In their focal article, Ducheyne and De Fruyt (Reference Ducheyne and De Fruyt2026) argue that the lack of distinction between toxic/destructive and incompetent leadership is hindering research progress and creating challenges for practitioners. We agree that many “dark” leadership constructs are often conflated but contend that both toxic and incompetent leadership can be equally harmful for employees, teams, and organizations. Further, we argue that placing the responsibility of “correctly” labeling poor leadership on followers is unfair and could cause further harm. Rather than emphasizing the distinction between leader incompetence and toxicity, we propose a behavior-and outcome-centered framework. We recommend organizations focus on measurable behaviors and outcomes rather than relying on perceptions of poor leadership, arguing that a leader’s competence or intentions matter less than the consequences of their behaviors.

First, Ducheyne and De Fruyt rely on the leader’s intentions to differentiate toxic and incompetent leadership. However, behavioral intentions are not only challenging to capture but are less relevant than the outcomes that result from behaviors (or a lack thereof). For example, laissez-faire leadership, defined as “the absence of leadership, the avoidance of intervention, or both” (Bass & Avolio, Reference Bass and Avolio1994, p. 20), demonstrates how leader incompetence can be just as destructive as malicious intent, producing negative employee outcomes comparable to those generated by actively toxic leaders (e.g., role conflict, role ambiguity, interpersonal conflict; Skogstad et al., Reference Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland and Hetland2007). Further, failing to support individuals often results in increased anxiety, increased role strain, and well-being decrements (Skogstad et al., Reference Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland and Hetland2007). Thus, laissez-faire would not meet the competent leadership dimensions of (a) steer/support the team and (b) steer/support the individual (Table 1, Ducheyne & De Fruyt, Reference Ducheyne and De Fruyt2026).

Relatedly, failing the minimal competencies of (a) creating a safe environment and (b) fostering a climate of trust (Table 1, Ducheyne & De Fruyt, Reference Ducheyne and De Fruyt2026) can set followers up for harm, regardless of whether the harm is intentional or not. An analogy for this would be viewing child welfare cases: Neglect and abuse are treated as similar crimes (Abuse of Children, 2018) despite the caregiver’s intentions (i.e., intentional abuse or absentminded neglect). The negative outcomes of these offenses are detrimental to the child, and the consequences are similar. The bottom line is that a leader’s failure to cultivate a supportive environment ultimately inflicts damage, regardless of whether the behavior stems from incompetence or intentional harm.

Second, the focal article focuses on perceptions of leader behaviors, claiming that the behavior must be “perceived as threatening, intimidating, or discrediting ” (p. 13), and the leader must be “experienced as” untrustworthy by others to qualify as toxic (p. 13). This is problematic because perceptions and evaluations of behavior are distinct from behavior itself (see Banks et al., Reference Banks, Woznyj and Mansfield2023). For example, if a leader engages in toxic actions, such as shifting blame or interpersonal hostility, those behaviors are objectively toxic/destructive, regardless of whether subordinates explicitly identify or report them as such. In this case, we argue that subordinate perceptions of toxic or incompetent leadership are secondary to the leader’s measurable behaviors.

Perhaps more problematically, this reliance on the followers’ perceptions is backward: As I-O psychologists, we are trained to emphasize behaviors and their outcomes when grounding construct validity (e.g., Cronbach & Meehl, Reference Cronbach and Meehl1955; Schmidt & Hunter, Reference Schmidt and Hunter1998), not just the perceived effects of behaviors. Research suggests outcomes of incompetent leadership include a decrement in organizational vision, declines in motivation and productivity, impairment of organizational culture, and negative well-being outcomes (e.g., Bourne, Reference Bourne2025). Thus, instead of debating whether an incompetent leader’s actions are deemed toxic by subordinates and/or coworkers, researchers (and practitioners) should focus on the objective behaviors of both incompetent and toxic leaders and evaluate subsequent effects to inform appropriate action.

Last, to address toxic leadership, the authors recommend that organizations provide clear definitions of effective, incompetent, and toxic leadership to reduce ambiguity and protect leaders from “unfounded accusations” (p. 14). We agree that there should be clearer definitions of constructs in the leadership domain to reduce construct proliferation and move toward construct clarity (Mackey et al., Reference Mackey, Ellen, McAllister and Alexander2021). However, the authors’ reasoning for doing so seemingly shifts the responsibility for identifying dark leadership onto followers—those who are often most vulnerable to power asymmetries, fear of retaliation, and the normalization of harmful behavior. Placing the burden of definition, distinction, and reporting on more vulnerable personnel creates inequity and heightens the risk that subordinates will not be believed.