To the Editor:
In “There’s a Cure for Our Attraction to Narcissistic Leaders” (Opinion guest essay, Jan. 4), Adam Grant shows how readily we choose narcissists. Having treated pathological narcissism for 15 years and now co-leading the first clinical trial of MDMA-assisted therapy for this hard-to-treat personality disorder, I’d like to make two clarifications.
First, the narcissist’s grandiosity is not confidence. It is a brittle defense, an overcompensation for fragile self-esteem shaped by early experiences of emotional neglect and misattunement. That history can leave a person deeply shamed and dependent on external affirmation, intoxicated by praise and hypersensitive to criticism. With characteristic emotional volatility and impaired empathy, meaningful, reciprocal relationships are out of reach for narcissists.
Second, it isn’t only people with low self-esteem who are vulnerable to narcissists. In uncertain times, many of us feel vulnerable and reach for leaders who project omnipotence, the potency we wish we had. Narcissists excel at appearing that way.
If we want different leaders, we must stop mistaking defensive grandiosity for genuine strength.
Alexa E. Albert Seattle
To the Editor:
We need more thinkers willing to build on the essay by Adam Grant, which invites us to look beyond individuals and ask what our systems are quietly shaping. His analysis of narcissistic leaders is compelling, but it risks stopping one layer too soon.
Narcissists do not rise in a vacuum. They rise in systems under strain. When uncertainty becomes chronic — economic insecurity, relentless pace, blurred boundaries, constant performance signaling — organizations and societies become inflamed. In that state, confidence gets mistaken for competence, dominance for direction and certainty for safety.
We don’t simply “fall” for narcissists; our systems quietly select for them. In biology, inflammation narrows perception and favors short-term survival over long-term judgment. The same dynamic plays out in workplaces, markets, classrooms and politics.
Under pressure, people gravitate toward leaders who project control, even when that control is performative. This is why focusing only on individuals misses the deeper point. The real work is redesigning environments — incentives, codes of conduct and now A.I.-driven systems — to reward sense-making, recovery and collective resilience.
Leadership is not only a character test. It is a design outcome. Healthy systems don’t need saviors, but will cultivate stewards. If we have the courage — and the humility to rethink how our actions shape systems — we can bring humanity back into leadership.
Jaqueline Oliveira-Cella New York
To the Editor:
As Adam Grant pointed out, there are many reasons people vote for narcissists, but one that was omitted is their level of education, where people learn critical thinking and historical literacy. The well educated are less likely to support narcissists.
In the 2024 election, according to Inside Higher Ed, 61 percent of men without a college degree voted for Donald Trump, versus 48 percent of college graduates. Similarly, 45 percent of women without a degree voted for Mr. Trump, versus 37 percent of graduates.
Those who critically think and remember the history of previous narcissists are aware of the damage that these self-centered individuals can do and are less likely to vote for them. It is no accident that Mr. Trump attacked universities as soon as he started his second term.
Lack of historical knowledge is anathema to democracy.
Michael Hadjiargyrou Centerport, N.Y.
To the Editor:
As a therapist, lawyer and mediator for 40 years, I have dealt with the type of narcissistic leaders Adam Grant describes in hundreds of conflict situations, including abusive parents, workplace bullies and “persuasive blamers” in legal disputes.
I studied 12 likely narcissistic world leaders in my 2019 book, “Why We Elect Narcissists and Sociopaths — and How We Can Stop!” I found that they each gained power with what I call the “fantasy crisis triad”: a terrible (fantasy) crisis; an evil (fantasy) villain; and assuming the role of a (fantasy) hero. Then these leaders adopted fantasy policies of their own, based on no research and without initially consulting advisers.
Examples of these policies include pursuing genocide, starving peasants, starting cultural revolutions, invading neighboring countries, eliminating legislatures and so on. Several of these leaders are still on the world stage. One, former President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, decided to play hero by killing thousands of alleged drug dealers at night without due process.
Mr. Duterte is now in detention at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, awaiting trial for crimes against humanity related to his “war on drugs.” A better understanding of narcissistic leaders helps explain many of the bizarre policies dominating the news — and how to avoid them in the future.
Bill Eddy San Diego
To the Editor:
Adam Grant’s assessment of the prevalence of narcissism among leaders, from the presidency down to grade school, supports his assertion that as a nation we like our leaders strong and confident, regardless of personality defects.
But it does not address the why. Why is America today such fertile ground for narcissistic leaders? Why are some countries immune?
Our national obsession with rugged individualism has undermined the belief that society has an obligation to care for its most vulnerable. When strength becomes the only virtue, when consideration of the common good is deemed a weakness, it is no surprise that narcissism prevails. A warped society will promote warped leaders.
Chris Purdy Shoreline, Wash.
To the Editor:
Adam Grant is right that we’re drawn to narcissistic leaders — but the more uncomfortable truth is that we systematically produce them.
In academia and research, where I work, success often hinges less on intellectual humility than on confidence, visibility and self-promotion. The incentives favor those who project certainty over those who express doubt, even when the latter are more rigorous or honest. Over time, this trains people to assume authority rather than earn it.
Career advancement in academia requires persuading others that one’s ideas, methods and interpretations deserve special attention. Academics have to persuade others (funding agencies, tenure and promotion committees) that their own scholarship is superior to their peers. That pressure can incentivize exaggeration, selective reporting and, at times, outright misconduct — not because most scholars are unethical, but because the system disproportionately rewards those who appear most assured.
The result is a growing number of high-profile research failures that are eroding public trust in academic institutions. That dynamic helps explain why narcissism thrives not only in politics but across institutions that claim to value evidence and integrity. When career advancement depends on attention, branding and decisiveness over accuracy, restraint or nuance, we shouldn’t be surprised when the most self-assured voices rise fastest.
The problem isn’t just that we fall for narcissistic leaders. It’s that we’ve built systems that train and reward them.
James M. Smoliga Greensboro, N.C.
The post How Narcissists Are Made, and Why We Are Drawn to Them appeared first on New York Times.
