ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Polit. Sci.
Sec. Elections and Representation
Volume 7 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fpos.2025.1589496
This article is part of the Research TopicPolitical Leadership in Contemporary Democracies: Current Configurations and MutationsView all 3 articles
(Don't) Fear the Bad Leader: Three influential myths about bad leadership
Provisionally accepted
- 1HUN-REN Centre for Social Sciences, Budapest, Hungary
- 2Corvinus University of Budapest, Budapest, Budapest, Hungary
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Introduction: Scholarship on bad leadership remains dominated by leader-centric paradigms that overstate the explanatory power of individual traits while neglecting the relational and identity-based processes that sustain harmful authority. This study challenges three influential myths: that bad leadership stems solely from leader pathology, that followers are passive conformists, and that support arises from psychological similarity between leaders and followers. Methods: Through a critical and conceptual review of political science and social psychology literature, the study integrates conceptual and empirical findings to reassess prevailing assumptions about bad leadership and followership. Results: The analysis reveals that bad leadership is not a deviation from normal leadership but an expression of its underlying dynamics. Harmful leadership emerges through interactive processes among leaders, followers, and permissive environments. Followers are not merely obedient or traitaligned individuals; rather, they actively co-produce legitimacy through engaged followership based on identification and identity leadership. Individual-level dispositions such as authoritarianism, populism, or dark personality traits influence leader tolerance primarily within the framework of group identity and ideological alignment. Discussion: The findings challenge simplistic narratives of deviance and emphasize the central role of shared identity, group prototypicality, and affective polarization in shaping moral judgment and political legitimacy. Norm violations by in-group leaders are more likely to be tolerated or justified, particularly when perceived as benefiting the group. Future research should further explore the interaction between personality, identity, and institutional context in enabling or constraining bad leadership.
Keywords: bad leadership, Political leaders, followership, populism, Authoritarianism, dark traits, Obedience, Social identity
Received: 07 Mar 2025; Accepted: 16 Jun 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Metz. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Rudolf Metz, HUN-REN Centre for Social Sciences, Budapest, Hungary
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.