A QUALITATIVE RESEARCH TO EXPLORE BEHAVIORS RELATED TO THE DARK SIDE OF LEADERSHIP

Öz

Until the 1990s, leadership was largely discussed with its bright side, while its dark side was neglected. From the 1990s until today, many researchers have examined the concept of leadership in the context of its negative characteristics, many different classifications have been made, however a consensus on the definition of dark leadership has not yet been reached in the literature. On the other hand, the use of measurement tools specific to Western culture with the assumption of universal validity has ignored the sensitivity of the phenomenon to the cultural context and has caused the research field to be limited. The purpose of this study is to explore the experiences and perceptions of the participants regarding the dark side of leadership, to reveal the behaviors specific to dark leadership and to constitute the first step of the study to develop a scale specific to Turkish culture regarding the Dark Side of Leadership. Within the scope of the research, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 participants from 16 different sectors using the snowball sampling method and the data were evaluated with content analysis. As a result of the analysis, the codes created were grouped in accordance with the conceptual framework, and through the resulting categories and themes, behaviors related to the dark side of leadership were discussed in relation to the literature in the context of intention, malice, activeness and passivity, and their connections with existing dark leadership types were evaluated. According to the research findings, the behavioral themes related to the dark side of leadership are: Darkness Based on Negative Use of Power, Darkness Based on Ego/Benefit, Darkness Based on Injustice, Darkness Based on Lack of Emotional Intelligence, Darkness Based on Lack of Confidence, Darkness Based on Incompetence, Darkness Based on Ethical Violation, Darkness Based on Status Quo.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dark Side
• Dark Side of Leadership
• Dark Leadership
• Dark Behavior

LİDERLİĞİN KARANLIK YÜZÜNE İLİŞKİN DAVRANIŞLARIN KEŞFEDİLMESİNE YÖNELİK NİTEL BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Öz

Liderlik 1990’lı yıllara kadar büyük ölçüde aydınlık yüzüyle ele alınmış, karanlık yüzü ise ihmal edilmiştir. 1990’lı yıllardan bugüne kadar, birçok araştırmacı liderlik kavramını olumsuz özellikleri bağlamında incelemiş, pek çok farklı sınıflandırma yapılmış ancak yazında karanlık liderlikle ilgili henüz tanım birliğine ulaşılamamıştır. Diğer yandan Batı kültürüne özgü ölçüm araçlarının evrensel geçerlilik varsayımı ile kullanılması olgunun kültürel bağlama duyarlılığını göz ardı ederek, araştırma alanının sınırlanmasına neden olmuştur. Bu çalışmanın amacı, katılımcıların liderliğin karanlık yüzü ile ilgili deneyim ve algılarını keşfederek, karanlık liderliğe özgü davranışları ortaya çıkarmak ve Liderliğin Karanlık Yüzüne ilişkin Türk kültürüne özgü bir ölçek geliştirme çalışmasının ilk basamağını oluşturmaktır. Araştırma kapsamında, kartopu örnekleme yöntemiyle 16 farklı sektörden 30 katılımcıyla yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler gerçekleştirilerek veriler içerik analizi ile değerlendirilmiştir. Analiz sonucunda, oluşturulan kodlar kavramsal çerçeveye uygun şekilde gruplandırılmış ve ortaya çıkan kategoriler ve temalar aracılığıyla liderliğin karanlık yüzüne yönelik davranışlar niyet, kasıt, aktif ve pasiflik bağlamlarında yazınla bağlantılı olarak tartışılmış ve mevcut karanlık liderlik türleriyle bağlantıları değerlendirilmiştir. Araştırma bulgularına göre, liderliğin karanlık yüzüne ilişkin davranış temaları: Gücün Olumsuz Kullanımı Temelli Karanlık, Ego/Çıkar Temelli Karanlık, Adaletsizlik Temelli Karanlık, Duygusal Zekâ Yoksunluğu Temelli Karanlık, Güvensizlik Temelli Karanlık, Liyakatsizlik Temelli Karanlık, Etik İhlal Temelli Karanlık, Statüko Temelli Karanlıktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Karanlık Yüz
• Liderliğin Karanlık Yüzü
• Karanlık Liderlik
• Karanlık Davranış

