Destructive leadership versus leader ineffectiveness: Leveraging arguments from prior research to clarify the distinction and construct boundaries

Abstract

The argument that destructive leadership (DL) should be distinguished from ineffective leadership is important and timely (Ducheyne & De Fruyt, 2026). At the same time, this distinction has been articulated previously in the literature. In particular, Krasikova et al. (2013) proposed a theoretical framework that explicitly differentiated DL from ineffective leadership and identified the intentional nature of harmdoing as the key demarcation between the two forms of leadership (see the section titled Destructive Leadership Versus Ineffective Leadership , pp. 1314 – 1315). In this commentary, we build on that earlier work and clarify conceptual issues that are central to distinguishing DL from leader ineffectiveness. Specifically, we: (a) discuss definitional issues related to the construct domain of DL; (b) explain why the focal article ’ s definition of DL, which allows DL to be either intentional or unintentional, blurs the theoretical boundary between DL and ineffective leadership; and (c) posit that ineffective leadership is better conceptualized as the low end of the broader leadership effectiveness continuum rather than as a distinct construct.