Emerging Trends in The Social and Behavioral Sciences

Leadership

Item

Title

Leadership

Author

Tecza, Adrienne

Johnson, Dominic

Research Area

Social Interactions

Topic

Primate Studies

Abstract

Historically, research on human leadership has been the sole domain of the social sciences, and has focused on the formalized role leaders have come to play in modern institutions. However, an independent yet parallel body of work has recently emerged in biology, where evolutionary theory is being used to investigate the origins and function of leader–follower dynamics in nonhuman animals. In recent years, interdisciplinary scholars in evolutionary psychology have attempted to merge these previously disparate research traditions, investigating whether the leader–follower relationships that evolved to help our species overcome challenges in the past holds insights for leadership strategies in our modern world. In this essay, we investigate the feasibility of such an interdisciplinary approach, the obstacles it faces, and the promise it holds for the future of leadership research.

Related Essays

The Underrepresentation of Women in Elective Office (Political Science), Sarah F. Anzia

Emergence of Stratification in Small Groups (Sociology), Noah Askin et al.

Global Economic Networks (Sociology), Nina Bandelj et al.

Returns to Education in Different Labor Market Contexts (Sociology), Klaus Schöemann and Rolf Becker

The Sexual Division of Labor (Anthropology), Rebecca Bliege Bird and Brian F. Codding

Authenticity: Attribution, Value, and Meaning (Sociology), Glenn R. Carroll

Why So Few Women in Mathematically Intensive Fields? (Psychology), Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams

Gender Segregation in Higher Education (Sociology), Alexandra Hendley and Maria Charles

Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi

Youth Entrepreneurship (Psychology), William Damon et al.

Resilience (Psychology), Erica D. Diminich and George A. Bonanno

Expertise (Sociology), Gil Eyal

Presidential Power (Political Science), William G. Howell

The Development of Social Trust (Psychology), Vikram K. Jaswal and Marissa B. Drell

Herd Behavior (Psychology), Tatsuya Kameda and Reid Hastie

Reconciliation and Peace‐Making: Insights from Studies on Nonhuman Animals (Anthropology), Sonja E. Koski

Women Running for Office (Political Science), Jennifer L. Lawless

Understanding Risk‐Taking Behavior: Insights from Evolutionary Psychology (Psychology), Karin Machluf and David F. Bjorklund

Transformation of the Employment Relationship (Sociology), Arne L. Kalleberg and Peter V. Marsden

Gender Inequality in Educational Attainment (Sociology), Anne McDaniel and Claudia Buchmann

Participatory Governance (Political Science), Stephanie L. McNulty and Brian Wampler

Gender and Women's Influence in Public Settings (Political Science), Tali Mendelberg et al.

Money in Politics (Political Science), Jeffrey Milyo

Feminists in Power (Sociology), Ann Orloff and Talia Schiff

Health and Social Inequality (Sociology), Bernice A. Pescosolido

Evolutionary Theory and Political Behavior (Political Science), Michael Bang Petersen and Lene Aarøe

Sociology of Entrepreneurship (Sociology), Martin Ruef

Stereotype Threat (Psychology), Toni Schmader and William M. Hall

Ethical Decision‐Making: Contemporary Research on the Role of the Self (Psychology), Lisa L. Shu and Daniel A. Effron

Impact of Limited Education on Employment Prospects in Advanced Economies (Sociology), Heike Solga

Creativity in Teams (Psychology), Leigh L. Thompson and Elizabeth Ruth Wilson

Identifier

etrds0203

extracted text

Leadership
ADRIENNE TECZA and DOMINIC JOHNSON

Abstract
Historically, research on human leadership has been the sole domain of the social
sciences, and has focused on the formalized role leaders have come to play in modern institutions. However, an independent yet parallel body of work has recently
emerged in biology, where evolutionary theory is being used to investigate the origins and function of leader–follower dynamics in nonhuman animals. In recent years,
interdisciplinary scholars in evolutionary psychology have attempted to merge these
previously disparate research traditions, investigating whether the leader–follower
relationships that evolved to help our species overcome challenges in the past holds
insights for leadership strategies in our modern world. In this essay, we investigate
the feasibility of such an interdisciplinary approach, the obstacles it faces, and the
promise it holds for the future of leadership research.

INTRODUCTION
The breadth of ways leadership has been examined over the last century
reflects the impressive number of disciplines that have taken interest in the
topic. Any serious consideration of behavior among social organisms must,
at some point, contend with questions about the leader–follower relationship and, as a consequence, the phenomenon has been studied across several
different species, including humans. Historically, empirical work on leadership in human and nonhuman animals has been divided along disciplinary
lines, with social psychology focusing on the former and evolutionary biology on the latter. In recent years, however, leadership research has caught the
attention of evolutionary psychologists, and the result has been an increase
in studies attempting to blend these previously disparate research traditions.
While the fusion of biological and social approaches is commonly touted as
the “next step” in the study of human leadership, evolutionary psychologists
must contend with deep theoretical differences between biological and social
approaches that have resulted in distinct research traditions. The primary
purpose of this essay will be to discuss the assumptions surrounding research
on human and animal leadership, how those assumptions impact the way in
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

which data are collected and interpreted, and what that means for current
and future trends toward the evolutionary study of human leadership.
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY: TRADITIONAL APPROACHES
TO HUMAN LEADERSHIP
Leaders have been a feature of human societies throughout history, yet formal research on leadership remained sparse until the beginning of the twentieth century. During this time, the West and the United States in particular saw
a rise in the hierarchical business model and a centralization of the political
system which brought with it a focus on the individuals at the top of this organizational structure. For many social scientists, studying leadership was an
important step in understanding institutional success. As Hogan and Kaiser
(2005) noted, “leadership solves the problem of how to organize collective
effort and is thus the key to organizational effectiveness” (p.169). It is thus not
surprising that human leadership studies have found their strongest footing
in journals and departments dedicated to organizational management. While
generating a wealth of empirical data on leaders in their working environments, leadership research on humans continues to struggle with ambiguous definitions, theoretical inconsistency, and contradictory results (Derue,
Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011). In many ways, these problems may
stem from assumptions about what leadership is, and what purpose it is
meant to serve.
From the 1950s until today, work on leadership in the social sciences has
been dominated by research attempting to find a link between leader behaviors and group performance. In these studies, a leader’s “effectiveness” is
commonly operationalized using measures of either objective group success
(e.g., firm profit), or the level of support received from peers, subordinates,
and supervisors (e.g., satisfaction with firm performance). A common
research design looks for correlations between measures of effectiveness
and the type of behavior or “style” (e.g., McGregor, 1960) the leader most
commonly employs, with some studies incorporating situational mediators.
Leadership styles are most commonly ascertained by distributing a survey
or questionnaire to members of an organization or working unit, asking
them to rate their supervisor’s behavior through a series of measures
preselected by the researcher. Traditionally the focus has been on behaviors
associated with a leader’s control over aspects of followers’ work environment including rewards and punishment, resources, training, and the level
of input the leader has in decision-making. Although field studies of this
type remain one of the most commonly employed methods for leadership
research, their design carries several, often unrecognized, assumptions
(Hunter, Bedell-Avers, & Mumford, 2007).

