The Factors That Keep People in Bad Activism Groups with Bad Leaders
Is it loyalty to the cause or something a lot darker?
The destruction of a group is rarely caused by outside forces. Instead, it implodes from within, often sabotaged by those it trusted most—its leaders. Time and again, movements and groups crumble under the weight of abusive leadership. Why does this keep happening? And why do people stay loyal, even when it’s obvious their leader is the problem?
Today, we’re going to answer the question of why, in the first of a series of articles that examines the darker underbelly of political activism groups.
Why do so many groups follow the pattern of implosion?
Why are so many groups so susceptible to corrupt or narcissistic leadership?
Why do group members stay when their leader is so obviously bad?
Why do these bad leaders have such staunch supporters even after they’re exposed?
At first glance, it defies logic that this keeps happening, but we’re going to dig into it a little at a time. Quite frankly, it’s an entire book unto itself. Once you understand these dynamics, however, you’ll never be able to unsee them—and it will change how you interact in your groups.
BLUF: Understanding this will make your groups safer and more defensible against infiltration.
I’m going to use various examples from real people, although I will give them and their groups pseudonyms. Some of you will know exactly who I’m talking about and will wonder why I chose not to name them outright. By the end of this, you’ll understand; no matter where you live, you know of a Max, or Sid, or Jackie. These dynamics play out across activist groups with alarming consistency. Consider the case of Max first…
Max: The Iron Fist
Max runs a group of patriots that seem very organized. They have a nice website, claim to be very active in the community, and highlight various service efforts.
Behind the facade, however, is a darker side to the leader. Max is controlling, rude, demeaning, and even verbally abusive to members. His leadership style is an iron fist; what he says goes, and if you don’t like it, he will remove you. Questions are seen as challenges to his authority.
Over time, the members are bewildered. All they’re asking for is transparency and integrity; they definitely didn’t ask to be treated as though they’re unworthy of his respect. They’re not sure how to deal with all of this. Their group is imploding, and they don’t know how to stop it. What’s more, they can’t go public because, after all, they chose to join, and they don’t want to give their cause a bad name. How did they miss this? They feel trapped and ashamed…but most of them stay. Why?
Sid: The Celebrity Leader
Sid has a large organization with a high profile. His members come from specific parts of the population, and at first, it’s a very honorable, perhaps even prestigious thing, to be part of his group.
Over time, however, people notice things. Sid is prone to temper tantrums and has no problem screwing over members or taking credit for things they did. He enjoys celebrity status among the membership and often makes demands based upon it—including that some members cover up certain misdeeds he engaged in, whether that be through bribes or legal defense funds. Higher-level members are pretty sure that Sid is skimming from the coffers to fund his own lifestyle and are well aware he has some other issues of a certain moral nature. Very few can prove it, however, and they aren’t really talking.
Rank-and-file members are left holding the bag when Sid gets exposed publicly as not just a shady dude, but in all probability a federal informant as well. Even so, he still has a following. Why are they incapable of seeing the truth?
Jackie: The Betrayer
Jackie and her husband run a self-styled patriot group that claims a no-holds-barred approach to liberty. They have a history of being confrontational both online and in person. They call it boldness, of course, but that’s a different discussion.
They, along with many members of their group, attended the rally on January 6. When they got home, the feds showed up at Jackie’s door. Not only did Jackie and her spouse hand over their entire membership list and contact info, but they also didn’t even bother to notify anyone in their group that they had done so. Their members found out when the feds also showed up at their houses too.
Stories like Jackie’s aren’t as uncommon as they should be. Despite her betrayal, many in her group remain loyal, and Jackie is still running her group today. Why? Let’s explore the psychological forces at work.
Why This Keeps Happening
It’s all too easy to make assumptions about why people continue to follow those leaders who have blatantly shown themselves to be anything but people of character. We use phrases like “unwashed masses,” “useful idiots,” or even “LARPers” to describe those who remain in compromised groups. They must be stupid, so the thought process goes, because a smart person would never stay in a group like that.
The truth is, people don’t always stay in compromised groups simply because they’re “stupid” or unaware of what’s going on. The reasons are far more complex—and far more visceral.
