Gen. Patton's Hospital Incident: Toxic or Tough

Is tough leadership "good" and at what point does it cross the threshold and become Toxic Leadership. In a recent discussion, the incident of Patton's visit to a hospital was brought into question. The topic was poised, however, with the outright assumption that Patton was at complete fault and that the incident tarnished his name. The incident is referenced below:

Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, commander of the Seventh U.S. Army, visited a military hospital in Sicily on Aug. 3, 1943. He traveled past the beds of wounded soldiers, asking them about their injuries. Coming to the bed of a soldier who lacked visible signs of injury, Patton inquired about his health.

The soldier, 18-year-old Pvt. Charles H. Kuhl, had been tentatively diagnosed as having a case of psychoneurosis. He told Patton that he couldn’t mentally handle the battle lines. “It’s my nerves,” he said. “I can hear the shells come over but I can’t hear them burst.”

Enraged, Patton slapped Kuhl across the face and called him a coward. As Patton left the tent, he heard Kuhl crying and turned back, striking the soldier again and ordering him to leave the infirmary tent.

Toxic vs. Tough is difficult to pinpoint as each individual has different thresholds for what level of ‘tough’ they are willing to endure in the name of mission success. Often when that threshold is reached a person might change their view of their leader from viewing them as tough to viewing them as toxic. Mission success and warfighting capability being the reason the Corps exists, a leader who takes action in adherence to these principles might maintain a level of grounded toughness while one seeking personal career glory might slide into a toxic form of leadership. Take the reference to General Patton. The specific example depicts Patton's outrage as he witnessed what he believed to be cowardice. Patton’s intention might have been mission success - “we need all the men we can get for this fight” – and if this patient had simply missed his family, feared for his life, and claimed an ailment to leave the frontlines, then would you not say Patton had every right to be furious. Notice he walked past countless beds of soldiers missing limbs and dying before coming to Pvt. Kuhl. Is a man, one who is called to fight, surrounded by countrymen and brethren laying down their lives, who fears death and lies in order to gain special treatment and safety, not a coward? And is it not possible that Patton has met many men before Pvt. Kuhl who claim ailment to escape the horrors of war while other men, also fearful for their lives, persisted? The problem is we do not know the legitimacy of his ailment, and at the time there was no way for Patton to know either. Before making such a statement as he did it would have been important to know the facts. But I do not think we can outright barrage him with titles of toxic leadership for his disdain of what he perceived to be man skirting his duties and responsibilities - at least not without a length discussion first. You may point to the distasteful treatment of the patient, but men conducted themselves differently during the mid 20th Century and the outrage is not against the fact he slapped a man, its that he refused to accept the man to be a victim - taking the victim's side without clear discussion and review is all too common.  Wasn’t Patton's fury out of love for those men who were dying on the lines? Those men who also missed their family, and feared death and war, but fought nonetheless, and in spite of it? What talk of that love is mentioned in this scenario? – often none. I think toxic leadership and tough leadership both exist prevalently in the military today, however, I think often times we are quick to get so enamored with our comforts and feelings that we too quickly default to claiming toxicity. 

After all, look at Patton's own words:

"It has come to my attention that a very small number of soldiers are going to the hospital on the pretext that they are nervously incapable of combat. Such men are cowards and bring discredit on the army and disgrace to their comrades, whom they heartlessly leave to endure the dangers of battle while they, themselves, use the hospital as a means of escape. You will take measures to see that such cases are not sent to the hospital but dealt with in their units. Those who are not willing to fight will be tried by court-martial for cowardice in the face of the enemy."— Patton directive to the Seventh Army, 5 August 1943

Clearly, he is operating not out of hate for the victim but out of love for those he left behind.

Let me be clear, I am not advocating for Patton's actions to be duplicated, nor am I even claiming they were just - but I do believe its an important discussion to have in order to understand the motives from each perspective.

Eisenhower did well to confirm Patton's motives but condemn the way he carried them out. He wrote to Patton several days later:

“I am well aware of the necessity for hardness and toughness on the battlefield. … But this does not excuse brutality, abuse of the ‘sick,’ nor exhibition of uncontrollable temper in front of subordinates,” Eisenhower wrote.