Evolution of Leadership

How society has emerged into a reasonably coherent unit is a hobby subject of mine and this afternoon I stumbled across a study that looks into the evolutionary story behind leadership and what evolution can teach us about leadership.  Rather than the sociological question of what makes a good leader, the study looks at the origins and adaptive functions of leadership.

How leadership evolves

In environments where coordination is beneficial to individuals leader/follower patterns emerge.  Hunting and teaching provide two anthropoligical examples of this in action.  Regarding who leads in a group however, this typically relies on certain behavioural traits, such as:

1. The Motivated - For instance those with the most need will often take the lead in looking for food or a new place to reside.  In humans this is often the individual with most to gain or that isn't as concerned with the interests of others.  Essentially ambition and autonomy traits are key here.
2. Leadership favours the bold - Temperament is also key to finding the leader within the group.  The meek may inherit the Earth but they won't lead the group if evolution teaches us anything.  It shows overwhelmingly that the bold lead and the meek follow.
3. Power play - Evolution also points to dominant individuals taking particularly strong leadership roles.  Alpha males that elicit a strong influence over the group, although it is worth noting that these individuals typically look out for themselves first and the group second.  In humans males tend to score higher in dominance and self-confidence, perhaps going some way to explaining
   

   

   their continued dominance of the board room.

4. Egg heads rule OK - Having some form of unique knowledge also puts one in a favourable leadership position.  In humans this is born out by research showing age correlating with leadership in domains where specialised knowledge is required, but not in domains that require risk taking and physical bravery. 

How do they lead?

We've sussed out who leads, but how does evolution suggest these individuals lead?  There has been much discussion in recent months, particularly in the finance industry, about bonuses and the reward culture and whether that provides good leadership in those companies.  In the groups where the smart individuals assume leadership this intellect may not even require explicit communication, instead relying on heuristics to portray their superior knowledge.

In larger groups, such as companies, only a small proportion of informed leaders are required to achieve optimum performance.  It is important to note that in times of conflict it doesn't take many additional leaders to stand up and make their views known to tip the direction the company takes towards another direction.

Also of interest in the reward/motivation debate is that of punishment.  It is suggested in the research is that leaders are happy to bear punishment themselves if it is done in return for status or resources.  High levels of co-operation can be achieved if this approach is taken, with the group performing better because fewer group members suffer the costs of administering punishment.

The five major transitions in the evolution of human leadership

1. Leadership emerged in pre-human species as a mechanism to solving small group co-ordination
2. Leadership was co-opted to foster collective action in situations involving conflicts of interest
3. Dominance was attenuated in early societies, which paved the way for democracies
4. Theories of mind and language evolved as group sizes increased, thus enabling leaders to communicate to larger numbers
5. Formal leaders (kings, presidents etc.) emerged after the agricultural revolution in response to the increasingly complex societies that emerged

These are the stages of leadership nature has shown us.  What will be the sixth major transition in human leadership?