Leadership

3

First, by asking subordinates to rate their superiors on measures of leadership, researchers inherently equated managers with leaders, regardless
of whether this view is shared by the subordinate. Second, scholars tend
to operationalize “leadership” as those actions undertaken by someone
in a leadership position. Such a broad and ambiguous interpretation has
resulted in leadership being measured along several dimensions including
task-oriented (e.g., planning and organizing), relation-oriented (e.g., supporting and empowering followers), and change-oriented (e.g., envisioning
and advocating innovation) behaviors. Often questionnaires differ both
in the behaviors they focused on and the way in which those behaviors
are measured. As Yukl (2012) stated, “the bewildering variety of behavior
constructs used for leadership research makes it difficult to compare and
integrate findings” (p. 66). In many ways, these assumptions reflect the
twentieth century focus on institutional leadership, rather than leadership
that may arise from unrestricted social interactions. Such problems drove
Hunter and others to argue that, “research must first be more explicit in their
operationalization and justification for what a leader is and why, precisely, a
given sample represents ‘leaders’” (2007, p. 438).
It would be misleading to say that the entire leadership field can be captured by the description above. As James Hunt, senior editor for Leadership
Quarterly recently stated, “the field is literally exploding with new developments and it has moved far beyond the view of a hierarchical, top-down
order-giving man or white hat on a white horse hero who saves the town”
(Hunt, 2005, p. 1). Nonetheless, the discipline’s theoretical traditions and
continued focus on institutionalized leaders may be obscuring other more
informal leader–follower processes arising from social interactions outside
the formal hierarchy.
One promising exception has arisen from the cognitive revolution of the
1970s and the success of attribution theory. Attribution theory is primarily
concerned with how people’s interpretation of events can impact their
subsequent behavior. Work by Lord and his associates (Lord, 1985) found
two mental processes of attribution—recognition and inferential—which
they believed to be involved in an individual’s assessment of leadership.
Recognition processes are related to the prototypes of leadership held by
individuals (Rosch, 1978). The higher the degree of overlap between an actor
and an observer’s prototypic expectations, the greater the chance of a leader
attribution being made. In instances where overlap is low, leaders may be
viewed as less legitimate or effective regardless of objective achievement or
their formal title (Chemers, 2000). Inferential processes cause individuals to
attribute the success or failure of a group to the performance of the leader,
regardless of differences in leadership style (Staw, 1975). Thus, a subordinate
may view their superior as a “good” leader simply because the group

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

is succeeding, regardless of whether the leader is making any objective
contribution to that success. Attribution theory represents one of the first
attempts to understand leadership as a product of human psychology,
rather than simply the actions and consequences of individuals at the top
of a social hierarchy. As we will come to show in the next section, these
psychological biases may be no accident, deriving from a much more innate
leader–follower dynamic, forged by evolution to meet the unique social
challenges of our species.
EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY: NEW APPROACHES
TO NONHUMAN AND HUMAN LEADERSHIP
It may be difficult to envision leadership in animals. They do not have sophisticated language to persuade one another, many species lack the cognitive
capacity to plan or strategize about the future, and in many cases (such as
flocks of birds or schools of fish), individuals may only be aware of the actions
of their immediate neighbors. How then can biologists speak about animal
leadership? This section will examine an alternative interpretation of leadership than those commonly seen in the social science literature, a theory
of leadership that operates through psychological mechanisms designed to
facilitate survival, rather than an institutionalized hierarchy of power. But
first, it is important to understand how human and other animals’ psychology can be shaped by evolution.
EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY IN A NUTSHELL
Darwin’s (1909) theory of evolution posits that if a population displays variation in a given trait, and if offspring can inherit those traits from their parents, then the variants of a trait that improve survival or reproduction in a
given environment will increase in frequency from one generation to the next.
Variants that hindered survival or reproduction will diminish over time, as
they are transmitted to offspring at lower rates relative to their more productive counterparts. An inherited characteristic that, within the time period in
which it evolves, improves an individual’s ability to survive and reproduce
compared with an alternative variation of the trait is referred to as an adaptation. However, the process of natural selection can also produce by-products.
By-products can be thought of as the consequence of adaptive traits that serve
no function in their own right (e.g., calcium evolved as the material for bones
because of its structural advantages, but the fact that it causes bones to be
white is a by-product of calcium’s chemical structure).
Although an evolutionary framework is commonly applied to explain
anatomical or physiological traits in a species, it is of no less importance in

Leadership

5

understanding how the brains of humans and nonhuman animals developed to process information and generate behavioral strategies. Utilizing
the definition offered by Confer and her colleagues, the psychological
mechanisms that are generated by natural selection can be understood as,
“information-processing circuits that take in delimited units of information
and transform that information into functional output designed to solve a
particular adaptive problem” (2010, p. 111). These inputs can be thought of as
social or environmental signals and the outputs are emotional or behavioral
responses to those signals. The mechanism itself can be understood as the
neural/physiological pathway that defines the nature of the relationship
between the two.
There are two main levels at which evolutionary approaches can be applied
to understand psychological phenomena. The first considers the ultimate
function of a behavior or cognitive ability—why the psychological trait
exists—based on the fitness benefits it is thought to confer on its possessor.
The second approach looks at proximate physiological mechanisms that
cause it to occur—how the trait actually functions to provide a benefit.
Although generally considered complementary, proximate levels of analysis
can have important implications for comparative studies, as behaviors that
appear alike and offer similar fitness benefits may be governed by different
cognitive mechanisms across species. Now that we have outlined the logic
of the evolutionary approach, we can examine how it has been applied to
study leadership in nonhuman animals.
EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP IN NONHUMAN ANIMALS
From a fitness perspective, there are many benefits to grouping including
decreased risk of predation, increased foraging success, communal defense
of resources, or more accurate migration. However, such benefits may only be
achieved if individuals are able to maintain some degree of cohesion, either
through physical proximity or through signaling at a distance. Even then, any
attempt to remain together as a group (especially over longer distances) will
require individuals to engage in some degree of coordination in the activities
they pursue. Put simply, individuals in the group cannot engage in activities that are so divergent as to compromise cohesion. However, in forfeiting
their optimal action to comply with the group, an individual pays a fitness
cost referred to by Conradt and Roper as a consensus cost (2003). These consensus costs are important to evolutionary theories of leadership because
they present a fitness paradox. It is in the best interest of any given member of a group to move the group toward their preferred activity (avoiding
the consensus cost), but if all members pursue their own interests, the group
risks fragmentation and the grouping benefits are lost. Thus, if groups are to

