Narcissists look like great leaders. The results tell a different story.

You have probably sat on the interview panel. One candidate fills the room: confident, fluent, sure of every answer, with a clear story of how they turned a business around. The quieter candidate gives careful answers and mentions their team a lot. The confident one gets the job.

Many of us have made that choice. The research on narcissism suggests it deserves a second look, and that the boardroom itself may make the problem grow.

A word on the label

The research here is about narcissism as an everyday personality trait, which everyone has to some degree. Grandiose narcissism, the kind most studies measure, covers a sense of being special, a hunger for admiration and a strong belief in one's own ability. It is not the same as a clinical diagnosis, and none of what follows is a reason to diagnose a colleague. It is a reason to look harder at how we choose and judge leaders.

They rise, but do they lead well?

The best summary comes from a 2015 analysis that combined the results of many leadership studies. It found that narcissism was linked to emerging as a leader: being noticed, chosen and put in charge. Much of that link came from narcissists' outgoing, extraverted style.

It found no link between narcissism and leading well, as judged by bosses, peers and the people who reported to them. The only people who rated narcissistic leaders as more effective were the narcissistic leaders themselves. The authors also found a hint that a moderate level of narcissism might be best, with too little and too much both less effective.

Confident leader, quieter team

An experiment from 2011 shows how the gap opens. Researchers in Amsterdam put 150 students into groups of three, each with a leader, and gave them a decision to make. Each member held different pieces of information, and the right answer could only be found by pooling it.

The groups rated more narcissistic leaders as more effective, because they looked more authoritative. Yet those groups shared less of the information only one member held, and were less likely to choose the right answer. The leader looked good while the group performed worse.

Bold bets, uneven results

At the top of companies the pattern is similar. A 2007 study of 111 chief executives in the computer industry measured narcissism through signs such as the size of the chief executive's photograph in the annual report, how often they said "I" in interviews and how much more they were paid than the next most senior executive.

The more narcissistic chief executives made more frequent changes of strategy and larger, more frequent acquisitions. Their companies' results swung more widely, with bigger highs and deeper lows, but were no better or worse on average. A 2020 review of research on narcissistic chief executives found the wider evidence mixed and dependent on how narcissism is measured, so this is a pattern to watch, not a law.

Why selection rewards it

Our hiring processes may make the problem worse. In a recent study, 104 adults completed the same personality test twice: once honestly, and once as if they were applying for a job. When trying to look good, they lowered their scores on psychopathy and sadism, but raised their scores on narcissism. The researchers suggest people see confidence and assertiveness as what employers want.

A separate recent study found that, in one of the two countries studied, people high in some forms of narcissism claimed to know about topics, including made-up ones, more than they could have. Confident claims are not the same as evidence.

Cool under pressure

Narcissists can also look calm when others are rattled. In a 2026 study of 139 students given a stressful mental arithmetic test, those higher in narcissism reported less anxiety and showed smaller rises in blood pressure. My reading is that this calm can look like leadership in a crisis, which may be one more reason narcissists are chosen.

Status feeds it

The boardroom may also make the trait grow. A recent study followed 528 university students over a month. Those who wanted status, or felt they had it, showed rises in grandiose narcissism over the following weeks. Feeling accepted and included by others predicted a fall.

The study used students at one Canadian university, relied on self-report, and its authors call it preliminary. If it holds, it suggests that environments built on status, rank and visibility may feed narcissism, and that genuine inclusion may temper it. As I read it, the higher someone climbs, the more the boardroom can feed the trait that got them there.

The humble narcissist

The research is not all bad news. In a 2015 study at a large American health insurer, 876 employees rated 138 leaders. Leaders who were high in narcissism but also showed humility, admitting mistakes and limits, crediting others and staying open to learning, had more engaged teams and were rated as more effective. The lead author, Bradley Owens, said the outcome is that narcissism "can possibly be a net positive".

