I don't doubt that the premise of this article is true - that by objective measures the humble lead better. but...
1) To be leader you have to be elected, if the charismatic-narcissists are better at getting elected then that is at least one aspect in which they make better leaders
2) I'm not sure people want leaders in top positions, they tend to want people to affirm their pre-formed opinions and act as if they were a surrogate for the voter. The last thing they want them to do is lead in the sense of make a case for changing the voter's opinion.
3) I think people see themselves as the leader, and want to pick someone to represent them that they most aspire to be (from the usually poor list of available candidates). If they had to invent Tyler Durden would they pick a humble man - nope...
so we prevented him doing what we wanted him to do in punishment for doing the thing we didn't want him to do. I guess he'll go work in a bank now.
So it sounds like his community is punished 3x. Lost the original data, lost a phamacist serving the community, lost the records he leaks from whatever new job he winds up in.
It would have been better to have him continue in pharmacy and pay for enhanced data protection services / audits.
We don't really understand it, so we'll give it to the programmers.