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

remain intact, some members must get their way, whereas others must follow.
Here, we see the first and most simplistic way leadership is conceptualized
in animal groups, as those behaviors that determine the type, timing, direction, or duration of group activities (e.g., Dyer, Johansson, Helbing, Couzin,
& Krause, 2009; Guttal & Couzin, 2011). To understand this more fully, let us
consider a concrete example.
One of the most common fitness benefits of grouping seen across taxa, and
considered to be the origins of grouping in primates (van Schaik, 1983), is
the reduction in the risk of predation (Alexander, 1974). This can be due to
either increased vigilance or decreased probability of any given individual
being the target of attack. Particularly in the latter instance, maintaining proximity to neighbors is necessary for the fitness gains to be achieved. When
considering a proximate explanation, staying near others in the group can
be understood as an increased fear response to states of isolation (Bergvall,
Schäpers, Kjellander, & Weiss, 2011). At some point, however, the consensus cost associated with remaining near others may become too high for an
individual (e.g., when an individual deer needs water but the herd is foraging). In these instances, needs such as thirst or hunger may outweigh fear
of isolation and the individual will break with the group. If other members
are not themselves in a high state of need (are not thirsty or too hungry), the
drive to maintain proximity may result in following the departing individual.
By the nature of this relationship, any individual with a higher energy need
than other members, or simply a lower fear response to isolation (sometimes
termed boldness), may emerge as a “leader” (at least for a time). This increased
need may result from many characteristics including physical traits such as
larger body size (King, Johnson, & Van Vugt, 2009). Several authors have used
this argument to explain why more consistent leader–follower roles are established in stable social groups where size often correlates with dominance
(e.g., King & Cowlishaw, 2009).
Interestingly, decision rules that involve maintaining proximity with conspecifics can produce leadership in groups that have only local knowledge
(individuals can only see the activities of their neighbors and not necessarily
the activity of the “leader”). Ian Couzin and colleagues have demonstrated
the remarkable ability of a few “knowledgeable” fish to lead entire schools
of “ignorant” fish to resources, simply because those individuals who did
not know the location of the resource stayed close to their neighbors and the
information percolated from the “leaders” to the rest of the group (Couzin,
Krause, Franks, & Levin, 2005).
At this point, one might wonder how this type of leadership is relevant
for humans. At the most basic level, Dyer and his colleagues demonstrated
that human groups could exhibit similar leadership and followership behaviors to those discussed above (Dyer et al., 2009). In his work, Dyer showed

Leadership

7

how a group of naive individuals could be lead out of a novel room by a few
people who knew the location of exits, without the need for verbal communication. In doing so, Dyer highlighted how a person’s physical position within
a group can impact the level of influence they have over others. Now consider a company where individuals may only interact with a subset of their
coworkers. Individuals who are optimally located in this colleague network
(perhaps those with the most connections) may have the ability to influence
how others think and feel about their job more so than individuals with fewer
ties, regardless of their formal position. To a biologist, this type of influence
may be interpreted as a form of leadership.
Some authors (e.g., Guastello, 2009) have argued that for the purposes
of evolutionary discussion, decision rules associated with staying or leaving a group should not be characterized as an example of an evolved
leader–follower relationship. In part, this objection stems from the fact that
the mechanism of influence (maintaining proximity) is unrelated to the
decision being pursued (followers are not considering the choice of the
leader). In this sense, leadership would be viewed as a by-product of grouping behavior rather than an adaptive solution to problems of coordination.
Such arguments are valuable to the extent that they remind researchers
that phenotypically similar actions, such as one individual displaying
the same behavior as a conspecific at different points in time, may have
different proximate explanations and thus there may be a need for more
precise terminology than “leadership” to avoid confusion. In the section
that follows, we expand on the different types of cognitive mechanisms
capable of producing leader–follower dynamics and how unique selection
pressures can result in the development of more complex leader–follower
relationships.
It is worth noting here that despite the propensity for evolutionary psychologists to discuss adaptations independently of one another, cognitive
mechanisms should not necessarily be viewed as isolated modules in the
brain. While there is some evidence that certain brain regions, as well as subclasses of neurons, serve specific functions (e.g., areas involved in language,
and facial neurons associated with individual recognition in mammals; see
Sheehan & Tibbetts, 2011), most psychological adaptations draw on multiple
cognitive components, including regions of the brain associated with perception and memory. Additionally, these mechanisms do not operate in a
vacuum, but rather build and interact in complex ways to produce adaptive
behaviors (Buss, 2008; see Confer et al., 2010).
As bottom-up environmental factors such as predation and resource availability drive animals to aggregate, new selection pressures can emerge and
influence how individuals cope with, and take advantage of, their relative
proximity (Van Schaik, 1983). The type of problem a species is faced with

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

can therefore alter the mechanisms through which leadership operates (Van
Vugt, 2006). For example, one potential challenge to living near conspecifics
is that it may be difficult for an animal to hide its movements toward, or
discovery of, food (e.g., Ratcliffe & Hofstede, 2005). These “cues” are not
evolved mechanisms for communication between the “finder” and those
around him, but rather a by-product of living in close proximity that can
result in a leader–follower conflict. In these instances, followers may be
thought of as “social parasites” and their choice to follow may actually run
counter to the interests of the “leader” (Sumpter, 2010). However, in some
cases, individuals can actually develop specific adaptations for detecting
when followership will be most advantageous. Starlings, for example, tend
to make decisions about leaving or staying in a food patch based on the
observed success of conspecifics (e.g., Templeton & Giraldeau, 1996). Such
instances would be an example of an evolved capacity for followership.
The models used to represent trade-offs between gaining information from
others as opposed to searching for oneself are known as producer-scrounger
models, and they represent a rich theoretical literature on leader–follower
dynamics, including how strategies may be adapted to environmental
changes (Sumpter, 2010).
The presence of conspecifics does not always represent a challenge to
resource acquisition for leaders. Under certain circumstances, they may
actually be of benefit, resulting in an individual’s active recruitment of
others when food is discovered. In cliff swallows, for example, there is
evidence that group members are recruited to swarms of insects because the
increased numbers helps the birds track their prey (Brown, Brown, & Shaffer,
1991). This type of behavior is often referred to as signaling. Signaling can be
understood as “an act or structure that alters the behavior of another organism, which evolved because of that effect, and which is effective because
the receiver’s response has also evolved” (Maynard Smith & Harper, 2005;
cited in Sumpter, 2010 p. 58). Such abilities to sense and interpret cues
and signals represent mechanisms that evolved to facilitate the follower
side of leadership dynamics. It is possible that the prototypes discussed in
attribution theories of social psychology serve a similar purpose—helping
people find “good” leaders that will be advantageous to follow.
EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP IN HUMANS
While all of these examples represent relationships of influence in which
individuals are “led” toward a resource, the leader–follower dynamic is governed by different evolved processes shaped by each species’ unique evolutionary history (Buss, 2005). While much of the logic outlined in the section
above on nonhuman animals may therefore shed light on human leadership,

