Karizmatik Otoritenin Karanlık Yüzü: Popülizm, Toksik Liderlik ve Toplumsal Bağlılık Dinamikleri Üzerine Disiplinlerarası Bir Analiz

Abstract

Karizmatik otorite, liderlik çalışmaları, siyaset sosyolojisi, sosyal psikoloji ile endüstri ve örgüt psikolojisi alanlarında uzun yıllardır araştırılan temel kavramlardan biridir. Ancak son yıllarda yaşanan siyasal ve teknolojik dönüşümler, karizmatik otoritenin yalnızca liderlerin kişisel özellikleriyle açıklanamayacağını göstermektedir. Siyasal kutuplaşma, tekrarlayan toplumsal krizler, popülist hareketlerin yükselişi ve dijital iletişim teknolojilerinin yaygınlaşması, karizmatik otoritenin ortaya çıkışını, meşruiyet kazanmasını ve toplumsal etkisini yeniden şekillendirmektedir. Bu derleme çalışma, siyaset bilimi, liderlik çalışmaları, sosyal psikoloji, endüstri ve örgüt psikolojisi ile iletişim araştırmalarını bir araya getiren disiplinlerarası bir bakış açısı benimsemektedir. Çalışmada, karizmatik otoritenin liderlerin doğuştan sahip olduğu bireysel bir özellikten ziyade; toplumsal belirsizlik, psikolojik güvenlik ihtiyacı, sosyal kimlik, duygusal kutuplaşma ve dijital iletişim süreçlerinin karşılıklı etkileşimiyle şekillenen dinamik bir psikososyal süreç olduğu savunulmaktadır. Bu doğrultuda, toplumsal belirsizliğin güven arayışı, karizmatik lider algısı, duygusal özdeşleşme, kimlik füzyonu, eleştirel değerlendirmenin zayıflaması ve psikolojik bağımlılık aşamaları aracılığıyla nasıl geliştiğini açıklayan Karizmatik Bağımlılık Döngüsü adlı kavramsal model önerilmektedir. Ayrıca çalışma, dijital platformlar, öneri algoritmaları ve yapay zekâ destekli iletişim sistemlerinin liderlerin görünürlüğünü artırarak mevcut psikolojik süreçleri güçlendirmesini açıklamak amacıyla algoritmik karizma kavramını literatüre kazandırmaktadır. Sonuç olarak çalışma, karizmatik otoriteyi psikolojik, toplumsal, kurumsal ve teknolojik süreçlerin etkileşimi içinde sürekli yeniden üretilen çok boyutlu bir olgu olarak ele almakta; liderlik kuramlarına yeni bir kavramsal çerçeve sunarak karizmatik liderlik, popülizm, toksik liderlik ve kolektif siyasal davranış üzerine gerçekleştirilecek gelecekteki ampirik araştırmalar için kuramsal bir temel oluşturmaktadır.

Keywords

• Karizmatik Otorite
• Popülizm
• Toksik Liderlik
• Sosyal Kimlik
• Kimlik Füzyonu
• Algoritmik Karizma
• Lider-Takipçi İlişkisi.

The Dark Side of Charismatic Authority: An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Populism, Toxic Leadership, and the Dynamics of Collective Attachment

Abstract

Charismatic authority has been widely examined in leadership studies, political sociology, social psychology, and industrial and organizational psychology. However, recent political and technological transformations indicate that leader-centered explanations alone are no longer sufficient. Political polarization, recurring crises, the rise of populist movements, and digital communication have reshaped how charismatic authority emerges, gains legitimacy, and influences collective behavior. This review adopts an interdisciplinary perspective by integrating political science, leadership studies, social psychology, industrial and organizational psychology, and communication research. The article argues that charismatic authority should be understood as a dynamic psychosocial process shaped by the interaction of societal uncertainty, psychological security needs, social identity, emotional polarization, and digitally mediated communication. Rather than viewing charisma as an inherent personal trait, it emphasizes the reciprocal influence of leaders, followers, institutions, and digital environments. The study proposes the Charismatic Dependency Cycle, a conceptual model explaining how uncertainty may gradually develop into psychological dependence through security seeking, charismatic leader perception, emotional identification, identity fusion, reduced critical evaluation, and institutional erosion. It also introduces the concept of algorithmic charisma, highlighting how digital platforms, recommendation algorithms, and AI-supported communication strengthen charismatic influence by increasing visibility and reinforcing existing psychological mechanisms. Overall, the study offers an integrated conceptual framework that extends current leadership theory and provides a basis for future empirical research on charismatic leadership, populism, toxic leadership, and collective political behavior in the digital age.

Keywords

• Charismatic Authority
• Populism
• Toxic Leadership
• Social İdentity
• İdentity Fusion
• Algorithmic Charisma
• Leader-Follower Relationship.