Kaynakça

1. Aasland, M.S., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G., Nielsen, M.B. & Einarsen, S. (2010). The Prevalence of Destructive Leadership Behaviour. British Journal of Management. 21(2): 438-452.
2. Ashforth, B.E. (1994). Petty Tyranny in Organizations. Human Relations. 47(7): 755-778.
3. Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership. New York, NY: The Free Press.
4. Bligh, M.C., Kohles, J.C., Pearce, C.L., Justin, J.E. & Stovall, J.F. (2007). When the Romance is Over: Follower Perspectives of Aversive Leadership. Applied Psychology: An International Review. 56(4): 528-557.
5. Brown, M.E. & Mitchell, M.S. (2010). Ethical and Unethical Leadership: Exploring New Avenues for Future Research. Business Ethics Quarterly. 20(4): 583-616.
6. Burke, R.J. (2006). Why Leaders Fail: Exploring the Dark Side. International Journal of Manpower. 27(1): 91-100.
7. Camm, T.W. (2019). The Dark Side of Servant-Leadership. The International Journal of Servant-Leadership. 13(1): 107-132.
8. Christie, R. & Geis, F.L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York, NY: Academic Press.

9. Conger, J.A. (1990). The Dark Side of Leadership. Organizational Dynamics. 19(2): 44-55.
10. Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Creswell, J.W. (2020). Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri: Beş Yaklaşıma Göre Nitel Araştırma ve Araştırma Deseni. Çev. Mesut Bütün & Selçuk Beşir Demir. Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
12. Dikili, Ç. & Süral Özer, P. (2023). Liderliğin Karanlık Yüzünün Kavramsallaştırılmasına Yönelik Bir Analiz. 10. Örgütsel Davranış Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı (ss. 357-375), Düzenleyen Yalova Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F. Yalova. 1-4 Kasım 2023.
13. Einarsen, S., Aasland, M.S. & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive Leadership Behaviour: A Definition and Conceptual Model. The Leadership Quarterly. 18(3): 207-216.
14. Glad, B. (2002). Why Tyrants Go Too Far: Malignant Narcissism and Absolute Power. Political Psychology. 23(1): 1-37.
15. Greenleaf, R.K. (1977). Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.
16. Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1982). Epistemological and Methodological Bases of Naturalistic Inquiry. Educational Communication and Technology Journal. 30(4): 233-252.
17. Guest, G., Bunce, A. & Johnson, L. (2006). How Many Interviews Are Enough? An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability. Field Methods. 18(1): 59-82.
18. Hennink, M. & Kaiser, B.N. (2022). Sample Sizes for Saturation in Qualitative Research: A Systematic Review of Empirical Tests. Social Science & Medicine. 292: 114523.
19. Hennink, M., Kaiser, B.N. & Marconi, V.C. (2017). Code Saturation Versus Meaning Saturation: How Many Interviews Are Enough? Qualitative Health Research. 27(4): 591-608.
20. Higgs, M. (2009). The Good, The Bad and The Ugly: Leadership and Narcissism. Journal of Change Management. 9(2): 165-178.
21. Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
22. Hogan, R. & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing Leadership: A View from the Dark Side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 9(1/2): 40-51.
23. Jonason, P.K., Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M., Piotrowski, J., Sedikides, C., Campbell, W.K., Gebauer, J.E., Maltby, J., …
24. Yahiiaev, I. (2020). Country-Level Correlates of the Dark Triad Traits in 49 Countries. Journal of Personality. 88(6): 1252-1267.
25. Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad Leadership: What it is, How it Happens, Why it Matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