Leadership

9

there are also likely to be evolutionary causes and consequences of leadership
and followership behavior that are unique to our own lineage. Identifying the
unique cognitive adaptations that may have impacted our species social relations is an important and growing aspect of current research on evolutionary
leadership in humans. Some scholars, most notably Gil-White and his colleagues, have proposed that specific adaptations for social learning have been
integral in shaping our species’ leadership dynamics (Henrich & Gil-White,
2001). In their model of “prestige,” Henrich and Gil-White argue that with the
advent of the human cognitive capacity for cultural transmission, fitness benefits could be attained by preferentially learning from the most skilled individuals. Unlike more primitive forms of copying found in other species (Boyd
& Richerson, 1985), which could be utilized at a distance, social learning in
humans was facilitated by increased access to informed or skilled individuals. This created a selection pressure for behaviors aimed at gaining greater
access to high performing individuals, including deference. There is some
evidence for this effect in hunter–gatherer societies in which outright leaders
are rare, but certain individuals wield influence confined to their own areas
of expertise (Van Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2008). Interestingly, trading deference for productivity is not unique to humans. In macaques (Ventura, Majolo,
Koyama, Hardie, & Schino, 2006), high performing foragers are preferentially
groomed, even if they are low ranking in the dominance hierarchy.
The unique nature of human phylogenetic history may raise questions
about the value of studying leadership in other taxa. The complex nature of
human cognition and social structure can make isolating the processes that
contribute to any behavior incredibly difficult. Cross-species comparative
research can control for noise and mediating variables, as well as simplify
environmental factors. But there is no guarantee that understanding the
ultimate and proximate explanations for leadership in other species will
translate directly into understanding leader–follower dynamics in humans,
given our own unique evolutionary history (Buss, 2005; Van Vugt, Hogan, &
Kaiser, 2008). However, it does offer the promise of identifying fundamental,
underlying patterns that transcend species boundaries. When general terms
such as “leadership” are abandoned, and the focus is confined to specific
behaviors, several interesting patterns may emerge.
In conclusion, current institutionalized leadership roles—while prevalent
in today’s society—may not reflect the types of behaviors associated with
leader–follower dynamics in human evolutionary history and, by extension,
the psychological mechanisms that evolved to facilitate them. At times, institutionalized structures may conflict with people’s evolved relational standards of fairness, integrity, or competence. The term commonly employed to
discuss this phenomenon is mismatch theory (Van Vugt et al., 2008; King et al.,

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

2009). For example, most organization heads are not selected by subordinates (Sessa, Kaiser, Taylor, & Campbell, 1998), yet higher levels of leadership
continuity have been found when groups could elect their own leader. This
suggests that distinctions need to be drawn between cultural stereotypes of
leadership and perceptions of leadership that may be more innate. An evolutionary approach offers new ways to account for this variation.
FUTURE WORK: UNIQUE CHALLENGES TO EVOLUTIONARY
UNDERSTANDINGS OF HUMAN LEADERSHIP
There are many fruitful avenues for future studies on human leadership;
here we discuss two promising areas where evolutionary psychology can
play an important role. First, there are several differences between the institutionalized role leaders have come to occupy in modern society and the
social structure that existed during the Pleistocene era, when many of our
cognitive adaptations were thought to evolve (Van Vugt et al., 2008). Several authors have argued that evolutionary approaches will help illuminate
organizational practices that conflict with evolved mechanisms for mediating social interactions—the problem of evolutionary mismatch (e.g., Johnson,
Price, & Van Vugt, 2013; King et al., 2009; Price & Johnson, 2011). In order
to conduct such work, however, more research is needed on the relationship between notions of leadership that originate from transmitted culture
(Scott-Phillips, Dickins, & West, 2011) and those that arose through adaptation. For example, evidence from primate studies suggests that mechanisms
for assessing equality/fairness (Brosnan & de Waal, 2003) and social rank
(Ghazanfar & Santos, 2004) have deep evolutionary roots. However, these
values may conflict with learned ideas of what constitutes an appropriate
leader–subordinate relationship in politics and business. Little is understood
about the interaction of learned and evolved behaviors, and much can be
gained from work in this area.
The second and potentially related area examines the effects of socialization on the expression of leadership behavior. Several studies have found
links between personality traits, such as boldness and leadership (Judge
et al., 2002). Boldness is often characterized as lower levels of fear in novel
situations and thus may correlate with leadership because of an increased
propensity to act independently of other group members. However, some
studies now show that the level of support a leader receives from his/her
subordinates alters the level at which s/he displays leader activities (e.g.,
Pepinsky, Hemphill, & Shevitz, 1958). Recent literature on animal behavior
has a growing interest in how socialization can alter the expression of
inherited traits (such as personality), and by extension, can produce a form
of “social inheritance” of phenotypic behaviors (for full discussion see

Leadership

11

Stamps, 1991). Such research could have important implications for how
leaders cope with failure.
Social psychologists and evolutionary biologists hold important insights
into two sides of the same coin. On one hand, social psychology helps lend
insights into contemporary human experience, including the values and culture that have come to play an integral role in defining our species. On the
other hand, evolutionary biology can help uncover the pressures and processes that shaped the way in which the human mind came to interpret the
environment, social life, and our place within it. Merging these two disparate
traditions is not an easy process, but it is invaluable if our understanding of
leadership is to climb out of disciplinary ravines to see the broader landscape
of how, when, why and who leads, and who follows.
REFERENCES
Alexander, R. (1974). The evolution of social behaviour. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics, 5, 325–383.
Bergvall, U. A., Schäpers, A., Kjellander, P., & Weiss, A. (2011). Personality and foraging decisions in fallow deer, Dama dama. Animal Behaviour, 81(1), 101–112.
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Brown, C. R., Brown, M. B., & Shaffer, M. L. (1991). Food-sharing signals among
socially foraging swallows. Animal Behavior, 42, 551–564.
Brosnan, S. F., & de Waal, F. B. (2003). Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature, 425,
297–299.
Buss, D. M. (2005). The handbook of evolutionary psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
Buss, D. M. (2008). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Boston, MA:
Pearson Education Inc.
Chemers, M. M. (2000). Leadership research and theory: A functional integration.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 27–43.
Confer, J. C., Easton, J. A., Fleischman, D. S., Goetz, C. D., Lewis, D. M. G., Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2010). Evolutionary psychology: Controversies, questions,
prospects, and limitations. American Psychologist, 65(2), 110–126.
Conradt, L., & Roper, T. J. (2003). Group decision-making in animals. Nature, 421,
155–158.
Couzin, I. D., Krause, J., Franks, N. R., & Levin, S. A. (2005). Effective leadership and
decision-making in animal groups on the move. Nature, 433, 513–515.
Darwin, C. (1909). The origin of species. New York, NY: P.F. Collier & Son.
Derue, S., Nahrgang, J., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. (2011). Trait and behavioral
theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64, 7–52.

