Source: French to English Tester Published on: 2026-05-05
Source: The Conversation – in French– By Jean Poitras, Full Professor in Conflict Management, HEC Montréal
Megalomaniac leaders fascinate. They display overflowing confidence, sometimes excessive ambitions, and often make decisions disconnected from reality. Despite this, they continue to attract, both in the professional world and in politics. Why? Because their rise and fall do not depend solely on their personality, but on a broader dynamic.
The three assets of the megalomaniac
The explanatory key lies in the convergence of three forces:narcissism of the megalomaniac leader, the uncertainty that drives agroup to search for a savior, and thecollective dynamics of cognitive dissonancewhich then protect this belief.
The narcissistic trait gives megalomaniac leaders aexceptional confidence, a very high image of themselves and astrong conviction in their decisions. This assurance acts as a signal of control and mastery, primarily attractive when the group is going through a period of uncertainty. Indeed, it quickly reduces collective anxiety linked to ambiguity, doubt, and the absence of direction, even when this impression of mastery relies more on posture than on an accurate reading of reality.
In a context of uncertainty, members tend to favor figures who display strong confidence. This stance indeed reduces common anxiety and creates a reassuring impression of clear direction, thereby fosteringmembership in ambitious initiativesto solve problems, even when they prove to be unrealistic. This dynamic is all the more powerful because the megalomaniac often seems very efficient at the start: he simplifies complex problems, makes decisions quickly, and launches visible actions that create an immediate sense of dynamism. The results obtained, or at least their perception, then consolidate his authority. This process accelerates his rise and progressively strengthens the credibility of his ideas.
The last factor manifests itself at the moment when the first visible successes of the megalomaniac leader increase his notoriety and credibility in the eyes of the group. Each real or perceived gain reinforces the idea that he possesses an exceptional ability to steer the situation because he seems to confirm the initial promise of control. His popularity then acts as an implicit signal of validity: the more it seems shared, the more everyone tends to infer that it necessarily rests on good reasons. The belief that this collective adherence must have a foundation thus pushes everyone to rely onthe group’s opinion to interpret reality.
This dynamic results in increasing doubt about one’s own judgment. One ends up believing that one is wrong since everyone around seems to share a favorable opinion of the megalomaniac.
Support remains even in the presence of concerning indicators, or even when the deviant progression may seem obvious from an external point of view. Indeed, each individual adapts their perception based on collective reactions and the cost associated with admitting an error. Changing one’s mind represents a significant cost for pride and can pose a risk of exclusion from the group, which leads many people to distort the facts to avoid the stress of admitting a judgment error.
Moreover, themegalomaniac tends to exaggerate successes, to trivialize failures and to attribute blame to external causes. He thus ends up enclosing the group in a bubble where thecollective perception gradually detaches itself from reality.
Also to read:
From the playground to the boardrooms: how childhood and adolescence shape the leaders of tomorrow
Transforming one’s illusions into standards
Added to this is a powerful mechanism: repetition strengthens the credibility of an idea. When different media and official discourses relay the same statement, it gradually takes root until it becomes a social norm. This idea ends up being perceived as self-evident, even when it is based on fragile grounds. In more extreme cases, one can think of a dictatorship where the press and educational institutions are forced to repeat the official discourse, which then quickly acquires the status of normative truth.
As the megalomaniac leader’s authority grows, he establishes a system that sustains his illusions. Any contradiction becomes for him athreat to his identity. Loyalty is rewarded more than competence, compliments are encouraged, and opponents are silenced. Little by little, the leader finds himself trapped in a bubble that feeds his narcissism and separates him from reality.
His unchecked narcissism becomes a real Achilles’ heel: each success amplifies his overconfidence, exacerbating his tendency to overestimate himself and gradually eroding his perception of reality. Unable to savor his initial triumphs, he then embarks on increasingly grand projects, as past successes are no longer enough to feed his sense of grandeur. He then becomes vulnerable to a cascade of growing mistakes.
Sooner or later, the leader gets lost in the pursuit of excessive projects forfeed one’s own narcissism. The decline begins as soon as the gap between perception and reality becomes impossible to reconcile. Incoherences accumulate and some allies drift away as the group increasingly perceives that the leader is acting to preserve hisown interests rather than those of the collective. The leader then tends to intensify the accusations and control to maintain his image, because acknowledging failure would directly threaten the grandiose image he has of himself.
At this stage, the system is no longer a simple illusion: it enters a phase where maintaining support becomes mentally and socially more costly than questioning it.
Despite everything, calling him a megalomaniac in broad daylight is not enough, by itself, to bring about his downfall.
Already thousands of subscribers to the newsletter ofThe Conversation. And you? Subscribe to our freenewsletterto better understand the major contemporary issues.
The fall of the megalomaniac
The illusion continues to sustain itself and the system remains surprisingly resilient as long as the group dynamics reinforce each other’s support for the leader and the mental mechanisms protect this belief by minimizing contradictions. Detaching from it remains difficult, because it also means losing the figure of control and security that it represented until now, but also recognizing one’s own part in maintaining this illusion.
Also to read:
Business leadership: why the tone used by management has moral repercussions
The fall occurs when thereality can no longer be ignored and that a framework of legitimate disengagement is emerging, for example the idea that the context has changed or that the leader is no longer the same. This new framework allows the group to revise its judgment without having toto feel significant psychological discomfort.
From then on, turning away from the leader no longer resembles the admission of a fault, but a thoughtful and socially justifiable choice.faced with a situation that has become impossible to contest. In other words, it is not the truth that topples the megalomaniac, but the moment when it becomes safe to acknowledge that truth. When it becomes acceptable to disavow the megalomaniac leader, decline is generally inevitable.
An endless circle
This article allowed us to explore why these leaders are followed to the end. But a more fundamental question remains: why, despite such a classic pattern, do groups continue to fall under the spell of this type of leader? It is precisely because the drift only becomes apparent afterwards, once the initial promise of transformation has failed to produce results.
Indeed, at first, megalomaniacs often appear as figures of change, bearers of clarity, vision, and movement in a context perceived as blocked. It is this promise of transformation that leads the group into a vicious circle. And unfortunately for us, these great narcissists have mastered the art of recognizing this collective weakness and exploiting it. It is this sensitivity that closes the loop: as soon as a new context of uncertainty arises, the group becomes sensitive again to the hopes of change, vision, and control that these leaders so skillfully embody.
Jean Poitras does not work for, advise, own shares in, receive funds from any organization that might benefit from this article, and has declared no affiliation other than his research institution.
–ref. How does the megalomaniac leader establish his hold over the group… and how does he lose it –https://theconversation.com/how-does-the-megalomaniac-leader-establish-his-control-over-the-group-and-how-does-he-lose-it-279416