Insights About Leaders and Followers from an Evolutionary Perspective

I just finished read a wonderful article in the American Psychologist called Leaders, Followership, and Evolution, by Mark Van Vugt and his colleagues.  You can get a pdf from Van Gut's website here.  They take an evolutionary perspective, showing -- among other things -- that leaders in the groups that we evolved from led small face to face groups, which (my interpretation) may help explain why leaders of large organizations fail so often -- it isn't something that humans as a species have much experience doing.  The authors also make a compelling case that people who rose to leadership positions in such groups did so because of their ability to serve the needs of followers rather than their ability to intimidate and bully.  Along related lines, they point out that another implication of an evolutionary perspective,is that people who study leaders typically devote too much attention to leaders and not enough to followers. 

I especially like this quote from page 190, which they show is bolstered by quite a bit of research on leadership in modern organizations:

“[G]ood leaders should be perceived as both competent and benevolent because followers want leaders who can acquire resources and then are willing to share them.”

This post just scratches the surface.  This is a carefully researched and unusually creative piece on leadership.  If you are interested, I suggest diving in deeper.

Comments

[pascalv]

Hello,

The link to the PDF file has changed, it now can be found here:

www.professormarkvanvugt.com/files/LeadershipFollowershipandEvolution-AmericanPsychologist-2008.pdf

Bob, thank you again for this post

[dblwyo]

Bob - thanks, especially give our longish history of exchanges re: Leadership. Agree. Some of my favorite essays are Stockdale on Leadership in "Reflections of a Philosophical Fighter Pilot". Worth people's time IMHO. Some of the great US commanders, e.g. Bull Halsey, went out of their way to create that tribal feeling as best they could by making their troops feel like they personally knew the boss's goals and desires; and that the boss would take care of them. A key point of Stockdale's is that leadership isn't forced by the bullies but results from whomsoever can step forth in crisis and carry the tribe to safety. He points in particular to Conrad's "Typhoon" and the crazy Lt. who usurped the Captain's prerogatives during the storm.

[Tyler]

I worked for a bully for a boss for 2 years. I hated the work environment but the money was good. I finally bit the bullet and left the place, even though I took a huge hit financially. The atmosphere is much nicer where I work now and our boss leads by example. The peace in my life is well worth the financial sacrifice. I'll never work for that kind of "leader" again.

[paulpangaro]

a complementary view to leadership involves clarity of purpose, and hence language. there is a PDF available at http://www.dubberly.com/articles/notes-on-the-role-of-leadership-and-language.html.

[Bobsutton]

All, thanks for the great comments. And Wally, yes, my reading of the article is consistent with your point. The leaders were as you say lifted up by the followers -- and then pushed out by them when they weren't fit.

[Wally Bock]

Thanks for the pointer, Bob. I've downloaded the article for reading. For now I'll share an observation that may be in it. It seems that the leaders in earlier times were not "promoted" by those above them in some hierarchy as they were raised up from the group for specific tasks.

[Rick]

Bob--Jared's comment is insightful: I heartily agree that it is a precious gift to any organization which discovers, in its midst, managers or executives able to both lead and follow.

To me, it is no surprise at all that the Van Vugt group validated the theory that leaders are most successful with their followers find that they bring value to the followers. That's how a win/win is constructed in this context: I lead, you (as a follower) gain, and thereby devote even more energy to supporting my leadership.

That partnership is one which leads to long-term success. Bullying and climb-the-ladder, back-stabbing tactics can lead to short-term success, but it always fails in the long run. Why? If everyone is not benefiting to some degree, that jerk leader (you have a better word for that person, Bob) will lose support over time.

It is, put simply, not a self-perpetuating system.

[Jared Cosulich]

I've always felt that the dynamic between leader and follower was more polarized then it should be. It seems that most people want to say you are a leader or you are a follower , but you can't be both.

Personally it seems that when you look at most real world situations that people who are capable of both leading and following effectively are the single greatest assets in an organization. They're capable of taking the help and providing direction and they are capable of stepping back and helping propel another person's vision forward. It allows you to avoid the "too many cooks in a kitchen" scenario while still bringing together diverse individuals who are all capable of driving things forward when the opportunity is right...