science
Leadership Expert Examines Systems Enabling Ineffective Leadership in Organizations
Christopher Hossfeld, founder of Barrel Strength Leadership, discusses how organizational systems allow toxic or absent leaders to persist undetected. Drawing from military experience and historical examples like the Battle of Gettysburg, he highlights gaps in performance metrics that overlook human dynamics.
Apr 7, 1:10 PM·2m read1 source
Substrate placeholder — needs reviewAudio version
Tap play to generate a narrated version.
Christopher Hossfeld, founder of Barrel Strength Leadership, addresses the role of organizational systems in permitting ineffective leadership to continue without detection. He poses a question to groups: how many have worked under a toxic, absent, or politically appointed leader, and what effects did it have on them and their organization.
People often identify such leaders through behaviors including narcissism, prioritizing loyalty over competence, bullying, and chaos, or absence during critical decisions.
Hossfeld's approach examines structural conditions that enable these issues. He asks leaders how they would identify similar behaviors in their own organizations, noting that failure to detect them enables their persistence. His perspective stems from over two decades of military leadership, including leading infantry units and preparing teams for high-stakes operations.
military contexts, Hossfeld observed that nine months of planning followed by six months of execution reveal both prepared strengths and gaps.
He states that crisis exposes these elements in real time. This experience informs his view on how preparation influences outcomes while execution highlights deficiencies. Hossfeld references the first day of the Battle of Gettysburg on July 1, 1863, where a missed opportunity resulted from a toxic subordinate threatening others, an absent leader stepping away at a critical moment, and another acting independently for recognition.
Alignment failed despite the opportunity, which he attributes to the structures that placed those leaders in position. He draws parallels to modern business, where coordination breakdowns lead to missed market opportunities and hesitation erodes recoverable momentum. Misaligned leadership structures can result in fragmented execution, with strategy and operations diverging.
Consequences from such decisions appear over time, creating separation between outcomes and the initial leadership choices. Organizations frequently use key performance indicators (KPIs), dashboards, and predictive tools to evaluate performance.