What this is costing you

None of these studies looked at your organisation, so applying them is my own step. The patterns will be familiar in any team, including our own:

• the candidate hired for how they handled the interview rather than what they had delivered;
• the leader whose meetings run smoothly because nobody else speaks;
• the acquisition that was more about a headline than a strategy;
• the quieter manager whose team performs well and who is never noticed.

The cost is rarely visible on the day. It shows up later in decisions made without the information the team held, in swings in results and in good people who leave.

Questions worth asking

A few honest questions show how much this applies to you.

• When you last hired or promoted someone senior, how much did confidence decide it?
• In meetings led by your most confident leaders, how much does anyone else contribute?
• What does your organisation reward: the person who shares information, or the person who holds the room?
• When did you last admit a mistake to your team?

What you can do this week

Everything in this section is a suggestion of mine, drawn from the research rather than tested by it. Each one takes minutes and costs nothing.

Suggestion

If you lead a team or sit on a board

• Ask for evidence, not presence. In interviews and promotion discussions, ask each candidate for one specific example and what others contributed to it.
• Ask the people below, not just above. When judging a leader, ask the people who report to them, not only their peers and bosses.
• Watch the information flow. In your next meeting, notice who speaks and whether people share what only they know.
• Reward sharing. Praise the person who brought information to the table, not only the person who presented the conclusion.
• Close the big bets properly. Before a major strategy change or acquisition, ask who has challenged it and what they said.

Suggestion

For yourself

• Write your claim and its evidence. Before your next review, write down one claim about your work and the evidence a colleague could confirm.
• Credit others out loud. In your next update, name what others contributed.
• Admit one mistake. Tell your team about one thing you got wrong and what you learned.

Suggestion

At home

These are ideas of mine, not tested with children.

• Ask who helped. When a child tells you about a success, ask who helped them.
• Praise the effort and the kindness. Notice how they treated others, not only whether they were the best.

What comes next

Narcissism is the first of the three "dark triad" traits in this series. Part 2 looks at psychopathy, which shares narcissism's calm under pressure but, unlike narcissism, is hidden rather than shown off in selection tests.

Sources

• Grijalva, E., Harms, P. D., Newman, D. A., Gaddis, B. H., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Narcissism and leadership: A meta-analytic review of linear and nonlinear relationships. Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 1 to 47. doi:10.1111/peps.12072
• Nevicka, B., Ten Velden, F. S., De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2011). Reality at odds with perceptions: Narcissistic leaders and group performance. Psychological Science, 22(10), 1259 to 1264. doi:10.1177/0956797611417259
• Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). It's all about me: Narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 351 to 386.
• Cragun, O. R., Olsen, K. J., & Wright, P. M. (2020). Making CEO narcissism research great: A review and meta-analysis of CEO narcissism. Journal of Management, 46(6), 908 to 936. doi:10.1177/0149206319892678
• Dinić, B. M., & Boskovic, I. Fake good in the dark tetrad: Score changes and relationships with impression management and supernormality. Collabra: Psychology. doi:10.1525/collabra.159930
• Zyskowska, W., Lo Destro, C., Sawicki, A., Sękowski, M., & Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M. I am so wise: Agentic narcissism, communal narcissism, and overclaiming among Polish and Italian students. Current Issues in Personality Psychology.
• O'Riordan, A., Minnigh, T. L., & Costello, A. M. (2026). Examining the association between the dark triad personality traits and cardiovascular reactivity to acute psychological stress. International Journal of Psychophysiology. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2026.113420
• Jordan, C. H., & Mahadevan, N. Ego, elevation, and exclusion: Bidirectional prospective associations between narcissism and status and inclusion. Journal of Personality. doi:10.1111/jopy.70081
• Owens, B. P., Walker, A. S., & Waldman, D. A. (2015). Leader narcissism and follower outcomes: The counterbalancing effect of leader humility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1203 to 1213. doi:10.1037/a0038698