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Dyer, J. R. G., Johansson, A., Helbing, D., Couzin, I. D., & Krause, J. (2009). Leadership, consensus decision making and collective behaviour in humans. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 364, 781–789.
Ghazanfar, A. A., & Santos, L. R. (2004). Primate brains in the wild: The sensory bases
for social interactions. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(8), 603–616.
Guttal, V., & Couzin, I. D. (2011). Leadership, collective motion and the evolution of
migratory strategies. Communicative & Integrative Biology, 4(3), 294–298.
Guastello, S. J. (2009). Evolutionary game theory. American Psychologist, 64, 53–54.
Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution
and Human Behavior, 22, 165–196.
Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General
Psychology, 9(2), 169–180.
Hunt, J. (2005). Explosion of the leadership field and LQ’s changing of the editorial
guard. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 1–8.
Hunter, S., Bedell-Avers, K., & Mumford, M. (2007). A typical leadership study:
Assumptions, implications, and potential remedies. The Leadership Quarterly, 18,
435–446.
Johnson, D. D. P., Price, M. E., & Van Vugt, M. (2013). Darwin’s invisible hand: Market
competition, evolution and the firm. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,
90, S128–S140.
Judge, T., Bono, J., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. (2002). Personality and leadership: A
qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765–780.
King, A. J., & Cowlishaw, G. (2009). Leaders, followers and group decision-making.
Communicative & Integrative Biology, 2(2), 147–150.
King, A. J., Johnson, D. D. P., & Van Vugt, M. (2009). The origins and evolution of
leadership. Current Biology, 19(19), R911–R916.
Lord, R. G. (1985). An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership perceptions, and behavioral measurement in organizational settings. In B.
M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp.
87–128). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Maynard Smith, J., & Harper, D. (2005). Animal signals. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Pepinsky, P. N., Hemphill, J. K., & Shevitz, R. (1958). Attempts to lead, group productivity, and morale under conditions of acceptance and rejection. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 57, 47–54.
Price, M. E., & Johnson, D. D. P. (2011). The adaptationist theory of cooperation in
groups: Evolutionary predictions for organizational cooperation. In G. Saad (Ed.),
Evolutionary psychology in the business sciences (pp. 95–134). Berlin: Springer.
Ratcliffe, J. M., & Hofstede, H. M. (2005). Roosts as information centres: Social learning of food preferences in bats. Biology Letters, 1(1), 72–74.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Leadership

13

Scott-Phillips, T. C., Dickins, T. E., & West, S. A. (2011). Evolutionary theory and the
ultimate-proximate distinction in the human behavioral sciences. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 6(1), 38–47.
Sessa, V. I., Kaiser, R., Taylor, J. K., & Campbell, R. J. (1998). Executive selection. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Sheehan, M. J., & Tibbetts, E. A. (2011). Specialized face learning is associated with
individual recognition in paper wasps. Science, 334, 1272–1275.
Stamps, J. A. (1991). Why evolutionary issues are reviving interest in proximate
behavior mechanisms. American Zoologist, 31, 338–348.
Staw, B. M. (1975). Attribution of the “causes” of performance: A general alternative
interpretation of cross-sectional research on organizations. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 13, 414–432.
Sumpter, D. J. T. (2010). Collective animal behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Templeton, J. J., & Giraldeau, L. A. (1996). Vicarious sampling: The use of personal and public information by starlings foraging in a simple patch environment.
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 38, 105–114.
Van Schaik, C. P. (1983). Why are diurnal primates living in groups? Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 87(1), 120–144.
Van Vugt, M. (2006). Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 354–371.
Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63(3), 182–196.
Ventura, R., Majolo, B., Koyama, N. F., Hardie, S., & Schino, G. (2006). Reciprocation
and interchange in wild Japanese macaques: Grooming, cofeeding, and agonistic
support. American Journal of Primatology, 68(12), 1138–1149.
Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions
need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66–85.

ADRIENNE TECZA SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Adrienne Tecza is currently a doctoral candidate in political science at
Oxford University under the supervision of Dr. Dominic Johnson. During her undergraduate study at Emory University in Atlanta, where she
received a joint degree in psychology and political science, Adrienne
worked in a psychobiology lab at the Yerkes National Primate Research
Center. In 2009, Adrienne spent 7 months in the field working for a
National-Geographic-funded study of white-faced capuchins in Costa Rica.
She has spent the last year at Princeton University as a visiting student
research collaborator in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary
Biology. Combining her background in evolution, psychology, and political
science, Adrienne’s work seeks to understand how people’s cognitive
adaptations influence their ability to cooperate in a modern institutionalized
environment.

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

DOMINIC JOHNSON SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Dominic Johnson received a DPhil from Oxford University in evolutionary
biology, and a PhD from Geneva University in political science. Drawing on
both disciplines, he is interested in how new research on evolution, biology,
and human nature is challenging theories of international relations, conflict,
and cooperation. He has published two books. Overconfidence and War: The
Havoc and Glory of Positive Illusions (Harvard University Press, 2004) argues
that common psychological biases to maintain overly positive images of our
capabilities, our control over events, and the future play a key role in the
causes of war. Failing to Win: Perceptions of Victory and Defeat in International
Politics (Harvard University Press, 2006), with Dominic Tierney, examines
how and why popular misperceptions commonly create undeserved victories or defeats in international wars and crises. His current work focuses on
the role of evolutionary dynamics, evolutionary psychology, and religion in
human conflict and cooperation.
RELATED ESSAYS
The Underrepresentation of Women in Elective Office (Political Science),
Sarah F. Anzia
Emergence of Stratification in Small Groups (Sociology), Noah Askin et al.
Global Economic Networks (Sociology), Nina Bandelj et al.
Returns to Education in Different Labor Market Contexts (Sociology), Klaus
Schöemann and Rolf Becker
The Sexual Division of Labor (Anthropology), Rebecca Bliege Bird and Brian
F. Codding
Authenticity: Attribution, Value, and Meaning (Sociology), Glenn R. Carroll
Why So Few Women in Mathematically Intensive Fields? (Psychology),
Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams
Gender Segregation in Higher Education (Sociology), Alexandra Hendley
and Maria Charles
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
Youth Entrepreneurship (Psychology), William Damon et al.
Resilience (Psychology), Erica D. Diminich and George A. Bonanno
Expertise (Sociology), Gil Eyal
Presidential Power (Political Science), William G. Howell
The Development of Social Trust (Psychology), Vikram K. Jaswal and Marissa
B. Drell
Herd Behavior (Psychology), Tatsuya Kameda and Reid Hastie
Reconciliation and Peace-Making: Insights from Studies on Nonhuman
Animals (Anthropology), Sonja E. Koski

