Managing Toxic Leadership is Not a Binary Problem

We need to bring more nuance to the conversation about toxic leadership. 

Too often, the discourse is framed as a simple binary: leaders are either toxic or they’re not. This black-and-white thinking not only oversimplifies a complex issue but also creates a climate of fear among leaders who worry about being labeled as 'toxic.'

The truth is, not all leaders who aren’t great are inherently toxic. 

The fear of being branded as ‘toxic’ can actually cause leadership self doubt and hesitancy, leading to unproductive, stagnant management. I’ve worked with many leaders who found themselves labeled as toxic—often on the brink of losing their jobs. One thing they all had in common? They genuinely believed they were acting in the best interest of the company. They didn’t see how their well-intentioned actions could simultaneously be undermining their own efforts and causing significant damage to their teams.

Recently, I had the privilege of working with a high-level, highly competent leader. She had been invited to participate in an extended leadership program designed to challenge and refine her skills. One of the first exercises was to identify areas for personal focus and growth. During our conversation, I encouraged her to think beyond her individual competencies and to consider the systems in which she operates.

The next level for her wasn’t about mastering new technical skills—it was about shifting to systems thinking and fostering a team learning environment. I emphasized the importance of matching her leadership style and inquiry approach to the context, essentially moving toward adaptive leadership. It’s about recognizing that leadership doesn’t exist in isolation. Success at the next level means being able to read the room, gauge the context, and adapt your approach accordingly.

The likelihood for her to become toxic was very low, but the opportunity to become destructive or simply counterproductive as the stakes and complexity increased is rather high. I want to emphasize how capable, well liked and competent she is. 

The reality is that competent people are often put into a position where they are at a disadvantage and told to “swim”.

Why Language Matters

Years ago, I was introduced to the idea that there was a difference between toxic and destructive leadership. It was a revelation. Toxic implies something poisonous, harmful, or unpleasant in a pervasive and insidious way. Destructive, on the other hand, suggests causing harm or being unhelpful, but without the malicious or pervasive intent.

Intent is the difference.

This distinction matters because it changes how we approach leadership development. Leaders labeled as toxic are often immediately categorized as a problem to be solved, while those who are simply struggling may not get the support they need because they don’t fit into the 'toxic' category.

Toxic leadership stands out - there are issues surrounding one or a small group of people. When this is the case there needs to be more documentation, candid conversations, accountability and feedback. But, when the case is better described as destructive there needs to be a fundamentally different approach.

That approach, to put it simply, needs to have a lot more empathy.

The Call to Action for Culture Architects and HR

Instead of labeling leaders as toxic or not, we should take a more nuanced approach. Culture Architects should foster environments where leaders feel safe to examine and improve their practices. By focusing on adaptive leadership and promoting systems thinking, organizations can help leaders better understand the context of their actions and the broader impact on their teams.

These leaders need support in the form of training that focuses on character skills as well as cognitive ones, mentorship, and peer networks to thrive. 

This is before we even consider coaching which can be invaluable but might be more expensive with a less than clear ROI.

We must also support leaders in recognizing when their well-meaning actions have unintended negative consequences. This approach helps prevent the defensive posture that often comes along with the fear of being labeled as toxic and opens the door for genuine growth. In short, it’s not about calling out toxic leadership—it’s about calling up leaders to be better.

This is the conversation we need to be having. It’s time to move beyond the binary and start building better leaders through understanding, support, and adaptive thinking.

What Can Culture Architects Do?

1. Create Psychological Safety for Leaders: Leaders who fear being labeled as toxic may retreat from taking action or engaging with their teams. Avoiding feedback and accountability that leads to growth and having a mismatched approach to solve issues with the team.  Culture Architects should focus on building environments where leaders feel safe to be vulnerable, ask for feedback, and explore new approaches without the fear of judgment. Psychological safety encourages leaders to acknowledge mistakes and grow from them.

2. Encourage Systems Thinking: Train leaders to see the interconnectedness of their actions and outcomes. This helps them understand how their decisions impact not only their immediate team but the organization as a whole. Adaptive leadership thrives on this perspective, where context shapes response.

3. Normalize Growth Mindset: Shift the narrative from labeling to learning. When leaders see themselves as continuous learners rather than potential threats to culture, they are more likely to seek improvement proactively. Reward learners and those who continue to find ways to improve than those who create a veneer of ‘rightness’.

4. Facilitate Reflective Practice: Build regular opportunities for leaders to reflect on their approaches. This could be through peer coaching, mentorship, or structured reflection sessions where leaders can discuss challenges without fear of being judged as toxic.

5. Differentiate Language in Training: Be intentional with the language used in leadership development programs. Replace the binary language of 'toxic vs. non-toxic' with more nuanced terms that acknowledge growth and adaptability.

As Culture Architects and HR leaders, we must move beyond a binary perspective. If we continue to frame leadership challenges as purely toxic or not, we risk losing the opportunity to help leaders who are simply struggling to find the right approach. By fostering a culture of learning, adaptive thinking, and supportive reflection, we can develop more resilient, effective leaders who feel empowered to improve rather than fearful of judgment.