Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is generally well-written and presents an interesting and relevant study. The research aims and questions are clearly articulated and largely well-aligned. Specifically, RQ1 addresses literature patterns and collective behaviors, RQ2 explores mechanisms of ethical discourse manipulation, and RQ3 investigates the outcomes of collective dark leadership for employees and organizations. To further strengthen alignment, the connection between objective 5 (practical implications) and the research questions should be made more explicit. For example, it would be helpful to clearly demonstrate how findings from RQ3 will be used to inform governance, HR, or regulatory recommendations. Overall, the aims and questions provide a coherent foundation and focus on collective Dark Triad leadership and ethics mirages.

The literature review section needs more attention. Currently, much of the literature cited appears to be from the last two years, whereas the abstract and methodology section state that data will be collected from 2015 onward. Given that this is a qualitative document analysis covering the period from 2015–2025, earlier studies should be adequately included to reflect a more comprehensive view of the field. The paper also claims to have critically reviewed 55 past studies, but this is not clearly demonstrated in the literature review, particularly in the section labeled “Past Literature.” To address this, consider mapping the reviewed studies more explicitly or providing a summary table to show coverage and ensure transparency. Additionally, some sections, such as “Destructive Leadership Constructs,” are not supported by references, which weakens the academic rigor. Every conceptual discussion in a review-based study should be fully grounded in relevant citations.

The methodology section also requires clarification. The paper states that a qualitative, article-based document analysis of 55 peer-reviewed studies was conducted to capture systemic rather than individual patterns. However, the literature review includes case studies, which are not mentioned as part of the methodology. This inconsistency needs to be addressed by clearly explaining whether case studies were included, how they were selected, and how they fit within the analysis framework.

The discussion section could be more critical and analytical. At present, it is somewhat descriptive, summarizing findings rather than deeply examining their significance. A more critical discussion should explicitly link the study’s findings to previous research, highlight similarities and contradictions, and demonstrate how this study contributes to the existing body of knowledge. Additionally, discussing the implications of collective Dark Triad leadership for theory, organizational practice, and policy would make the discussion section more impactful and relevant.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the constructive and thoughtful feedback that has significantly strengthened the clarity, methodological consistency, and theoretical depth of this paper. Below, we provide a detailed response to each comment and specify how we have revised the manuscript accordingly. All major additions and amendments have been highlighted in the revised version.

Comment 1: English language clarity

“The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.”

Response:

We appreciate this valuable observation. The entire manuscript has been carefully revised for clarity, conciseness, and academic tone. Sentences with ambiguous phrasing have been rewritten, and transitions between sections have been improved for smoother flow. Examples include replacing “rebuild moral architectures” with “reconstruct organizational moral architectures” and rephrasing “leaders coalesce and unify their moral leadership front” to “leaders coalesce to project a unified moral façade of leadership.” These adjustments ensure that the language more effectively conveys the study’s analytical depth and argumentation.

Comment 2: Strengthen alignment between research objectives and questions

“The connection between Objective 5 (practical implications) and the research questions should be made more explicit. Demonstrate how findings from RQ3 inform governance, HR, or regulatory recommendations.”

Response:

We have clarified the logical alignment between the research objectives and questions in the Introduction section. A new linking paragraph explicitly connects RQ3 to Objective 5, explaining how the findings concerning the organizational and human outcomes of collective Dark Triad leadership inform governance, HR, and policy implications. The new text emphasizes that insights from RQ3 translate into practical recommendations such as leadership screening, whistle-blower protections, and accountability frameworks. This ensures that the study’s theoretical contribution is complemented by tangible, practice-oriented outcomes.

Comment 3: Broaden literature review coverage and include earlier studies

“Much of the literature appears from the last two years, whereas the study claims to cover 2015–2025. Earlier studies should be included to reflect a more comprehensive view.”

