Public trust in leaders is at an all-time low. Why? Too many prominent, self-serving, narcissistic leaders have eroded public confidence in those at the top. How can there be so many terrible, ego-driven, narcissistic leaders in high-profile positions?
Part of the problem is that human resource (HR) practices can foster and reinforce leader narcissism. A recently published paper (Mitchell, et al., 2026) suggests that HR practices encourage the appointment and advancement of narcissistic individuals, to the detriment of the organization as a whole.
There are 3 common HR practices that reward self-promotion over team and organizational success:
Leader Promotion and Selection Procedures. Hyper-competitive selection practices have the potential to amplify narcissistic tendencies. Candidates are required to highlight their superiority over others, compete for advancement, and extol their abilities and accomplishments. This increases the likelihood that narcissistic individuals will attain leadership positions.
HR “High-Potential Programs. Organizations invest billions of dollars in “high potential” programs that grant leadership development resources to those special individuals who seem to have the “it factor,” which encourages high-potential people to see themselves as superior to those who are not selected. This cultivates narcissism and hubris in future leaders.
Excessive Pay and Rewards Separate Leaders from Their Followers. In 2024, the average CEO to employee pay ratio in S&P 500 companies was 285 to 1. This inequality is compounded by the excessive perks that executives secure—private planes, chauffeur services, exclusive club memberships, and luxury office suites. This treatment is often justified as the cost of attracting top talent, but this suggests that leaders are in a world of their own. We should not be surprised, then, if those leaders turn out to be narcissistic and disdainful. Research shows, however, that large pay disparities between leaders and followers undermine the sense of shared identity and purpose that is critical for organizational success (Peters et al., 2024; Steffens et al., 2020).
What To Do?
As an alternative to hyper-competitive selection methods, promoting the idea that leadership is a collective responsibility and searching for potential leaders who are willing to share the leadership responsibilities – and who have proven this. NASA, for example, uses a rotating leadership model in its training simulations (Mulhearn et al., 2016). It emphasizes cooperation rather than dominance over others.
Instead of programs only for “high potentials,” broaden development efforts to a wider range of individuals and focus on developing team skills—moving from a focus on “me” to a focus on “we.”
To combat excessive reward systems, work to avoid egregious pay disparities between leaders and followers. Since success is a collective effort, rewards should be collective too. In a similar vein, recognition programs should look to celebrate collective success rather than focusing exclusively on the contributions of individuals.
Co-authored by Tyree Mitchell, S. Alexander Haslam, Vanessa Burke, Niklas K. Steffens, and Ron Riggio