Summary
The prevailing leadership theories, reflecting an idealistic view, posit that bright side leadership (e.g., authentic and transformational leadership) is effective and dark side leadership (e.g., Machiavellian and abusive leadership) is ineffective. However, many bright side leadership theories have been criticized for excessive positivity, and many researchers have acknowledged the potential effectiveness of dark side leadership. Our recent article, published open access in the Journal of Management Studies, offers a conceptual model that helps reconcile the various bright and dark side leadership theories, advancing a more realistic theory of leader effectiveness.
A Leadership Theory Jungle
The literature on the relationship between leader behaviors and effectiveness is a jungle of complementary yet often conflicting theories of bright and dark side leadership that perplexes researchers and practitioners alike. It is informative to map these various bright and dark side leadership theories onto a two-by-two matrix based on leader behaviors (bright versus dark side leadership) and leader effectiveness (effective versus ineffective), as shown in Figure 1. Most leadership theories are in the bright-effective and dark-ineffective quadrants, whereas the bright-ineffective and dark-effective quadrants are relatively sparsely populated. The prevailing idealistic view accounts for the theories in the bright-effective and dark-ineffective quadrants, but not the counterintuitive theories in the other two quadrants.
Figure 1. Landscape of leadership theories (Source: Tang & Crossan, 2026)
Towards a Realistic Theory of Leader Effectiveness
Our theory accounts for and thus helps to reconcile the various leadership theories in all four quadrants of Figure 1. Leader effectiveness is defined as the extent to which leaders achieve their organization’s primary aims, and we allow that such effectiveness can be viewed as episodic. It posits that while bright side leadership tends to be effective, it can often go awry in practice and thus be ineffective. Bright side leadership tends to go awry when leaders focus single-mindedly on a specific positive leadership quality while neglecting others, failing to properly manage the tensions among various forms of bright side leadership.
Moreover, while dark side leadership tends to be ineffective, it can be effective during a specific leadership episode even though such effectiveness tends to be unsustainable across multiple leadership episodes. Dark side leadership can be effective especially around narrowly defined results that focus on the organization’s primary aims (e.g., shareholder value), through reliance on dark side behaviors such as manipulation and intimidation (e.g., Steve Jobs). The effectiveness of dark side leadership, per a relatively narrow definition of leader effectiveness, during some specific leadership episode is likely a key reason for the prevalence of dark side leadership in the real world.
However, the effectiveness of leaders engaging in dark side leadership is likely unsustainable. Such leaders tend to focus single-mindedly on the organization’s primary aims at the expense of its non-primary aims on which the primary aims ultimately depend; for example, a company whose primary aim is shareholder value may neglect the organizational health on which achieving shareholder value depends. The compromise of the non-primary aims may ultimately be detrimental to the primary aims. Thus, while dark side leadership might appear to boost short-term performance, it is like a ticking time bomb that could spell disaster in the long term (e.g., in the cases of Enron).
In addition, the relationship between leader behaviors and effectiveness depends on the context, in particular, context integrity. Bright side leadership tends to be more effective, and dark side leadership tends to be less effective, in high-integrity contexts than in low-integrity contexts. That is, the prevailing idealistic view holds more in high-integrity contexts, whereas the counterintuitive theories hold more in low-integrity contexts. Thus, the concept of context integrity helps to further reconcile the various leadership theories.
A Pivot of Leadership Discourse to a Dual Focus on Leader Character and Context Integrity
Our theory also proposes leader character and context integrity as two key determinants of leader behaviors. Specifically, leaders are more likely to engage in bright side leadership and less likely to engage in dark side leadership when they have strong character (rather than weak or imbalanced character) and when they operate in high-integrity contexts (rather than low-integrity contexts), and that leader character matters especially in low-integrity contexts. Strength of character arises through the development of an interconnected set of character dimensions, with judgment, or what Aristotle called “practical wisdom” as a means to regulate the dimensions. One of the reasons that bright side leadership goes awry is the emphasis on only certain aspects of character, whereby an unsupported strength actually manifests as a vice of excess. For example, a person with strong integrity and low humility may simply be dogmatic.
It is in the interest of organizations and society to encourage bright side leadership and discourage dark side leadership. Thus, leaders are well advised to develop themselves along all character dimensions and, because leader character can be observed, assessed, and developed, there is significant potential to elevate leader character alongside competence in leader selection and evaluation. Meanwhile, as society cannot just count on the self-regulation and goodwill of leaders themselves or realistically expect all leaders to have strong character, it must institutionalize safeguards against leaders with weak or imbalanced character. In particular, it is crucial to enhance context integrity, likely by improving on such factors as transparency, openness, character strength, and constituents’ ability to think critically.
As the leadership narratives in practice shape and are shaped by leadership theories, we hope that our theory, by improving our understanding of bright and dark side leadership and their respective effectiveness, cuts through the leadership theory jungle and thus shapes the leadership narratives in practice. By calling for a pivot in leadership discourse to a dual focus on leader character and context integrity, our theory may help develop leaders with strong character and high-integrity contexts, thereby ultimately advancing the common good.