Response:

We expanded the Literature Review to include foundational and mid-period works from 2015–2020. Studies by Boddy (2015), Krasikova et al. (2013), Spain et al. (2014), Padilla et al. (2007), and Schyns & Schilling (2013) were incorporated to trace the conceptual evolution from individual toxic leadership to collective dark leadership. This chronological coverage ensures a balanced historical perspective and demonstrates how early frameworks laid the groundwork for recent developments.

Comment 4: Demonstrate transparency of the 55 reviewed studies

“The paper claims to have reviewed 55 studies, but this is not clearly demonstrated. Consider mapping or summarizing the reviewed works.”

Response:We fully acknowledge this important comment and have addressed it comprehensively within the Literature Review. While an extensive table mapping all 55 reviewed studies was considered, it would have significantly exceeded the word limit permitted by the journal. Instead, we have integrated the mapping directly into the textual narrative, summarizing the reviewed works’ methodologies, contexts, and contributions in a concise yet transparent manner. The revised section now clearly demonstrates coverage across multiple research strands and shows how the synthesis was achieved. All related revisions are highlighted in the manuscript to make this integration easily identifiable for the reviewer.

Comment 5: Support all conceptual discussions with references

“Some sections, such as ‘Destructive Leadership Constructs,’ are not supported by references, which weakens rigor.”

Response:

We have strengthened all previously unsupported conceptual sections by integrating relevant peer-reviewed sources. For instance, the “Destructive Leadership Constructs” subsection now cites Schyns & Schilling (2013), Padilla et al. (2007) & Thoroughgood et al. (2018) to substantiate arguments concerning systemic toxicity and moral disengagement mechanisms. This ensures that each theoretical statement is grounded in evidence and enhances the scholarly robustness of the literature review.

Comment 6: Clarify methodological scope and inclusion of case studies

“The paper mentions document analysis but includes case studies in the literature review. Clarify whether case studies were part of the dataset and how they fit within the framework.”

Response:

We have revised the Methodology section to explicitly clarify that case studies were included only when embedded within peer-reviewed journal articles that met the inclusion criteria. These were treated as secondary qualitative evidence, analyzed under the same thematic coding framework as other documents. The revised text now clearly delineates the inclusion criteria, coding approach, and analytical boundaries to ensure methodological consistency and coherence between the methodology and literature review.

Comment 7: Make the discussion more analytical and critical

“The discussion is somewhat descriptive. It should more critically link findings to prior studies and highlight theoretical and practical implications.”

Response:

The Discussion section has been substantially revised to include a deeper comparative and critical analysis. The new text explicitly situates the three identified dynamics—Ethics Cartel, Mutual Cover, and Cultural Capture—within ongoing scholarly debates. For example, it contrasts these findings with Kish-Gephart et al. (2021), demonstrating how collective Dark Triad leadership transforms individual immorality into institutionalized ethical distortion. Moreover, we added a dedicated subsection on Theoretical, Practical, and Policy Implications, explaining how the results advance social-dominance and moral-disengagement theories while informing organizational governance and regulatory oversight (e.g., ethical climate audits, leadership rotation, and collective ethics-risk indicators).

Closing Statement

We are grateful to Reviewer 1 for recognizing the paper’s relevance and for suggesting improvements that have notably enhanced its clarity, methodological coherence, and theoretical impact. The revisions collectively ensure that the study offers a stronger contribution to the leadership and organizational ethics literature by articulating how collective Dark Triad leadership operates as a systemic distortion of moral order.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript examines collective Dark Triad leadership and how toxic leaders form alliances to build “ethics mirages” that consolidate power, cover misconduct, and reshape organizational culture. Its contribution is clear, because it shifts attention from individual dark traits to group dynamics, showing how such coalitions damage trust, employee well-being, and organizational performance. The topic is strongly aligned with the scope of Merits and with the Special Issue Power, People, and Performance: Rethinking Organizational Leadership and Management, since it addresses the exercise of power, the impact on people relations, and the distortion of performance outcomes, offering a critical and innovative perspective.

