Proliferation and parsimony: Definitely not two Ps in a pod

When a field is saturated with new and untested theories, as is the case with the leadership literature (e.g., Brouer et al., Reference Brouer, Gardner, Gooty and Chiu2026), it poses a threat of construct redundancy and proliferation. Thus, when Ducheyne and De Fruyt narrow their investigations to examine facets or subfacets of leadership to “effectively inform practice” (p. 256), our immediate reaction is: “Will it make a difference?” (Antonakis, Reference Antonakis2017, p. 6). Using the bandwidth-fidelity dilemma and Occam’s razor, we conclude that it is impractical to distinguish between incompetent and toxic leadership.

Judge et al. (Reference Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon and Crawford2013, p. 877) describe the bandwidth-fidelity dilemma, in which there is a compromise between the breadth of information obtained (bandwidth) and the precision of the measurement (fidelity). Therefore, when the focal article claims that “a single and up-to-date resource grouping available knowledge is lacking today” (p. 3), we question why new definitions were proposed for toxic and incompetent leadership (i.e., increasing bandwidth) without sufficient evidence to defend why existing definitions are inadequate (i.e., addressing fidelity). We see this work as adding unnecessary bandwidth without fidelity. Moreover, why did the authors treat destructive and toxic leadership constructs interchangeably (p. 3)? A meta-analysis, competing hypotheses testing, or other methodologically robust technique is needed to address this and support the authors’ decision to treat these two terms as the same construct.

Additionally, we concur with Banks et al. (Reference Banks, Gooty, Ross, Williams and Harrington2018) who reference Occam’s razor, emphasizing that parsimony, rather than volume, is preferred. Unfortunately, proliferation and parsimony are not two Ps in a pod. Thus, even if there is sufficient and valid reasoning for proposing new definitions, a qualitative analysis is needed to explore whether, in practice, these should be treated as separate constructs. An alternative route could be to mirror prior research that has incorporated boundary conditions (e.g., Badura et al., Reference Badura, Galvin and Lee2022), investigating toxicity as a potential boundary condition of destructive leadership.

Are the practical suggestions practical?

Numerous suggestions for addressing toxic leadership were proposed in the focal article (e.g., psychologically safe pathways for reporting leadership concerns), yet it falls short of providing substantive directions for practical implementation. We argue that many of these suggestions are impractical or, even potentially, ill advised to combat toxic leaders in the workplace. For instance, implying that toxic patterns should be identified early to facilitate interventions disregards how employees might face personal and professional repercussions when engaging in whistleblowing (e.g., Cortina & Berdahl, Reference Cortina and Berdahl2008; Detert & Burris, Reference Detert and Burris2007; Liang et al., Reference Liang, Farh and Farh2012) or voicing mistreatment, particularly when this could be perceived as personally targeting a leader (Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, Reference Olson-Buchanan and Boswell2008). Such potential consequences can discourage followers from raising concerns about a toxic or incompetent leader, leaving organizations unable to detect early signs of toxicity.

Additionally, it can be challenging for a follower to recognize the toxicity of a leader. Toxic leaders can be quite charming (e.g., Back et al., Reference Back, Schmukle and Egloff2010) or may be inconsistent in their toxic behaviors (e.g., Ashforth, Reference Ashforth1994), effectively gaslighting their followers. Padilla et al. (Reference Padilla, Hogan and Kaiser2007) identify how some followers may not identify destructive leaders due to low self-esteem (conformers) or because they benefit from the leader’s behavior (colluders). There will also be differences between follower perceptions. What is toxic and intolerable for some individuals may not be considered toxic by similarly situated others. Indeed, based on the findings of Martinko and colleagues (Reference Martinko, Mackey, Moss, Harvey, McAllister and Brees2018), some followers might rate their leaders as toxic (not toxic) just because they do not like (like) these leaders. The operational definition of competent leadership proposed by Ducheyne and De Fruyt does not fully address the subjective nature of all four of the competent leadership factors identified (i.e., steering and supporting the team/individual, creating a safe environment, and a climate of trust). We argue that employees will subjectively interpret these factors, making a unified taxonomy of acceptable behaviors impossible.

We contend that Ducheyne and De Fruyt’s statement that defining (un)desired leadership will “protect leaders from unfounded accusations, and enable followers to raise concerns in a legitimate and structured manner” (p. 252) is overly optimistic as it overlooks the complexities of organizational power dynamics. The focal article does not fully account for the power distance between leaders and followers, nor the potential consequences of raising concerns, factors that may impede a follower’s voice regardless of how clearly leadership is defined.

Consequently, we recommend a stronger approach for combating toxic and incompetent leadership through implementing a root cause analysis (RCA). Percival Carter and Obenauer (Reference Percival Carter and Obenauer2025) propose the use of an RCA as a solution for ineffective DEI practices and policies, highlighting how organizations such as hospital systems already implement RCAs to systematically determine and eliminate underlying causes (Doggett, Reference Doggett2005). Similarly, this approach can be applied to ineffective leadership and its respective negative outcomes. In a leadership context, gleaned from key performance indicators (KPIs; e.g., employee satisfaction, turnover), an organization would assemble a team to investigate the underlying cause of perceived toxic leadership (e.g., company culture, accountability gaps, incentives). Subsequently, targeted interventions, such as revised KPIs, leadership coaching, or accountability mechanisms, can be implemented and monitored to ensure that the root cause of ineffective leadership is addressed. This removes singling out any one follower to recognize and report toxic leadership, eliminating issues with individual perceptions of leadership, as well as barriers associated with possible retaliation (e.g., individually reporting leader).

We suggest organizations implement the use of 360-degree feedback as a KPI, which incorporates evaluations from both superiors and subordinates. Collecting and quantifying coworker observations of a leader allows for greater accuracy in evaluating leader behaviors and performance as this process accounts for perceptions across multiple raters (Bracken et al., Reference Bracken, Rose and Church2016). The findings of the 360-degree feedback approaches can then be used to implement similar interventions as mentioned above to address ineffective leadership behaviors. Nowack and Mashihi (Reference Nowack and Mashihi2012) found that 360-degree feedback interventions lead to significant behavioral changes in the ratee; similarly, we believe this can be a practical method to impose genuine change in leader behaviors.