Leadership

15

Women Running for Office (Political Science), Jennifer L. Lawless
Understanding Risk-Taking Behavior: Insights from Evolutionary Psychology (Psychology), Karin Machluf and David F. Bjorklund
Transformation of the Employment Relationship (Sociology), Arne L. Kalleberg and Peter V. Marsden
Gender Inequality in Educational Attainment (Sociology), Anne McDaniel
and Claudia Buchmann
Participatory Governance (Political Science), Stephanie L. McNulty and Brian
Wampler
Gender and Women’s Influence in Public Settings (Political Science), Tali
Mendelberg et al.
Money in Politics (Political Science), Jeffrey Milyo
Feminists in Power (Sociology), Ann Orloff and Talia Schiff
Health and Social Inequality (Sociology), Bernice A. Pescosolido
Evolutionary Theory and Political Behavior (Political Science), Michael Bang
Petersen and Lene Aarøe
Sociology of Entrepreneurship (Sociology), Martin Ruef
Stereotype Threat (Psychology), Toni Schmader and William M. Hall
Ethical Decision-Making: Contemporary Research on the Role of the Self
(Psychology), Lisa L. Shu and Daniel A. Effron
Impact of Limited Education on Employment Prospects in Advanced
Economies (Sociology), Heike Solga
Creativity in Teams (Psychology), Leigh L. Thompson and Elizabeth Ruth
Wilson



Leadership
ADRIENNE TECZA and DOMINIC JOHNSON

Abstract
Historically, research on human leadership has been the sole domain of the social
sciences, and has focused on the formalized role leaders have come to play in modern institutions. However, an independent yet parallel body of work has recently
emerged in biology, where evolutionary theory is being used to investigate the origins and function of leader–follower dynamics in nonhuman animals. In recent years,
interdisciplinary scholars in evolutionary psychology have attempted to merge these
previously disparate research traditions, investigating whether the leader–follower
relationships that evolved to help our species overcome challenges in the past holds
insights for leadership strategies in our modern world. In this essay, we investigate
the feasibility of such an interdisciplinary approach, the obstacles it faces, and the
promise it holds for the future of leadership research.

INTRODUCTION
The breadth of ways leadership has been examined over the last century
reflects the impressive number of disciplines that have taken interest in the
topic. Any serious consideration of behavior among social organisms must,
at some point, contend with questions about the leader–follower relationship and, as a consequence, the phenomenon has been studied across several
different species, including humans. Historically, empirical work on leadership in human and nonhuman animals has been divided along disciplinary
lines, with social psychology focusing on the former and evolutionary biology on the latter. In recent years, however, leadership research has caught the
attention of evolutionary psychologists, and the result has been an increase
in studies attempting to blend these previously disparate research traditions.
While the fusion of biological and social approaches is commonly touted as
the “next step” in the study of human leadership, evolutionary psychologists
must contend with deep theoretical differences between biological and social
approaches that have resulted in distinct research traditions. The primary
purpose of this essay will be to discuss the assumptions surrounding research
on human and animal leadership, how those assumptions impact the way in
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

which data are collected and interpreted, and what that means for current
and future trends toward the evolutionary study of human leadership.
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY: TRADITIONAL APPROACHES
TO HUMAN LEADERSHIP
Leaders have been a feature of human societies throughout history, yet formal research on leadership remained sparse until the beginning of the twentieth century. During this time, the West and the United States in particular saw
a rise in the hierarchical business model and a centralization of the political
system which brought with it a focus on the individuals at the top of this organizational structure. For many social scientists, studying leadership was an
important step in understanding institutional success. As Hogan and Kaiser
(2005) noted, “leadership solves the problem of how to organize collective
effort and is thus the key to organizational effectiveness” (p.169). It is thus not
surprising that human leadership studies have found their strongest footing
in journals and departments dedicated to organizational management. While
generating a wealth of empirical data on leaders in their working environments, leadership research on humans continues to struggle with ambiguous definitions, theoretical inconsistency, and contradictory results (Derue,
Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011). In many ways, these problems may
stem from assumptions about what leadership is, and what purpose it is
meant to serve.
From the 1950s until today, work on leadership in the social sciences has
been dominated by research attempting to find a link between leader behaviors and group performance. In these studies, a leader’s “effectiveness” is
commonly operationalized using measures of either objective group success
(e.g., firm profit), or the level of support received from peers, subordinates,
and supervisors (e.g., satisfaction with firm performance). A common
research design looks for correlations between measures of effectiveness
and the type of behavior or “style” (e.g., McGregor, 1960) the leader most
commonly employs, with some studies incorporating situational mediators.
Leadership styles are most commonly ascertained by distributing a survey
or questionnaire to members of an organization or working unit, asking
them to rate their supervisor’s behavior through a series of measures
preselected by the researcher. Traditionally the focus has been on behaviors
associated with a leader’s control over aspects of followers’ work environment including rewards and punishment, resources, training, and the level
of input the leader has in decision-making. Although field studies of this
type remain one of the most commonly employed methods for leadership
research, their design carries several, often unrecognized, assumptions
(Hunter, Bedell-Avers, & Mumford, 2007).

Leadership

3

First, by asking subordinates to rate their superiors on measures of leadership, researchers inherently equated managers with leaders, regardless
of whether this view is shared by the subordinate. Second, scholars tend
to operationalize “leadership” as those actions undertaken by someone
in a leadership position. Such a broad and ambiguous interpretation has
resulted in leadership being measured along several dimensions including
task-oriented (e.g., planning and organizing), relation-oriented (e.g., supporting and empowering followers), and change-oriented (e.g., envisioning
and advocating innovation) behaviors. Often questionnaires differ both
in the behaviors they focused on and the way in which those behaviors
are measured. As Yukl (2012) stated, “the bewildering variety of behavior
constructs used for leadership research makes it difficult to compare and
integrate findings” (p. 66). In many ways, these assumptions reflect the
twentieth century focus on institutional leadership, rather than leadership
that may arise from unrestricted social interactions. Such problems drove
Hunter and others to argue that, “research must first be more explicit in their
operationalization and justification for what a leader is and why, precisely, a
given sample represents ‘leaders’” (2007, p. 438).
It would be misleading to say that the entire leadership field can be captured by the description above. As James Hunt, senior editor for Leadership
Quarterly recently stated, “the field is literally exploding with new developments and it has moved far beyond the view of a hierarchical, top-down
order-giving man or white hat on a white horse hero who saves the town”
(Hunt, 2005, p. 1). Nonetheless, the discipline’s theoretical traditions and
continued focus on institutionalized leaders may be obscuring other more
informal leader–follower processes arising from social interactions outside
the formal hierarchy.
One promising exception has arisen from the cognitive revolution of the
1970s and the success of attribution theory. Attribution theory is primarily
concerned with how people’s interpretation of events can impact their
subsequent behavior. Work by Lord and his associates (Lord, 1985) found
two mental processes of attribution—recognition and inferential—which
they believed to be involved in an individual’s assessment of leadership.
Recognition processes are related to the prototypes of leadership held by
individuals (Rosch, 1978). The higher the degree of overlap between an actor
and an observer’s prototypic expectations, the greater the chance of a leader
attribution being made. In instances where overlap is low, leaders may be
viewed as less legitimate or effective regardless of objective achievement or
their formal title (Chemers, 2000). Inferential processes cause individuals to
attribute the success or failure of a group to the performance of the leader,
regardless of differences in leadership style (Staw, 1975). Thus, a subordinate
may view their superior as a “good” leader simply because the group