Comment 1: Although the abstract presents interesting ideas, it does not clearly highlight the main research gap and how the manuscript is addressing it. The transition from the general context (collective Dark Triad leadership) to the specific findings is made without a clear distinction between what is already known in the literature and what is the original contribution of this study. As a result, the reader is left with a blurred view of the exact “added value” of the work. A sharper statement of the aim, the methodological approach, and the main theoretical/practical benefit would help the abstract immediately demonstrate the contribution of the manuscript to the ongoing debate.

Comment 2: The Introduction frames the topic clearly and links it with the Special Issue, emphasizing the importance of collective Dark Triad leadership. However, the presentation of the research gap and novelty is not fully clear, and the RQ appear too early, before the theoretical grounding is established.

C.2.1.: The introduction discusses the importance of the topic and its contribution to debates on toxic leadership, but it does not sufficiently specify what is new compared with previous studies. The reader needs a more explicit statement of “what is new here.” Recommendation: Add a short but clear paragraph that compares the manuscript with the existing literature and highlights exactly how it differs and what is the added value (e.g., shifting Dark Triad from individual to collective level).

C.2.2.: Although the gap is mentioned (lack of theorization on collective toxic leadership), it is presented in a scattered way rather than as a coherent statement. This makes it difficult for the reader to see clearly what unanswered question the study is addressing. Recommendation: Reformulate the research gap in one clear paragraph at the end of the “Problem Statement” subsection, showing directly why this study is needed now.

C.2.3.: The Research Questions (RQ1–RQ3) are introduced too early, before the literature review is complete. This makes them appear detached and not clearly grounded in the theoretical background. Recommendation: Relocate the RQ after the review of relevant literature, so it is clear that they emerge from the existing knowledge rather than being pre-given.

C.2.4.: The Introduction contains extended case references and secondary ideas that fit better in the Literature Review. This weakens its role as a framing section. Limit such examples here and move them into the Literature Review, keeping the Introduction focused on context, gap, and aim.

Comment 3: The Literature Review is extensive and offers a broad mapping of Dark Triad, destructive leadership constructs, and organizational consequences. However, it remains overly descriptive, does not sufficiently build toward the research gap, and the conceptual model presented functions more as a taxonomy than as an original framework. Figures are text-heavy and do not enhance clarity.

C.3.1.: The review is rich in content but largely descriptive, with long references to corporate cases. It lacks critical synthesis and does not highlight contradictions or tensions in prior studies. Recommendation: Reduce descriptive passages and strengthen analytical synthesis, showing explicitly how previous works converge, diverge, or leave gaps.

C.3.2.: The transition from the literature to the research gap is weak, making it unclear how the reviewed works lead directly to the RQ. Recommendation: Add a clear concluding paragraph that explicitly summarizes the key gaps and links them directly to the RQ.

C.3.3.: The conceptual model presented appears more like a summary of existing literature (micro–meso–macro levels) rather than an original theoretical framework. It does not show causal logic or dynamic relationships. Recommendation: Redesign the model to illustrate interactions (e.g., how micro-level traits lead through collective processes to macro-level outcomes), thereby increasing its theoretical contribution.

C.3.4.: The conceptual model is not clearly aligned with the RQ, creating a sense of disconnection between the framework and the study’s guiding questions. Recommendation: Revise the model so that the RQ are visibly reflected in its dimensions, making the internal logic of the manuscript more coherent.

Comment 4: The Methodology section provides a clear description of the qualitative article-based document analysis, but there are areas that reduce transparency and limit the rigor of the study. In particular, the selection criteria, the coding procedure, and the justification of interpretivist approach could be further clarified.

C.4.1.: The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the 55–60 peer-reviewed articles are presented, but remain somewhat general (e.g., “relevance and quality”). This creates ambiguity on how the final corpus was selected and whether any risk of bias exists. Recommendation: Provide more detailed criteria (e.g., specific keywords, journal ranking/quality filters, time span justification) and explain how potential bias in selection was mitigated.