Here. I’ll show you.
Social Identity
Humans derive a significant portion of their self-concept from the groups they belong to. These groups provide a sense of purpose, belonging, and identity. Don’t believe me? Think of how many times you’ve been behind a vehicle filled with bumper stickers that let you know about all the ‘groups’ that person belongs to. Soccer mom. Military spouse. Christian. Atheist. Whatever. If you’re like me, you’ve scoffed at it. What a way to identify yourself as a target, right? “My other half is deployed” sounds like an advertisement for a home invasion.
What would make someone feel so compelled to identify with a group that they ignore basic personal security—or even refuse to learn about it?
Social identity theory.1
This is especially true in political groups, where the mission feels larger than life. After all, what’s bigger than “saving the country?”
When someone is deeply invested in a group, leaving it can feel like losing a piece of themselves. Even when a leader’s behavior is problematic or outright harmful, members may rationalize staying because they feel their own identity is intertwined with the group.
Walking away might mean facing the uncomfortable question: “If I’m not part of this, who am I?”
That’s an existential crisis many people prefer to avoid, so they stay—sometimes even doubling down on their loyalty.
Not to mention, the ‘us v. them’ that is inherent in the social identity means that if someone leaves, they’ve just become an outsider. That leads us to reason #2.
Fear of Isolation
Humans are inherently social creatures, wired to seek connection and avoid ostracism. Leaving a group, even a toxic one, often means risking isolation—not just from the group itself but from a broader social network tied to it. This fear of being alone can be paralyzing, especially for those who have built their lives and relationships around their group involvement.
Additionally, the act of leaving can provoke backlash. Former members often face criticism or ostracism from those who remain, reinforcing the idea that staying—even in a bad situation—is the safer option. Many convince themselves that enduring the dysfunction is better than facing the alternative: being cast out and left to navigate a sense of abandonment.
Sunk Cost Fallacy
The sunk cost fallacy plays a powerful role in keeping people tethered to groups. Members have often invested significant time, money, and emotional energy into the cause, making it difficult to walk away. The thought process goes something like this: “I’ve already given so much to this group; leaving now would mean all of that was for nothing.”
This cognitive bias leads people to continue supporting bad leaders or staying in imploding organizations because they feel the need to justify their past investments. Ironically, the more someone has invested, the harder it becomes to leave, even as the situation deteriorates. If they’ve learned that activism currency is the only thing that gives them worth, they’ll do anything not to give up its source—even if it’s destroying them.
Group-Enhanced Self-Worth
Being part of a group—especially one with a significant mission—can provide a profound sense of self-worth. Members feel like they’re contributing to something bigger than themselves, which can be incredibly validating. For some, this external validation fills gaps in their own self-esteem, making it harder to recognize or confront the group’s flaws. (We’ll talk more about this later in the series.)
Bad leaders often exploit this need, positioning themselves as gatekeepers of the group’s mission and worth. They create an environment where members feel that leaving the group is tantamount to giving up on the mission—or worse, admitting personal failure. This dynamic keeps people loyal, even when the mission itself has been compromised—and even when the leader is the one who compromised it.
Breaking the Cycle
Understanding these psychological and social dynamics is the first step in breaking the cycle of toxic group loyalty. It’s essential to recognize that staying in a compromised group doesn’t make someone stupid; it makes them human.
For those inside such groups, the path forward begins with self-awareness. Ask yourself hard questions.
Are you staying for the mission, or out of fear?
What are you afraid of?
Are your contributions genuinely making a difference, or are they enabling dysfunction?
Does the group still align with your values?
What is all of it costing you?
Ultimately, the goal isn’t just to leave toxic groups but to build better ones—groups that prioritize transparency, accountability, and respect—even if their operations aren’t public.
Next, we’ll look at another uncomfortable truth: the more unresolved emotional trauma we have, the more susceptible we are to infiltration and manipulation.
Kit Perez is an intelligence and deception analyst, as well as a former activist. She is the author of The Mindset of Resistance, and the co-author of The Basics of Resistance, with Claire Wolfe.
Social Identity Theory in Psychology (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).