Existing climate-assessment surveys could be improved in terms of survey content, administration, and interpretation. Many people I speak to during leadership assessments tell me, “I am skeptical of many of the surveys based on when they are given, how they are given, and the questions that are asked.”
It has been noted that although leadership is an important variable in determining command climate, other variables, such as lack of resources for assigned objectives, also play a part. Climate-assessment surveys are tools for leaders to use to assess their own departments. Considerable skepticism exists that toxic leaders would take appropriate corrective action unless results are provided to raters. Surveys go the department manager or supervisor, not those who need to see them, the organizations senior leaders.
Personally, I doubt whether an organization is willing to identify and deal with toxic leaders if they are otherwise effective, at least in the short-term.
Toxic leaders stay on because they get results. Senior managers who take no action against toxic leaders take no action because they like the results.
Such inaction is usually voiced with an observable sense of regret and resignation.