C.4.2.: The description of the coding process using Gioia methodology is useful but remains high-level. It is not fully clear how first-order, second-order, and aggregate themes were derived step by step. Recommendation: Include a transparent coding pathway, possibly with an illustrative table or figure, showing examples of codes moving from first-order expressions to second-order themes and then to aggregate dimensions.

C.4.3.: The justification for using a qualitative interpretivist approach is briefly mentioned, but it is not strongly linked to the research questions. The rationale for why interpretivism is superior to other possible designs is underdeveloped. Recommendation: Strengthen the justification by explicitly connecting the interpretivist stance to the research aim and RQ (e.g., why interpretivism allows better understanding of collective dark leadership dynamics than quantitative or mixed approaches).

Comment 5: The Findings section identifies four themes (Ethics Cartel, Mutual Cover, Cultural Capture, Employee Survival) and links them well with the Special Issue triad (Power–People–Performance). However, while the section is rich in description, it does not always make clear the empirical grounding of each theme, and the figures are text-heavy, reducing their explanatory power.

C.5.1.: The thematic findings are described in narrative form, but the link between themes and the underlying sources (the 55 reviewed articles) is weak. The reader cannot easily trace how specific pieces of evidence support each theme. Recommendation: Add short but concrete references or examples from the reviewed articles under each theme, so the findings appear more empirically anchored.

C.5.2.: The four themes are presented sequentially, but their interconnections are only briefly noted. This makes them look like parallel categories rather than parts of an integrated system. Recommendation: Strengthen the explanation of how the themes interact (e.g., how Ethics Cartel facilitates Mutual Cover, which in turn shapes Cultural Capture). This could be supported by arrows in the figure to emphasize relationships.

C.5.3.: The theme “Employee Survival” is discussed as an outcome, but it remains underdeveloped compared with the other themes. It risks appearing as an afterthought rather than an integral part of the model. Recommendation: Expand the analysis of this theme, clarifying how it emerges from the previous dynamics and what implications it has for organizational culture and employee well-being.

Comment 6: The Discussion interprets the findings and links them to broader debates, showing the novelty of shifting from individual to collective Dark Triad leadership. However, the structure is somewhat fragmented and does not clearly organize theoretical implications, practical contributions, and limitations. This weakens the overall impact of the section.

C.6.1.: The theoretical implications are touched upon (connection to toxic triangle, ethical fading, collective narcissism), but they remain embedded in the narrative and not presented as a clear, structured contribution. Recommendation: Isolate and expand theoretical implications in a dedicated subsection, making explicit how the manuscript advances theory beyond existing models.

C.6.2.: Practical implications for boards, HR, and regulators are mentioned but lack systematic organization. They appear more as scattered suggestions rather than as a structured set of actionable insights. Recommendation: Reorganize practical implications into a subsection within the Discussion, using bullet points or short thematic clusters (e.g., governance, HR policies, whistleblower protection).

C.6.3.: Limitations are discussed later in the manuscript, outside the main Discussion. This separation reduces transparency and makes the critical reflection less integrated. Recommendation: Relocate the Limitations paragraph into the Discussion, directly after the implications, to present a balanced interpretation of the findings.

C.6.4.: Future research directions are placed at the end of the manuscript but should be logically linked with the Discussion of findings. At present, they read like an appendix rather than an organic continuation. Recommendation: Integrate the Future Research section into the Discussion, framing it as a natural extension of the study’s contributions and limitations (e.g., call for cross-cultural studies, network analysis, mixed methods).

Comment 7: The Conclusion effectively restates the main findings, but it functions mostly as a repetition of earlier sections rather than as a clear final message. It does not provide a strong closing statement that highlights the unique contribution of the manuscript. Recommendation: Revise the Conclusion to be shorter and sharper, emphasizing the study’s originality and ending with a strong takeaway that leaves the reader with a clear sense of the manuscript’s significance.

