A fresh wave of psychological research is offering valuable insights into why high-profile figures such as former US president Donald Trump—and other leaders with pronounced narcissistic traits—react so defensively, or even aggressively, when confronted with evidence of their own mistakes. Drawing on interviews, recent peer-reviewed studies, and organizational psychology, experts say these reactions are not just personality quirks, but reflect deeper dynamics in workplaces and governments worldwide—raising profound questions about power, accountability, and the future of leadership, including in Thailand’s evolving corporate, political, and academic environments.
At the heart of the latest findings, as summarized in an accessible feature from Daily Kos, is the understanding that narcissistic leaders exhibit a predictable set of responses when their errors are exposed. These include flat-out denial, blame-shifting, gaslighting of critics, minimizing the significance of the mistake, emotional outbursts (sometimes termed “narcissistic rage”), withdrawal, and even casting themselves as victims. While these behaviors may seem irrational or even self-sabotaging, psychologists suggest they are deeply rooted in a fragile, unstable sense of self that cannot tolerate the admission of personal fault.
This line of inquiry is especially relevant in Thailand and across Southeast Asia amid rapid changes in business management and public governance. As Thai organizations strive to foster innovation, transparency, and team empowerment, understanding the pitfalls of narcissistic leadership takes on practical urgency.
Background on Narcissism and Leadership
Narcissism, as described by leading research and outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), is a personality trait marked by an inflated sense of self-importance, a preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited power or brilliance, a need for excessive admiration, and a lack of empathy. While less than 1 percent of the general population may be formally diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder, subclinical (non-disordered) narcissistic traits are common—especially among people who occupy the top ranks of organizations. In fact, studies suggest that 18% of CEOs score moderately or highly on these traits, compared to just 5% in the general population. Source
What makes these individuals so successful at climbing to positions of power? Their confidence, charisma, boldness, and risk-taking can create a compelling sense of vision, at least initially. However, experts draw a sharp distinction between confidence and competence: not all impressive self-presentation translates into sound decision-making. Over time, the abrasive and manipulative side of narcissism can emerge, undermining trust and stability.
The Science of Mistake Reactions
The reactions of narcissistic leaders to mistakes are now better understood thanks to a growing body of psychological research. Faced with criticism or irrefutable evidence of error, such leaders typically lean on several defense mechanisms to avoid self-blame, including:
- Denial and dismissal: Refusing to acknowledge the mistake or reinterpreting facts to suit a desired narrative.
- Blame-shifting: Projecting responsibility onto subordinates, colleagues, external circumstances, or even “enemies” who allegedly seek to undermine them.
- Gaslighting: Insisting that others have misunderstood, imagined the problem, or are misrepresenting reality.
- Minimization: Trivializing the mistake or claiming others are “overreacting.”
- Narcissistic rage: Responding with intense anger or outrage, often disproportionate to the trigger.
- Withdrawal: Using the silent treatment or retreat as a means of punishing those who push for accountability.
- Victimization: Positioning themselves as the target of unfair scrutiny or persecution.
As Dr. Emily Grijalva (University at Buffalo), an expert on narcissistic leadership, summarizes, “For many narcissistic leaders, acknowledging a mistake is not merely a bruise to the ego—it’s an existential threat.” Source
Wider Psychological Theories
Underlying these reactions are two interlocking psychological phenomena:
Fragile ego: Narcissistic leaders—despite outward bravado—may be deeply insecure. Publicly admitting error threatens their self-image of invulnerability.
Distorted reality: Such leaders may sincerely believe their own narratives, twisting facts to protect their grandiose self-image rather than assimilating new information.
Fear of weakness: To the narcissist, error is equated with weakness or unworthiness, something to be hidden or denied at all costs.
Organizational Impacts
While the day-to-day drama of narcissistic leaders often captures headlines, the research points to longstanding negative consequences for companies, government bodies, and entire societies:
- Failure to learn from mistakes: Refusing to accept responsibility or reflect on errors often leads to the same poor decisions being repeated. Source
- Degraded relationships: Team members may feel blamed, invalidated, or manipulated—leading to eroded trust and higher turnover.
- Counterproductive behaviors: Studies show strong correlations between narcissism and workplace deviance, including fraud, aggression, and exploitation.
- Blind spots in strategy: Overconfident risk-taking may produce short-term gains, but unchecked hubris exposes organizations to major ethical and financial risks.
Despite these issues, the “dark side” of narcissistic leadership continues to intrigue both management scholars and practicing executives. Refer to analysis from Fisher College of Business.
How Cultural Context Shapes Reactions
Recent organizational psychology research from Asia, including China and Southeast Asia, draws attention to the role of culture in shaping how narcissistic leaders interact with teams, especially under collectivist values that emphasize harmony and hierarchy. In these environments, the damaging effects of narcissistic leadership may either be magnified or muted, depending on the cultural expectations of subordinates.
A landmark study in China found that narcissistic leaders often undermine both individual and team trust, reducing what researchers term “team followership”—that is, the proactive support and enthusiasm followers provide to their leaders (Frontiers in Psychology, 2021). However, this effect is moderated by two important factors:
- Traditionality: Employees who highly value authority and hierarchy are less likely to resist, and may even admire narcissistic leaders’ confidence—thus buffering some negative effects.
- Team power distance: Teams comfortable with strong hierarchies also tend to tolerate greater dominance from narcissistic leaders without the same breakdown in trust.
