Organizational Crisis Management in the Age of Disinformation: Leadership, Communication, and Resilience, A Systematic Review

Yıl 2025, Sayı: Special Issue: Crisis Entangled – Reimagining the Social in Turbulent Times, 24 - 39, 30.10.2025

Abdülkadir Akturan

Öz

This systematic review frames organizational crisis management as both a strategic necessity and a societal responsibility amid overlapping crises and rapid information flows. Synthesizing 246 Scopus articles (2010–2025), it applies SPAR-4-SLR alongside PRISMA 2020 for transparency and rigor. Bibliometric mapping with VOSviewer and Excel shows a growing field bridging management, communication studies, and public administration. Four interconnected domains emerge: (1) crisis leadership emphasizing ethical authority, trust, and adaptive decision-making; (2) organizational communication balancing timeliness, transparency, and stakeholder engagement; (3) disinformation management using fact-checking, prebunking, and real-time monitoring; and (4) integrated response frameworks pairing operational action with symbolic communication to strengthen resilience. Thematic synthesis exposes gaps: underrepresentation of non-Western perspectives, limited work at the leadership–misinformation nexus, and scant attention to ethical and political consequences of governing disinformation. These blind spots inform a research agenda. The study advances an integrative framework positioning leadership, communication, and misinformation mitigation as a unified strategic capability. Theoretically, it argues for tighter integration between crisis communication and disinformation research; practically, it underscores ethical leadership, transparent dialogue, and monitoring as core practices for sustaining legitimacy in information-rich environments.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Leadership , Resilience , Misinformation , Crisis Management , Crisis Communication

Dezenformasyon Çağında Kurumsal Kriz Yönetimi: Liderlik, İletişim ve Dayanıklılık Üzerine Sistematik Bir İnceleme

Öz

Birbirine eklemlenen krizler ve hızlanan bilgi akışları bağlamında, bu sistematik derleme örgütsel kriz yönetimini hem stratejik bir gereklilik hem de toplumsal bir sorumluluk olarak çerçevelemektedir. Çalışma, 2010–2025 döneminde Scopus’ta dizinlenen 246 makaleyi sentezlemekte; şeffaflık ve yöntembilimsel titizlik için SPAR-4-SLR protokolünü PRISMA 2020 yönergeleriyle birlikte uygulamaktadır. VOSviewer ve Excel ile yapılan bibliyometrik haritalama, yönetim, iletişim çalışmaları ve kamu yönetimini birbirine bağlayan hızla büyüyen bir alan ortaya koymaktadır. Literatürde dört karşılıklı bağlı eksen öne çıkmaktadır: (1) etik otorite, güven ve uyarlanabilir karar almayı vurgulayan kriz liderliği; (2) zamanlama, şeffaflık ve paydaş katılımını dengeleyen örgütsel iletişim; (3) doğrulama, önleyici bilgilendirme (prebunking) ve gerçek zamanlı izlemeye dayalı dezenformasyon yönetimi; ve (4) operasyonel eylemi simgesel iletişimle birleştirerek dayanıklılığı güçlendiren bütünleşik yanıt çerçeveleri. Tematik sentez, Batı-dışı perspektiflerin yetersiz temsili, liderlik-yanlış bilgi kesişiminde sınırlı çalışma ve dezenformasyon yönetişiminin etik ile politik sonuçlarına gösterilen düşük ilgiyi açığa çıkarmaktadır; bu kör noktalar geleceğe dönük araştırma gündemini bilgilendirmektedir. Çalışma, liderlik, iletişim ve yanlış bilgiyle mücadelenin birleşik bir stratejik yetkinlik olarak konumlandığı bütünleşik bir çerçeve önermektedir. Kuramsal düzeyde kriz iletişimi ile dezenformasyon araştırmalarının daha sıkı entegrasyonunu savunmakta; uygulamada ise bilgiyle doygun ortamlarda meşruiyetin sürdürülmesi için etik liderlik, şeffaf diyalog ve sürekli izlemeyi temel pratikler olarak vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Liderlik , Dayanıklılık , Yanlış Bilgilendirme , Kriz Yönetimi , Kriz İletişimi

Kaynakça

• Benoit, W. L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 23(2), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(97)90023-0
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191-/1478088706qp063oa
• Cameron, K., & Dutton, J. (Eds.). (2003). Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
• Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). A geopolitics of academic writing. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
• Clark, J. A., & Cavatorta, F. (Eds.). (2018). Political science research in the Middle East and North Africa: Methodological and ethical challenges. Oxford University Press.
• Collier, D. (2011). Understanding process tracing. PS: political science & politics, 44(4), 823-830. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096511001429
• Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049
• Coombs, W. T. (2015). The value of communication during a crisis: Insights from strategic communication research. Business Horizons, 58(2), 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.10.003
• Dirani, K. M., Abadi, M., Alizadeh, A., Barhate, B., Garza, R. C., Gunasekara, N., ... & Majzun, Z. (2020). Leadership competencies and the essential role of human resource development in times of crisis: a response to Covid-19 pandemic. Human resource development international, 23(4), 380-394. https://doi.org/10.1080-/13678868.2020.1780078
• Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
• Duchek, S. (2020). Organizational resilience: A capability-based conceptualization. Business Research, 13(1), 215–246. https://doi.org/10.1007-/s40685-019-0085-7
• Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., Van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The leadership quarterly, 30(1), 111-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004
• Greenleaf, R. K. (2013). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press.
• Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Press.
• Lee, S. J., Lee, C. J., & Hwang, H. (2023). The impact of COVID-19 misinformation and trust in institutions on preventive behaviors. Health education research, 38(1), 95-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/her/cyac038
• Mishler, W., & Rose, R. (2001). What are the origins of political trust? Testing institutional and cultural theories in post-communist societies. Comparative Political Studies, 34(1), 30–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414001034001002
• Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D. (2010). Diary studies in organizational research. Journal of Personnel Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000009
• Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
• Paul, J., Lim, W. M., O’Cass, A., Hao, A. W., & Bresciani, S. (2021). Scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR-4-SLR). International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4), O1–O16. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12695
• Powell, W. W., & Colyvas, J. A. (2008). Microfoundations of institutional. The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism, 276.
• Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. Journal of Management, 16(4), 693–703. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639001600403
• Tangcharoensathien, V., Calleja, N., Nguyen, T., Purnat, T., D’Agostino, M., Garcia-Saiso, S., ... & Briand, S. (2020). Framework for managing the COVID-19 infodemic: methods and results of an online, crowdsourced WHO technical consultation. Journal of medical Internet research, 22(6), e19659. https://doi.org/10.-2196/19659
• Ulmer, F. F., Lutz, A. M., Müller, F., Riva, T., Bütikofer, L., & Greif, R. (2022). Communication patterns during routine patient care in a pediatric intensive care unit: The behavioral impact of in situ simulation. Journal of Patient Safety, 18(2), e573–e579. https://doi.org/-10.1097/PTS.0000000000000872
• Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policymaking (Vol. 27, pp. 1-107). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
• Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications.
• Wilson, S. (2020). Pandemic leadership: Lessons from New Zealand’s approach to COVID-19. Leadership, 16(3), 279–293. https://doi.org/-10.1177/1742715020929151