Why Narcissists Rise to Power: When Confidence Is Mistaken for Competence

By Samantha Avril-Andreassen, Founder of SAFECHAIN™

Why do some of the people least suited to leadership appear to reach the highest positions of influence?

It is one of the most enduring questions in organisational psychology, governance and public life.

Across politics, business, family justice, charities, healthcare, policing and public institutions, history repeatedly demonstrates that individuals displaying pronounced narcissistic traits sometimes ascend rapidly into positions of authority. Yet this should not lead us to conclude that successful leaders are inherently narcissistic. Most are not.

The more important question is this:

Why do organisations repeatedly mistake confidence for competence, charisma for character, and certainty for wisdom?

The answer has profound implications for safeguarding, governance and institutional accountability.

The issue is not simply the personality of individual leaders. It is the design of the systems that select, reward and protect them.

When institutions reward visibility over capability, image over integrity and authority over accountability, they inadvertently create environments in which harmful leadership can flourish.

Leadership Emergence Is Not Leadership Effectiveness

Research consistently distinguishes between two very different concepts:

• Leadership emergence — who gets chosen as a leader.

• Leadership effectiveness — who actually leads well over time.

These are not the same.

Many people rise to leadership because they appear decisive, confident and persuasive. Those qualities create powerful first impressions. Yet effective leadership requires very different characteristics:

• humility

• judgement

• accountability

• emotional intelligence

• integrity

• willingness to learn

• respect for evidence

• ability to build trust.

The tragedy is that many organisational selection processes are far better at identifying confidence than competence.

Confidence Creates Credibility

Human beings naturally seek certainty.

When faced with uncertainty, we instinctively gravitate toward individuals who appear to know exactly what they are doing.

People with strong narcissistic traits frequently demonstrate behaviours that create this perception.

They often:

• speak confidently;

• make bold promises;

• project certainty;

• dominate conversations;

• display unwavering self-belief;

• present ambitious visions.

To observers, these behaviours can easily resemble strong leadership.

However, confidence is not evidence.

Certainty is not expertise.

Visibility is not capability.

The appearance of leadership can be remarkably persuasive—even when genuine leadership is absent.

The Confidence–Competence Illusion

Psychological research has identified several cognitive biases that help explain why organisations repeatedly select charismatic but potentially harmful leaders.

These include:

The Halo Effect

When someone appears confident, articulate or successful in one area, we often assume they possess competence in many others.

Authority Bias

People tend to trust individuals who appear authoritative, particularly during periods of uncertainty.

Confidence Bias

Confident communicators are frequently judged as more knowledgeable than cautious experts—even when objective evidence suggests otherwise.

Dominance Bias

Dominant personalities are often mistaken for capable leaders despite dominance and leadership being fundamentally different qualities.

Together these biases create what might be called the confidence–competence illusion.

Organisations Reward What They Measure

Leadership selection rarely occurs in isolation.

Every organisation rewards particular behaviours.

If promotions depend primarily upon:

• visibility,

• self-promotion,

• political influence,

• aggressive ambition,

• individual performance,

then those behaviours naturally become more common.

This is not necessarily because organisations intend to promote narcissistic leadership.

Rather, they unintentionally reward the characteristics that make narcissistic personalities highly competitive within those systems.

As the old management principle reminds us:

What gets measured gets managed. What gets rewarded gets repeated.

When Leadership Becomes Harmful

The challenge is not that narcissistic traits always produce poor leaders.

The challenge is that unchecked narcissistic leadership often becomes increasingly harmful over time.

Common organisational patterns include:

• taking credit while assigning blame elsewhere;

• intolerance of criticism;

• suppression of dissenting voices;

• image management taking priority over truth;

• manipulation of information;

• punishment of whistleblowers;

• creation of dependency;

• fragmentation of teams;

• erosion of psychological safety.

These patterns are rarely isolated to one workplace.

They can emerge within corporations, public services, healthcare systems, educational institutions, charities and justice systems alike.

The consequences extend far beyond employee wellbeing.

They affect decision-making, public confidence and ultimately the safety of those institutions exist to protect.

Institutional Narcissism

Perhaps the more concerning phenomenon is not narcissistic individuals.

It is narcissistic institutions.

Institutions can gradually develop cultures that mirror the same characteristics found in harmful leadership.

They begin to communicate messages such as:

"We do not make mistakes."

"The process was followed."

"The institution must be protected."

"The complainant is the problem."

When reputation becomes more important than learning, accountability begins to disappear.

Mistakes become threats rather than opportunities for improvement.

Evidence that challenges organisational narratives becomes unwelcome.

Participation becomes performative rather than meaningful.

Over time, safeguarding itself becomes procedural rather than protective.

Why Good People Stay Silent

One of the most misunderstood aspects of institutional failure is silence.

People often assume that if something harmful is occurring, someone will speak up.

Reality is more complicated.

Individuals remain silent for many reasons:

• fear of retaliation;

• concern about career progression;

• loyalty to colleagues;

• uncertainty about their own judgement;

• diffusion of responsibility;

• groupthink;

• normalisation of deviance.

When enough people remain silent, dysfunctional behaviour gradually becomes accepted as normal.

Culture changes—not through dramatic events—but through repeated accommodation.

A SAFECHAIN™ Perspective

From a SAFECHAIN™ perspective, safeguarding should never depend upon the personality of individual leaders.

Healthy institutions are designed to function safely regardless of who occupies positions of authority.

That requires systems capable of testing decisions against objective standards rather than personal influence.

This is reflected across the SAFECHAIN™ governance frameworks, including:

• Institutional Coercive Control™

• Participation Integrity™

• Process Integrity™

• Evidence Integrity™

• Remedy Integrity™

• Legal Duty of Care™

• Operational Law™

Together these frameworks move safeguarding beyond awareness towards measurable governance capability.

The objective is not simply identifying harmful behaviour.

It is creating institutional environments in which harmful leadership becomes difficult to sustain.

Designing Institutions That Protect People

Healthy governance is rarely dramatic.

It is often quiet.

It is transparent decision-making.

Independent oversight.

Reliable evidence.

Open challenge.

Meaningful participation.

Clear accountability.

Psychological safety.

Continuous learning.

These characteristics may appear less charismatic than dominant leadership.

Yet history consistently demonstrates that they produce stronger institutions over time.

Conclusion

History repeatedly reminds us that dangerous leadership is rarely built upon competence alone.

More often, it is built upon perception.

Confidence can inspire.

Charisma can persuade.

Authority can impress.

But none of these qualities guarantee wisdom, integrity or justice.

Perhaps the better question is not:

Why do narcissists rise to power?

Perhaps it is this:

Why do our institutions continue rewarding the very characteristics that make harmful leadership more likely?

Safeguarding does not begin with identifying difficult individuals.

It begins by designing systems that prevent power from becoming unaccountable.

Until our organisations learn the difference between confidence and competence, charisma and character, authority and accountability, they will continue to confuse performance with leadership.

And the people who bear the greatest cost will always be those the institution was created to protect.