In leadership discourse, the phrase “toxic leader” is thrown around with increasing frequency. But what exactly does it mean — and can someone truly be a leader if they are toxic?

This article explores the concept of toxic leadership through a critical lens, challenging assumptions about authority, influence, morality, and the role of perception in defining leadership itself.

What Is Leadership?

At its core, leadership is not a title, a position, or a promotion. Leadership is influence through voluntary followership.

John C. Maxwell put it simply:

“Leadership is influence — nothing more, nothing less.”

This implies a mutual relationship between leader and follower. People choose to follow because they align with a person’s vision, values, or presence — not just because someone has power over them.

This definition sets the foundation for a difficult but necessary question:

Can leadership exist when the influence becomes harmful — or when followership is rooted in fear?

The Common View of Toxic Leadership

Toxic leadership is often described by behaviours such as:


  • Micromanagement
  • Manipulation
  • Gaslighting
  • Intimidation
  • Narcissistic control
  • Emotional neglect or abuse


These behaviours clearly cause harm to teams, cultures, and individuals. Organizations like the U.S. Army and Harvard Business Review have studied toxic leadership extensively, linking it to burnout, disengagement, and turnover.

But here's the problem: Many so-called “toxic leaders” still have loyal followers.

They get results. They hold authority. They even have people who defend them. Does this mean they are still leaders?

A Counter-Argument: Toxic Leadership Doesn’t Exist

A powerful opposing view challenges the very concept of “toxic leadership”:

Leadership, by nature, cannot be toxic. Because the moment the leader becomes toxic, people stop following by choice. What remains is not leadership — it's authority without consent.

This argument reframes the issue: Toxicity is not part of leadership — it's a breakdown of leadership.

In this view:


  • A true leader inspires voluntary, conscious followership.
  • A toxic person in power commands obedience, fear, or dependency.
  • The moment people stay out of fear, not choice — leadership ends.


The Role of Perception

This theory relies heavily on perception — a core concept in moral philosophy and psychology.

If someone causes harm, but their follower:


  • Accepts it,
  • Believes it’s deserved,
  • Or doesn't perceive it as harm...


...then the relationship remains intact. Leadership still exists.

Only when perception shifts — when the follower realizes the manipulation, the harm, the betrayal — does the leader lose their status. Until that moment, no matter how toxic the behavior looks from the outside, the follower’s consent keeps the leadership alive.

Therefore:

Leadership only becomes toxic the moment it stops being leadership — when the perception of voluntary followership dissolves.

Is Harm Enough to Define Bad Leadership?

Many critics argue that harm is harm, whether perceived or not. But this philosophy challenges that too:


  • If I suffer during a workout — is the coach toxic?
  • If I cry during growth — is the mentor harmful?
  • If I feel broken after the truth — is the truth wrong?


No. Because chosen pain is not abuse. And even unchosen pain may not be immoral if no bad intent or physical violence is involved.

In short:

Pain is not proof of toxicity. And emotional suffering is not always evidence of abuse.

The individual’s capacity to choose, to walk away, or to accept discomfort is central to whether leadership is still present — or if it has turned into coercion.

Strength, Weakness, and Responsibility

Here lies the final core belief in this framework:

It is not the leader’s behaviour that defines toxicity — but the follower’s refusal or inability to detach from it.

This isn’t victim-blaming — it’s a radical re-centring of agency.

If a person:


  • Continues in a manipulative relationship,
  • Ignores signs of control,
  • Or remains loyal to harm...


...the argument says this is a reflection of emotional weakness, not necessarily moral evil from the leader.

“Strong minds walk away. Weak minds stay — and then call it abuse later.”

It’s a controversial but grounded belief: No act is inherently toxic — it becomes toxic only when perceived as such, and consent is withdrawn.

Conclusion

So, can a leader be toxic?

According to conventional definitions: yes.

According to this deeper framework: no — because the very moment toxicity is acknowledged, leadership ends.

The true danger lies not in “toxic leadership” but in followers failing to define their own threshold of harm. Leadership is not a condition imposed — it's a relationship maintained. And it dissolves the moment one side reclaims control.

And if leadership ends due to consent being withdrawn by the follower — yet the person in authority continues to use the same behaviours, tone, tactics, and attitude — it no longer qualifies as leadership at all. It becomes a management style. One that might be tolerated, enforced, or feared — but not followed.

Final Reflection

We often speak of toxic leaders. But perhaps the more important question is:

Why did we follow them for so long?

And once we stop following — if the system remains the same — we’re not dealing with leadership. We’re facing management without influence.