Researchers conclude that “for subordinates with high traditionality, the negative effect [of narcissistic leaders] was significantly weakened…for individuals with high traditionality, narcissists who are confident and assertive may be considered a positive leader full of power.”
At the same time, Thai society—long shaped by deference to authority and a preference for social harmony—may inadvertently encourage or enable leadership patterns that mirror these dynamics. In some organizations, staff may be reluctant to speak up about problems or challenge leaders’ errors, even when negative consequences are clear.
Narcissism and Corporate Governance in Southeast Asia
Research from Southeast Asia further links narcissistic traits in executives to patterns of sustainability reporting, risk-taking, and transparency. A 2025 study examining energy companies in the region found that CEO narcissism significantly influenced the nature and quality of corporate disclosures on sustainability (ResearchGate, 2025), with more narcissistic leaders tending to focus on highly visible projects—sometimes at the expense of meaningful, long-term engagement with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues. The findings underscore the real-world high stakes of who sits at the top.
Lessons for Thailand’s Future Leaders
With Thailand’s economy in flux and both public and private organizations under pressure to modernize, the implications of this research are clear: not all confident, outspoken, or risk-taking leaders are necessarily suited for long-term organizational health. While a certain degree of charisma can help launch bold new initiatives, unchecked narcissism ultimately leads to fragile, unstable and even toxic environments.
As confirmed by a comprehensive Nature Social Sciences study (2024), narcissistic leaders in an Asian context often foster “in-group” cliques, granting privileges to loyal supporters (“insiders”) while excluding others, a pattern that has been observed in both state and business hierarchies in Thailand. The resulting climate, sometimes called “team chaxu,” discourages dissent, reduces innovation, and puts organizations at risk of groupthink and inaction in the face of real problems. The study further found that the negative organizational impact is greatest when leaders lack strong support in their personal lives and seek to compensate by demanding loyalty or adulation from staff.
Expert Viewpoints
According to one corporate psychologist at a leading Thai university, “Many Thai organizations have traditionally assumed that visible self-assurance is a marker of leadership. But the data shows that real leadership requires humility, openness to criticism, and the capacity to learn from error. We need to be more sophisticated in how we select and promote our top people.” A human resources advisor at a major SET-listed company echoes this, noting that “screening for excessive narcissism is as important as looking for vision or charisma.”
What can organizations do? The literature recommends several practical interventions:
- Assessment and screening: Use peer and subordinate feedback, not just self-report or superior evaluations, to identify potentially problematic traits in leadership candidates.
- Promote cultural values of openness and learning: Encourage environments where mistakes can be admitted and learned from without punitive shame.
- Foster diverse leadership teams: Balance charismatic leaders with more collaborative, empathetic counterparts.
- Monitor for warning signs: Watch for growing blame-shifting, scapegoating, or escalating defensiveness in times of stress or crisis (“narcissistic rage” episodes).
- Support leaders’ psychological well-being: Recognize that even leaders with narcissistic tendencies may perform better with adequate support and opportunities to build secure personal relationships.
Historical and Cultural Context in Thai Society
Thailand’s national and organizational cultures have long blended respect for seniority with powerful group norms for harmony and avoidance of open conflict. This can be both a strength—mitigating unnecessary discord—and a weakness, enabling domineering personalities to dominate unchecked. In political history, periods of crisis have sometimes seen the rise of forceful, charismatic—but autocratic—leaders, both in government and large family-run businesses.
The concept of “face”—protecting one’s honor and reputation—is central within Thai culture, impacting how mistakes are handled both privately and publicly. As such, narcissistic strategies for error management may find fertile environment, especially if checks and balances are weak or if whistleblowers face reprisal.
Implications for Education and Public Sector
Thailand’s education system and civil service are no less impacted. Teachers, school administrators, and government officials all operate under systems where deference and saving face are deeply ingrained. Recent efforts to modernize, decentralize, and professionalize public services may struggle if narcissistic patterns go unrecognized. Evidence from international research warns that the same negative dynamics—denial, blame-shifting, punishments for dissent—can stall much-needed reforms.
Potential Pathways Forward
Looking to the future, the challenge for Thailand is to foster leaders who are both charismatic and humble, bold yet teachable. This means rethinking how candidates for high office, top management, and other pivotal roles are identified and trained. Incorporating psychological assessments into promotion pipelines, creating safe channels for upward feedback, and building organizational cultures that reward openness are practical steps organizations can take.
On the societal level, cultivating a broader conversation about the dangers of unchecked self-importance—and the benefits of learning from mistakes—could help shift norms over time. Experts suggest that Thai media, educational curricula, and professional organizations have an important role to play in modeling healthy, accountable behavior at all levels.
For individuals working within organizations, the following recommendations may help:
- Look for evidence of humility and capacity for self-correction in your leaders, not just confidence.
- If you experience or witness blame-shifting or gaslighting after a mistake, document incidents and seek support from HR or external advisors.
- Foster professional networks outside single organizational hierarchies to avoid being isolated by “in-group, out-group” dynamics.
- Advocate for clear, transparent feedback processes that do not penalize honest reporting of errors.
In summary, the research is clear: while narcissistic leaders may rise fast and shine bright, their resistance to learning from mistakes creates risks for all. As Thailand continues to modernize, organizations and society alike will benefit from leaders who can couple vision with accountability, and boldness with the humility to say: “I was wrong.”
For further reading and to explore these topics in more depth, see resources from Fisher College of Business, Frontiers in Psychology, Nature Social Sciences, and the latest opinion pieces such as the featured Daily Kos article.