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

is succeeding, regardless of whether the leader is making any objective
contribution to that success. Attribution theory represents one of the first
attempts to understand leadership as a product of human psychology,
rather than simply the actions and consequences of individuals at the top
of a social hierarchy. As we will come to show in the next section, these
psychological biases may be no accident, deriving from a much more innate
leader–follower dynamic, forged by evolution to meet the unique social
challenges of our species.
EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY: NEW APPROACHES
TO NONHUMAN AND HUMAN LEADERSHIP
It may be difficult to envision leadership in animals. They do not have sophisticated language to persuade one another, many species lack the cognitive
capacity to plan or strategize about the future, and in many cases (such as
flocks of birds or schools of fish), individuals may only be aware of the actions
of their immediate neighbors. How then can biologists speak about animal
leadership? This section will examine an alternative interpretation of leadership than those commonly seen in the social science literature, a theory
of leadership that operates through psychological mechanisms designed to
facilitate survival, rather than an institutionalized hierarchy of power. But
first, it is important to understand how human and other animals’ psychology can be shaped by evolution.
EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY IN A NUTSHELL
Darwin’s (1909) theory of evolution posits that if a population displays variation in a given trait, and if offspring can inherit those traits from their parents, then the variants of a trait that improve survival or reproduction in a
given environment will increase in frequency from one generation to the next.
Variants that hindered survival or reproduction will diminish over time, as
they are transmitted to offspring at lower rates relative to their more productive counterparts. An inherited characteristic that, within the time period in
which it evolves, improves an individual’s ability to survive and reproduce
compared with an alternative variation of the trait is referred to as an adaptation. However, the process of natural selection can also produce by-products.
By-products can be thought of as the consequence of adaptive traits that serve
no function in their own right (e.g., calcium evolved as the material for bones
because of its structural advantages, but the fact that it causes bones to be
white is a by-product of calcium’s chemical structure).
Although an evolutionary framework is commonly applied to explain
anatomical or physiological traits in a species, it is of no less importance in

Leadership

5

understanding how the brains of humans and nonhuman animals developed to process information and generate behavioral strategies. Utilizing
the definition offered by Confer and her colleagues, the psychological
mechanisms that are generated by natural selection can be understood as,
“information-processing circuits that take in delimited units of information
and transform that information into functional output designed to solve a
particular adaptive problem” (2010, p. 111). These inputs can be thought of as
social or environmental signals and the outputs are emotional or behavioral
responses to those signals. The mechanism itself can be understood as the
neural/physiological pathway that defines the nature of the relationship
between the two.
There are two main levels at which evolutionary approaches can be applied
to understand psychological phenomena. The first considers the ultimate
function of a behavior or cognitive ability—why the psychological trait
exists—based on the fitness benefits it is thought to confer on its possessor.
The second approach looks at proximate physiological mechanisms that
cause it to occur—how the trait actually functions to provide a benefit.
Although generally considered complementary, proximate levels of analysis
can have important implications for comparative studies, as behaviors that
appear alike and offer similar fitness benefits may be governed by different
cognitive mechanisms across species. Now that we have outlined the logic
of the evolutionary approach, we can examine how it has been applied to
study leadership in nonhuman animals.
EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP IN NONHUMAN ANIMALS
From a fitness perspective, there are many benefits to grouping including
decreased risk of predation, increased foraging success, communal defense
of resources, or more accurate migration. However, such benefits may only be
achieved if individuals are able to maintain some degree of cohesion, either
through physical proximity or through signaling at a distance. Even then, any
attempt to remain together as a group (especially over longer distances) will
require individuals to engage in some degree of coordination in the activities
they pursue. Put simply, individuals in the group cannot engage in activities that are so divergent as to compromise cohesion. However, in forfeiting
their optimal action to comply with the group, an individual pays a fitness
cost referred to by Conradt and Roper as a consensus cost (2003). These consensus costs are important to evolutionary theories of leadership because
they present a fitness paradox. It is in the best interest of any given member of a group to move the group toward their preferred activity (avoiding
the consensus cost), but if all members pursue their own interests, the group
risks fragmentation and the grouping benefits are lost. Thus, if groups are to

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

remain intact, some members must get their way, whereas others must follow.
Here, we see the first and most simplistic way leadership is conceptualized
in animal groups, as those behaviors that determine the type, timing, direction, or duration of group activities (e.g., Dyer, Johansson, Helbing, Couzin,
& Krause, 2009; Guttal & Couzin, 2011). To understand this more fully, let us
consider a concrete example.
One of the most common fitness benefits of grouping seen across taxa, and
considered to be the origins of grouping in primates (van Schaik, 1983), is
the reduction in the risk of predation (Alexander, 1974). This can be due to
either increased vigilance or decreased probability of any given individual
being the target of attack. Particularly in the latter instance, maintaining proximity to neighbors is necessary for the fitness gains to be achieved. When
considering a proximate explanation, staying near others in the group can
be understood as an increased fear response to states of isolation (Bergvall,
Schäpers, Kjellander, & Weiss, 2011). At some point, however, the consensus cost associated with remaining near others may become too high for an
individual (e.g., when an individual deer needs water but the herd is foraging). In these instances, needs such as thirst or hunger may outweigh fear
of isolation and the individual will break with the group. If other members
are not themselves in a high state of need (are not thirsty or too hungry), the
drive to maintain proximity may result in following the departing individual.
By the nature of this relationship, any individual with a higher energy need
than other members, or simply a lower fear response to isolation (sometimes
termed boldness), may emerge as a “leader” (at least for a time). This increased
need may result from many characteristics including physical traits such as
larger body size (King, Johnson, & Van Vugt, 2009). Several authors have used
this argument to explain why more consistent leader–follower roles are established in stable social groups where size often correlates with dominance
(e.g., King & Cowlishaw, 2009).
Interestingly, decision rules that involve maintaining proximity with conspecifics can produce leadership in groups that have only local knowledge
(individuals can only see the activities of their neighbors and not necessarily
the activity of the “leader”). Ian Couzin and colleagues have demonstrated
the remarkable ability of a few “knowledgeable” fish to lead entire schools
of “ignorant” fish to resources, simply because those individuals who did
not know the location of the resource stayed close to their neighbors and the
information percolated from the “leaders” to the rest of the group (Couzin,
Krause, Franks, & Levin, 2005).
At this point, one might wonder how this type of leadership is relevant
for humans. At the most basic level, Dyer and his colleagues demonstrated
that human groups could exhibit similar leadership and followership behaviors to those discussed above (Dyer et al., 2009). In his work, Dyer showed