References

1. Akinyele, A. I., & Chen, Z. (2025). Dark clouds of leadership: Causes and consequences of toxic leadership. International Studies of Management & Organization, 55(4), 476-503. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2024.2442185
2. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.
3. Beacken, G. D., Trauthig, I. K., & Woolley, S. C. (2026). Generative AI, propaganda, and digital authoritarianism: Comparative insights from six democratically weakened countries. Big Data & Society, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517251410064
4. Bennett, W. L., & Livingston, S. (2018). The disinformation order: Disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. European Journal of Communication, 33(2), 122-139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323118760317⁠
5. Chesney, R., & Citron, D. K. (2019). Deep fakes: A looming challenge for privacy, democracy, and national security. California Law Review, 107(6), 1753-1820.
6. Conger, J. A. (2015). Charismatic leadership. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Wiley encyclopedia of management (3rd ed.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118785317.weom110122⁠
7. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 637-647. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1987.4306715⁠
8. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Sage.

9. Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Wiley.
10. Gençay, Y., & Katılmış, C. (2025). Yapay Zekâ Çağında Popülizmin Yükselişi: Dijital Algoritmalar ve Siyasal Manipülasyon. İmgelem, Yeni Medya Çalışmaları, 649-684. https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.1716179
11. González-Bailón, S., Lazer, D., Barberá, P., Zhang, M., Allcott, H., Brown, T., Crespo-Tenorio, A., Freelon, D., Gentzkow, M., Guess, A. M., Iyengar, S., Kim, Y. M., Malhotra, N., Moehler, D., Nyhan, B., Pan, J., Rivera, C. V., Settle, J., Thorson, E., Tromble, R., Wilkins, A., Wojcieszak, M., Kiewiet de Jonge, C., Franco, A., Mason, W., Stroud, N. J., & Tucker, J. A. (2023). Asymmetric ideological segregation in exposure to political news on Facebook. Science, 381(6656), 392-398. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ade7138
12. Guess, A. M., Malhotra, N., Pan, J., Barberá, P., Allcott, H., Brown, T., Crespo-Tenorio, A., Dimmery, D., Freelon, D., Gentzkow, M., González-Bailón, S., Kennedy, E., Kim, Y. M., Lazer, D., Moehler, D., Nyhan, B., Rivera, C. V., Settle, J., Thomas, D. R., Thorson, E., Tromble, R., Wilkins, A., Wojcieszak, M., Xiong, B., Kiewiet de Jonge, C., Franco, A., Mason, W., Stroud, N. J., & Tucker, J. A. (2023). How do social media feed algorithms affect attitudes and behavior in an election campaign? Science, 381(6656), 398-404. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abp9364
13. Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2020). The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power (2nd ed.). Routledge.
14. Hogg, M. A. (2021). Uncertainty-identity theory. In J. M. Levine (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 64, pp. 1-74). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2021.04.002⁠
15. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Southern Illinois University Press.
16. Huang, G., Jia, W., & Yu, W. (2024). Media literacy interventions improve resilience to misinformation: A meta-analytic investigation of overall effect and moderating factors. Communication Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502241288103
17. Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Harvard Business School Press.
18. Kökerer, E. B. (2025). Cumhurbaşkanlığı hükümet sisteminde popülist rasyonalite: Siyasal tarzdan rejim formuna. İmgelem, 17, 61-96. https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.1820813⁠
19. Kreiss, D. (2021). Prototype politics: Technology-intensive campaigning and the data of democracy. Oxford University Press.
20. Labrecque, L. I. (2014). Fostering consumer-brand relationships in social media environments: The role of parasocial interaction. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(2), 134-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.003⁠
21. Li, P., Yin, K., Shi, J., Damen, T. G. E., & Taris, T. W. (2024). Are bad leaders indeed bad for employees? A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies between destructive leadership and employee outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 191(2), 399-413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05449-2
22. Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians-and how we can survive them. Oxford University Press.
23. Moffitt, B. (2020). Populism. Polity Press.
24. Nord, M., Altman, D., Angiolillo, F., Fernandes, T., Gastaldi, L., Good God, A., Grahn, S., Hellmeier, S., Ilchenko, N., von Römer, J., Wiebrecht, F., Wilson, S., & Lindberg, S. I. (2025). 25 years of autocratization-Democracy trumped? Democracy Report 2025. V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg.
25. Oeberst, A., & Imhoff, R. (2023). Toward parsimony in bias research: A proposed common framework of belief-consistent information processing for a set of biases. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(6), 1464-1487. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221148147
26. Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 176-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.001⁠
27. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin Press.
28. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577-594. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.4.4.577⁠
29. Sırakaya, Y. (2025). Populism and toxic leadership: The two faces of charismatic authority from the perspective of political science and industrial and organizational psychology. World Journal of Arts, Education and Literature, 2(11), 11-17. https://doi.org/10.65336/WJAEL.2025.21102
30. Sunstein, C. R. (2018). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.
31. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Brooks/Cole.
32. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.
33. van der Brug, W., & Mughan, A. (2007). Charisma, leader effects and support for right-wing populist parties. Party Politics, 13(1), 29-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068806071260⁠
34. van Prooijen, J.-W., & Krouwel, A. P. M. (Eds.). (2020). The psychology of populism: Understanding the context and content of populist politics. Routledge.
35. Varmann, A. H., Kruse, L., Bierwiaczonek, K., Gómez, Á., Vázquez, A., & Kunst, J. R. (2024). How identity fusion predicts extreme pro-group orientations: A meta-analysis. European Review of Social Psychology, 35(1), 162-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2023.2190267
36. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). University of California Press.
37. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph Supplement, 9(2, Pt. 2), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848