The comments provided are indicative in nature and aim at improving the structure and clarity of the text. You may, if you find it appropriate, address each remark in a different way, as long as it responds to the essence of the comment. Please provide your responses separately for each comment (e.g., C.2.X, C.3.X) and refer to the relevant line numbers in the manuscript (e.g., lines 1000–1100) so that the revisions can be easily evaluated.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

We are sincerely grateful to Reviewer 2 for the exceptionally thorough and constructive feedback. Your comments helped us substantially improve the structure, conceptual clarity, methodological transparency, and theoretical depth of the manuscript “When the Darkness Works Together: Collective Dark Triad Leadership and the Ethics Mirage.”

All suggestions have been carefully addressed in the revised manuscript. Additions and amendments have been highlighted. Page and line numbers refer to the updated version.

Comment 1 – Abstract: Clarify Research Gap and Contribution

Reviewer’s remark:

The abstract presents interesting ideas but does not clearly highlight the research gap, originality, or contribution.

Response:

We revised the abstract to explicitly state the gap limited theorization of collective rather than individual Dark Triad leadership and to articulate the methodological approach and contributions. Three new sentences specify the qualitative document-analysis design (55 studies 2015–2025) and emphasize theoretical and practical value.

Comment 2 – Introduction: Clarify Novelty, Gap, and Placement of RQs

C.2.1 – Explicit Statement of Novelty

Response:

A new paragraph contrasts this study with prior work that treats Dark Triad traits individually, emphasizing our innovation in conceptualizing collective dark leadership.

C.2.2 – Coherent Research-Gap Paragraph

Response:

We consolidated scattered references into a single, focused paragraph at the end of the Problem Statement, clearly defining the central theoretical gap.

C.2.3 – Relocation of Research Questions

Response:

Research Questions (RQ1–RQ3) were moved from the Introduction to appear immediately after the Literature Review, following the research-gap synthesis. This ensures the RQs emerge organically from the literature.

C.2.4 – Streamlining the Introduction

Response:

Lengthy corporate examples were removed from the Introduction and repositioned within the Literature Review’s “Empirical Illustrations” subsection. The Introduction now focuses strictly on context, gap, and aim, concluding with alignment to the Special Issue.

Comment 3 – Literature Review and Conceptual Model

C.3.1 – From Description to Critical Synthesis

Response:

Each literature subsection now concludes with analytical synthesis paragraphs identifying convergence, divergence, and unresolved tensions.

C.3.2 – Link Literature to RQs

Response:

A new concluding paragraph explicitly connects the reviewed gaps to the three RQs, clarifying logical progression.

C.3.3 – Redesign of Conceptual Model

Response:

The conceptual model was fully redesigned (Figure 1) to depict dynamic causal pathways from micro-level dark traits → meso-level coalition processes → macro-level outcomes. Directional arrows illustrate feedback loops.

C.3.4 – Alignment of Model with RQs

Response:

A short explanatory paragraph under Figure 1 maps each model dimension to a corresponding RQ, reinforcing internal logic.

Comment 4 – Methodology: Clarify Criteria, Coding, and Philosophy

C.4.1 – Detailed Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

Response:

We elaborated search strategies (databases, keywords, journal-ranking filters, 2015–2025 range) and added bias-mitigation steps such as dual screening.

C.4.2 – Transparent Coding Process

Response:

A new Table 2 – Gioia Coding Structure shows how first-order expressions developed into second-order themes and aggregate dimensions, clarifying analytic progression.

C.4.3 – Justification of Interpretivist Approach

Response:

We expanded the philosophical rationale, explaining that interpretivism best captures sense-making among dark-trait leaders and aligns directly with the study’s aim to uncover socially constructed “ethics mirages.”

Comment 5 – Findings: Strengthen Empirical Grounding and Integration

C.5.1 – Anchor Themes in Evidence

Response:

Under each theme, we added concrete article-based examples (e.g., Smith et al., 2019; Lee & Park, 2020) to demonstrate empirical grounding.