26. Kelloway, E.K., Sivanathan, N., Francis, L. & Barling, J. (2005). Poor Leadership. Handbook of Work Stress. (ss. 89-112). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. Kets de Vries, M.F.R. & Miller, D. (1985). Narcissism and Leadership: An Object Relations Perspective. Human Relations. 38(6): 583-601.
28. Lašáková, A. & Remišová, A. (2015). Unethical Leadership: Current Theoretical Trends and Conceptualization. Procedia Economics and Finance. 34: 319-328.
29. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. & White, R.K. (1939). Patterns of Aggressive Behaviour in Experimentally Created “Social Climates”. The Journal of Social Psychology. 10(2): 269-299.
30. Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians – and How We Can Survive Them. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
31. Machiavelli, N. (2021). Hükümdar. Çev. Necdet Adabağ. İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. (Orijinal eserin yayın tarihi 1532).
32. McCall, M. & Lombardo, M. (1983). Off the Track: Why and How Successful Executives Get Derailed. Technical Report No. 21. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
33. McCleskey, J. (2013). The Dark Side of Leadership: Measurement, Assessment, and Intervention. The Business Renaissance Quarterly. 8(2/3): 35-53.
34. McIntosh, G.L. & Rima, S.D. (1997). Overcoming the Dark Side of Leadership: The Paradox of Personal Dysfunction. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
35. Merriam, S.B. (2013). Nitel Araştırma: Desen ve Uygulama İçin Bir Rehber. Çev. Selahattin Turan. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
36. Özbilgin, M.F. (2011). Leadership in Turkey: Towards an Evidence Based and Contextual Approach. Leadership Development in the Middle East. (ss. 275-306). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
37. 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.
38. Paşa, S.F., Kabasakal, H. & Bodur, M. (2001). Society, Organisations, and Leadership in Turkey. Applied Psychology: An International Review. 50(4): 559-589.
39. Paulhus, D.L. & Williams, K.M. (2002). The Dark Triad of Personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopaty. Journal of Research in Personality. 36(6): 556-563.
40. Platon. (2009). Devlet. Çev. Sabahattin Eyüboğlu & M. Ali Cimcoz. İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
41. Ren, F., Wang, M.C., Li, X.M. & Luo, J. (2021). Differences in Dark Triad Personality: Evidence from China and the USA. Current Psychology. 41: 9103-9108.
42. Rosenthal, S.A. & Pittinsky, T.L. (2006). Narcissistic Leadership. The Leadership Quarterly. 17(6): 617-633.
43. Shackleton, V. (1995). Leaders Who Derail. Business Leadership. (ss. 89-100). London, UK: Thomson.
44. Shaw, J.B., Erickson, A. & Harvey, M. (2011). A Method for Measuring Destructive Leadership and Identifying Types of Destructive Leaders in Organizations. The Leadership Quarterly. 22(4): 575-590.
45. Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M.S. & Hetland, H. (2007). The Destructiveness of Laissez-Faire Leadership Behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 12(1): 80-92.
46. Tepper, B.J. (2000). Consequences of Abusive Supervision. Academy of Management Journal. 43(2): 178-190.
47. Thoroughgood, C.N., Hunter, S.T. & Sawyer, K.B. (2011). Bad Apples, Bad Barrels, and Broken Followers? An Empirical Examination of Contextual Influences on Follower Perceptions and Reactions to Aversive Leadership. Journal of Business Ethics. 100(4): 647-672.
48. Thoroughgood, C.N., Sawyer, K.B., Padilla, A. & Lunsford, L. (2018). Destructive Leadership: A Critique of Leader-Centric Perspectives and Toward a More Holistic Definition. Journal of Business Ethics. 151: 627-649.
49. Whicker, M.L. (1996). Toxic Leaders: When Organizations Go Bad. Westport, CT: Quorum.
50. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.