of hostile verbal and nonverbal actions. Other studies have worked to examine hostility and destructive leadership styles. A survey conducted by Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, and Hetland with more than 2000 workers, determined laissez-faire leadership was consistent with role conflict, role ambiguity, and hostile clashes with coworkers. Laissez-fair leadership patterned a display of strong negative relationships between leaders and subordinates. This style of leadership demonstrates adverse relationships because the style offers little to no response to the suborindates needs and performance (Hinkin and Schriesheim, 2008). The results of Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, and Hetland’s study supported the notion that laissez-faire leadership behavior results in hostile, destructive leadership. They also suggested that these types of behaviors may have a negative impact on subordinates and organizations. Although the armed forces are conducting a drawdown, maintaining high standards and expectations is essential for each branch of the armed forces for the security of the United States of America (Department of Defense, 2010). Randall (2006), suggested service members need leadership emphasis and without effective leadership and the development of critical leadership traits and principles, retention rates may suffer. Randall (2006) also believed, with the meticulous use of leadership skills, leaders could provide positive influence on the retention problems within organizations. Ultimately, these studies provide an overview of the intricacies of destructive leadership within organizational contexts. Definitions Command Climate. Headquarters, Marine Corps (2006) defined command climate as a climate that determines the attitude and spirit of the command. Command climate is the responsibility of the commander, and it measures their success as a commander Commander. According to the Military Occupational Manual (2008), commander is a title of a commissioned officer who is in placed in command of a military organization. The commander is ultimately responsible for the success of the organization. Commissioned Officer. Headquarters, United States Marine Corps (2001) are those appointed to their military grade by a commission (p. A-1). Doctrine. Headquarters, Department of the Army and United States Marine Corps (1997) referred to doctrine as a guide used by military forces to guide their actions to meet the nation’s objectives. Marine Corps Doctrine Publications (MCDPs) are considered higher order doctrine containing the philosophical fundamentals of Marine Corps’ beliefs. Drawdown. Oliker, Grant, and Kaye (2010) noted a reduction in the amount of military forces. Expiration of Active Service (EAS). Headquarters, United States Marine Corps (2004) suggested this is the date that ends the active duty obligation of all enlisted service members. Followers: According to Kean, Haycock-Stuart, Baggaley & Carson (2011) stated the conceptualization of followers as a homogeneous group of uncritical, unreflective obedient people following unquestioningly the directives of their leaders (p. 508). For the purpose of this study, followers possess the rank of Private (E-1) through Sergeant (E-5). They are also referred to as subordinates or junior subordinates. Military Occupational Specialty (MOS). This identified by numbers that depict the job title a service member (Military Occupational Manual, 2008). Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO). Headquarters, United States Marine Corps (2012) referred to an enlisted member in the armed services who is at the first level of the leadership echelon. They achieve this position or title with time, experience, and promotions. Their pay grades are E-4 (Corporal) and E-5. Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP). This is a form of disciplinary action for a service member for minor infractions. The commander usually conducts NJP. The Marine Corps refers to it as Office Hours (Manual of Court-Martial, 2012). Operational Tempo (Optempo). Olsen and Heilmann (2009), suggested operational temp defines how busy a unit is. If the operation tempo is high, the unit is busy. Retention. United States Army Reserve Command (2012) suggested retention is retaining the most qualified service members, which will allow them to stay of active duty to further service this country. Senior Enlisted Advisor. According to the Department of Defense (2004), a senior enlisted advisor is the most senior enlisted Marine within an organization and is the advisor to the commander. Their pay grades are E-8 (first sergeant or master sergeant) and E-9 (sergeant major or master gunnery sergeant). Staff Non-Commissioned Officer (SNCO). Headquarters, United States Marine Corps (2012) considered this group to be the most experienced of the enlisted ranks. Their pay grades range from E-6 (staff sergeant) though E-9. These Marines hold the key leadership positions that connect the officer ranks to the junior enlisted ranks. They are advisors to the commanders or other officers in leadership positions. Unit. Randall (2006) suggested a unit is a military organization of company size, which can range from 125-250 personnel. Warship. According to Wertheim (2007) a warship is a ship built specifically to operate and provide support in combat. Assumptions There are underlying assumptions that potentially influence this study that are beyond control. Leedy and Ormrod (2010) suggested that the research problem itself could not exist without assumptions. There is an assumption that all data collected for the participants is factual and not fabricated. There will be no incentives offered to those who participate in the study. It is assumed that each Marine has a mentor who would guide, develop, lead, and mentor him or her through experience and the art of influence. General M. W. Hagee, the former Commandant of the Marine Corps (2006) signed the mentoring order requiring all Marines have a mentor. With the sample that represented the population, it is assumed that the sampling error will be minimal. The study will consist of a diverse group from the Marine Corps and will include service members from pay grades ranging from E-1 through E-5. Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations The scope of this study is restricted to junior enlisted Marines with a minimum of two years of active duty service. The educational background of the participants will range from high school graduate to postgraduate. Studying one branch of service will make it more manageable to conduct an analysis of the data. Limitations are potential weaknesses within study that are out of the control of the researcher (Merriam 2009). There are limited studies on destructive leadership in the Marine Corps and even fewer on the effects of this leadership. Most leadership studies primarily focused on leadership behaviors, qualities, concepts, and effective approaches. With the sample group limited to junior enlisted Marines stationed in the southeastern area of the United States, this study may not accurately reflect the perceptions of all junior enlisted Marines throughout the Marine Corps. Analysis and assumptions made by junior enlisted Marines may not be applicable to individuals in non-military organizations. Scheduling appointments to conduct interviews can be limited because of the tempo, such as deployments, training evolutions, and unexpected commitments, which could lead to a delay in research. Delimitations are the characteristics that help limit the scope of this study, which puts them in the control of the researcher (Merriam, 2009). Putting emphasis on the effects of destructive leadership was the first delimitation chosen. Its intent is to provide the negative effects of destructive leadership. Summary Chapter one expressed the importance of leadership and how destructive leadership can have a negative impact on service members. Chapter one provided background on research that highlighted leadership styles, leadership behaviors, destructive leadership, and how these aspects of leadership may negatively affect junior enlisted service members. Chapter two will provide a review of the selected literature chosen for this study. While there is extensive research on leadership methods, behavior, style, and development, there is a dearth of literature on destructive leadership. There is even less research available on the impact of destructive leadership on military service members. This study will examine the available literature and provide valuable information on destructive leadership, which may be useful to military units to determine destructive leadership behavior. It will also provide information and attempt to reduce the amount of destructive leadership that service members may experience. Missing: Does the summary have a concluding paragraph explaining what chapter 2 will cover as a transition? Chapter 2 will discuss what and what…. Read More