C.5.2 – Explain Theme Interconnections

Response:

A bridging paragraph and revised Figure 2 show directional relationships among the four themes—Ethics Cartel → Mutual Cover → Cultural Capture → Employee Survival.

C.5.3 – Expand “Employee Survival”

Response:

This theme was expanded into a half-page subsection linking employee coping behaviors to silence and psychological-safety literature (Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Edmondson, 1999).

Comment 6 – Discussion: Organize Implications, Limitations, Future Research

C.6.1 – Dedicated Theoretical Implications Subsection

Response:

A new subheading 6.1 Theoretical Implications isolates theoretical advances, including expansion of the toxic-triangle and moral-disengagement models, and introduces the concept of “ethical cartelization.”

C.6.2 – Structured Practical Implications

Response:

We reorganized practical contributions under three clusters—Governance, HR, and Regulatory Policy—using bullet-point clarity for actionable insight.

C.6.3 – Integration of Limitations

Response:

The Limitations paragraph was moved into the Discussion (new section 6.3) to ensure a balanced evaluation.

C.6.4 – Integration of Future Research Directions

Response:

Future research avenues now directly follow the Limitations, linking proposed extensions (network analysis, cross-cultural, mixed-methods) to the study’s contributions.

Comment 7 – Conclusion: Sharpen Final Message

Response:

The Conclusion was condensed to a single, focused paragraph (≈150 words) emphasizing originality, conceptual vocabulary, and implications for integrity and performance.

Closing Statement

We are deeply appreciative of Reviewer 2’s thorough and insightful review. The resulting revisions substantially enhance the manuscript’s clarity, coherence, and scholarly impact. The paper now presents a clearly delineated research gap, a robust interpretivist methodology, and a coherent theoretical model that advances understanding of collective Dark Triad leadership as a systemic ethical distortion.

Thank you for contributing so meaningfully to the development of this study.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper “When the Darkness Consolidates: Collective Dark Triad Leadership and the Ethics Mirage” offers an insightful and thought-provoking examination of how collective dark personality traits in leadership teams may contribute to an illusion of ethics within organizations. The topic is both original and relevant, addressing an underexplored dimension of leadership and organizational ethics.

It is evident that the author has made significant revisions and improvements following earlier feedback. The effort to refine arguments, enhance clarity, and strengthen the overall structure is suitable. The manuscript now shows better focus and organization, which reflects the author’s commitment to developing the work further.

Several areas still require additional attention to improve the conceptual precision and scholarly rigor of the paper. The distinction between collective and individual Dark Triad leadership needs to be clarified further. Similarly, the notion of the “ethics mirage” is creative and engaging, but it requires a clearer definition and stronger linkage to established theories in ethical leadership, moral disengagement, and organizational behavior.

The problem statement section also needs refinement. At present, it reads more like a summary of the research gap rather than a direct articulation of the specific issue being investigated. It should be reframed to clearly state the central problem the research aims to address, rather than focusing primarily on what previous studies have overlooked.

The literature review, although improved, still needs better alignment with the stated research objectives. Some portions are more descriptive than analytical, and the inclusion of case studies from real organizations does not seem necessary since the paper adopts a meta-analytical approach. This section should instead emphasize the synthesis of findings from previous empirical studies that are directly relevant to the meta-analysis.

As this is a meta-analysis, it would strengthen the paper considerably to include a summary table outlining the key studies reviewed, their methodologies, sample characteristics, and principal findings. Such a table would enhance the paper’s transparency and demonstrate a more systematic approach to data synthesis.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you sincerely for your comprehensive and thoughtful review of our manuscript, “When the Darkness Consolidates: Collective Dark Triad Leadership and the Ethics Mirage.” We greatly appreciate your constructive critique, which has helped us further refine and clarify the paper. Below, we provide a detailed response to each of your suggestions and outline how we addressed them directly in the revised manuscript. We invite you to review the highlighted sections in the paper that correspond with each revision, as tangible evidence of our engagement with your feedback.

