A recent paper by Mergen and colleagues (2026), published in Organization, introduces a powerful and timely concept: toxic experts. These are individuals who, despite appearing credible, use their perceived expertise to promote misleading or harmful claims, often for personal or commercial gain
At first glance, it is tempting to see this as a problem of a few bad actors. However, the research challenges that assumption. Toxic expertise is not simply about individuals behaving badly. It is a systemic phenomenon, shaped by how organisations, institutions, and societies define and reward expertise.
The authors argue that expertise has always carried both technical and moral expectations. We expect experts to be knowledgeable, but also to demonstrate integrity, humility, and intellectual honesty. Toxicity emerges when these virtues are replaced by patterns of behaviour such as overconfidence, selective use of evidence, or resistance to challenge. Importantly, this is not about occasional mistakes. It is about persistent behaviour that continues despite evidence of harm.
One of the most important insights from the paper is that toxic experts thrive in particular environments. The study highlights how broader structural shifts, especially the increasing commercialisation of knowledge, can erode professional standards. When expertise becomes a product to sell, the incentives can shift away from accuracy and towards visibility, influence, and profit.
This creates fertile ground for what the authors describe as the “corrosion of character”. Over time, pressures to perform, compete, and monetise knowledge can weaken the ethical foundations of professional practice. What begins as small compromises can evolve into more serious distortions of evidence and judgement.
At the same time, toxic expertise is reinforced by how people interpret and respond to information. The research draws attention to several cognitive tendencies that make individuals more vulnerable. We are more likely to trust those with titles or credentials, even when the evidence is weak. We are drawn to messages that align with our existing beliefs. We tend to favour simple, confident explanations over complex, uncertain ones.
Toxic experts are often highly effective communicators. They combine credibility cues with emotional appeal, offering certainty where science is still evolving. In doing so, they can build strong followings, even when their claims lack robust evidence.
For organisations, this raises important questions about how expertise is recognised and legitimised. The paper highlights the role of social recognition in shaping who is seen as an expert. Credentials, institutional affiliation, and visibility all play a role, but they do not guarantee integrity. In some cases, they can even amplify problematic voices.
There are clear implications for inclusive leadership. Inclusion is not only about who is heard, but also about how knowledge is evaluated. When certain voices are elevated without scrutiny, while others are dismissed or overlooked, organisations risk reinforcing misinformation and inequality at the same time.
The authors propose a shift towards what they call cascaded accountability. This means strengthening responsibility at multiple levels, from individual professionals to organisations and regulatory systems. It also involves improving how evidence is assessed, communicated, and challenged.
For leaders, the message is both simple and demanding. Expertise should not be accepted at face value. It should be examined, questioned, and contextualised. Creating environments where this is possible requires psychological safety, critical thinking, and a commitment to evidence over authority.
Inclusion, in this sense, is not just about representation. It is about ensuring that decisions are informed by credible, ethical, and rigorously tested knowledge.
You can read the original article here.