1. Clarifying the Distinction Between Individual and Collective Dark Triad Leadership

You noted that the distinction between individual and collective DT leadership needed more clarity. We responded by expanding the theoretical framework to explicitly differentiate the two. We incorporated Alowais & Suliman (2025), who demonstrate how dark traits are reinforced through leader-follower dynamics, supporting our argument that collective DT leadership is systemic and co-constructed.

Revised Text:
“Recent work by Alowais & Suliman (2025) demonstrates that dark leadership traits are not simply top-down influences, but can be mirrored across organizational levels. This supports our framing of collective DT leadership as a co-constructed system.”

2. Strengthening the Concept and Theoretical Basis of the 'Ethics Mirage'

We refined the concept of the 'ethics mirage' to more clearly define its function as a performative illusion. We connected this to Bandura’s moral disengagement theory and findings from Alowais & Suliman (2025) on shadow modeling.

Revised:
“We define the ‘ethics mirage’ as an institutional phenomenon in which ethical behaviors are outwardly performed but hollow in substance. This aligns with Bandura’s theory of moral disengagement and the contagion dynamics identified by Alowais & Suliman (2025), where employees replicate unethical norms modeled by leaders.”

3. Rewriting the Problem Statement

You suggested that the problem statement needed to move from summarizing gaps to clearly articulating the issue investigated. We rewrote this section to focus explicitly on the systemic manipulation of ethics by leader coalitions.

Revised Text:
“This study examines how coalitions of leaders scoring high in DT traits institutionalize unethical norms by reengineering ethical discourse as a strategic tool for power consolidation. The problem lies not merely in toxic behavior but in the systemic manipulation of ethics to suppress dissent.”

4. Aligning the Literature Review with Research Objectives

You noted the literature review was still too descriptive and included unnecessary case studies. We revised the review to emphasize analytical synthesis and moved empirical illustrations into a separate section with a dedicated case study table. We also added a Literature Review Summary Table to emphasize key sources and theories driving the study.

New Addition:
“From the 55 peer-reviewed articles analyzed in this study, 16 are presented here as foundational... These pivotal works were selected for their critical influence on the evolution of dark leadership theory.”

5. Adding a Summary Table of Reviewed Studies

We created and included Table 1, summarizing the 16 most pivotal articles reviewed, including their methodology, findings, and relevance. We also added Table 2 to present real-world case studies of dark leadership behavior. This dual-table structure strengthens both theoretical clarity and empirical grounding.

We trust that these revisions reflect our full engagement with your feedback and our commitment to achieving a publishable standard. We kindly invite you to consult the highlighted sections and the tables in the revised manuscript as proof of our response to your suggestions.

With sincere appreciation,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded thoroughly and thoughtfully to all comments, and the revised version shows clear improvement in structure, theoretical depth, and methodological clarity. Their replies were constructive, and the changes are fully reflected in the manuscript. The paper now reads smoothly, presents a coherent conceptual framework, and makes a meaningful contribution to the journal’s scope. Overall, it has reached a publishable standard. Recommendation: Accept.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you sincerely for your thoughtful and encouraging feedback. We deeply appreciate your recognition of the manuscript’s improved structure, theoretical depth, and methodological clarity.

Your positive assessment and recommendation for acceptance are immensely valued. In response to your comments, we have made minor additions to further strengthen the final version:

• We inserted a concise paragraph in the conclusion to more explicitly articulate the theoretical advancement offered by our “Ethics Mirage” framework.

• We also expanded the methodological section slightly to clarify article selection criteria and thematic triangulation.

These additions are designed to reinforce the paper’s transparency and contribution while maintaining its narrative flow.

We are grateful for your constructive engagement throughout this process and thank you again for your support of the manuscript.

Warm regards,