Leadership

7

how a group of naive individuals could be lead out of a novel room by a few
people who knew the location of exits, without the need for verbal communication. In doing so, Dyer highlighted how a person’s physical position within
a group can impact the level of influence they have over others. Now consider a company where individuals may only interact with a subset of their
coworkers. Individuals who are optimally located in this colleague network
(perhaps those with the most connections) may have the ability to influence
how others think and feel about their job more so than individuals with fewer
ties, regardless of their formal position. To a biologist, this type of influence
may be interpreted as a form of leadership.
Some authors (e.g., Guastello, 2009) have argued that for the purposes
of evolutionary discussion, decision rules associated with staying or leaving a group should not be characterized as an example of an evolved
leader–follower relationship. In part, this objection stems from the fact that
the mechanism of influence (maintaining proximity) is unrelated to the
decision being pursued (followers are not considering the choice of the
leader). In this sense, leadership would be viewed as a by-product of grouping behavior rather than an adaptive solution to problems of coordination.
Such arguments are valuable to the extent that they remind researchers
that phenotypically similar actions, such as one individual displaying
the same behavior as a conspecific at different points in time, may have
different proximate explanations and thus there may be a need for more
precise terminology than “leadership” to avoid confusion. In the section
that follows, we expand on the different types of cognitive mechanisms
capable of producing leader–follower dynamics and how unique selection
pressures can result in the development of more complex leader–follower
relationships.
It is worth noting here that despite the propensity for evolutionary psychologists to discuss adaptations independently of one another, cognitive
mechanisms should not necessarily be viewed as isolated modules in the
brain. While there is some evidence that certain brain regions, as well as subclasses of neurons, serve specific functions (e.g., areas involved in language,
and facial neurons associated with individual recognition in mammals; see
Sheehan & Tibbetts, 2011), most psychological adaptations draw on multiple
cognitive components, including regions of the brain associated with perception and memory. Additionally, these mechanisms do not operate in a
vacuum, but rather build and interact in complex ways to produce adaptive
behaviors (Buss, 2008; see Confer et al., 2010).
As bottom-up environmental factors such as predation and resource availability drive animals to aggregate, new selection pressures can emerge and
influence how individuals cope with, and take advantage of, their relative
proximity (Van Schaik, 1983). The type of problem a species is faced with

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

can therefore alter the mechanisms through which leadership operates (Van
Vugt, 2006). For example, one potential challenge to living near conspecifics
is that it may be difficult for an animal to hide its movements toward, or
discovery of, food (e.g., Ratcliffe & Hofstede, 2005). These “cues” are not
evolved mechanisms for communication between the “finder” and those
around him, but rather a by-product of living in close proximity that can
result in a leader–follower conflict. In these instances, followers may be
thought of as “social parasites” and their choice to follow may actually run
counter to the interests of the “leader” (Sumpter, 2010). However, in some
cases, individuals can actually develop specific adaptations for detecting
when followership will be most advantageous. Starlings, for example, tend
to make decisions about leaving or staying in a food patch based on the
observed success of conspecifics (e.g., Templeton & Giraldeau, 1996). Such
instances would be an example of an evolved capacity for followership.
The models used to represent trade-offs between gaining information from
others as opposed to searching for oneself are known as producer-scrounger
models, and they represent a rich theoretical literature on leader–follower
dynamics, including how strategies may be adapted to environmental
changes (Sumpter, 2010).
The presence of conspecifics does not always represent a challenge to
resource acquisition for leaders. Under certain circumstances, they may
actually be of benefit, resulting in an individual’s active recruitment of
others when food is discovered. In cliff swallows, for example, there is
evidence that group members are recruited to swarms of insects because the
increased numbers helps the birds track their prey (Brown, Brown, & Shaffer,
1991). This type of behavior is often referred to as signaling. Signaling can be
understood as “an act or structure that alters the behavior of another organism, which evolved because of that effect, and which is effective because
the receiver’s response has also evolved” (Maynard Smith & Harper, 2005;
cited in Sumpter, 2010 p. 58). Such abilities to sense and interpret cues
and signals represent mechanisms that evolved to facilitate the follower
side of leadership dynamics. It is possible that the prototypes discussed in
attribution theories of social psychology serve a similar purpose—helping
people find “good” leaders that will be advantageous to follow.
EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP IN HUMANS
While all of these examples represent relationships of influence in which
individuals are “led” toward a resource, the leader–follower dynamic is governed by different evolved processes shaped by each species’ unique evolutionary history (Buss, 2005). While much of the logic outlined in the section
above on nonhuman animals may therefore shed light on human leadership,

Leadership

9

there are also likely to be evolutionary causes and consequences of leadership
and followership behavior that are unique to our own lineage. Identifying the
unique cognitive adaptations that may have impacted our species social relations is an important and growing aspect of current research on evolutionary
leadership in humans. Some scholars, most notably Gil-White and his colleagues, have proposed that specific adaptations for social learning have been
integral in shaping our species’ leadership dynamics (Henrich & Gil-White,
2001). In their model of “prestige,” Henrich and Gil-White argue that with the
advent of the human cognitive capacity for cultural transmission, fitness benefits could be attained by preferentially learning from the most skilled individuals. Unlike more primitive forms of copying found in other species (Boyd
& Richerson, 1985), which could be utilized at a distance, social learning in
humans was facilitated by increased access to informed or skilled individuals. This created a selection pressure for behaviors aimed at gaining greater
access to high performing individuals, including deference. There is some
evidence for this effect in hunter–gatherer societies in which outright leaders
are rare, but certain individuals wield influence confined to their own areas
of expertise (Van Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2008). Interestingly, trading deference for productivity is not unique to humans. In macaques (Ventura, Majolo,
Koyama, Hardie, & Schino, 2006), high performing foragers are preferentially
groomed, even if they are low ranking in the dominance hierarchy.
The unique nature of human phylogenetic history may raise questions
about the value of studying leadership in other taxa. The complex nature of
human cognition and social structure can make isolating the processes that
contribute to any behavior incredibly difficult. Cross-species comparative
research can control for noise and mediating variables, as well as simplify
environmental factors. But there is no guarantee that understanding the
ultimate and proximate explanations for leadership in other species will
translate directly into understanding leader–follower dynamics in humans,
given our own unique evolutionary history (Buss, 2005; Van Vugt, Hogan, &
Kaiser, 2008). However, it does offer the promise of identifying fundamental,
underlying patterns that transcend species boundaries. When general terms
such as “leadership” are abandoned, and the focus is confined to specific
behaviors, several interesting patterns may emerge.
In conclusion, current institutionalized leadership roles—while prevalent
in today’s society—may not reflect the types of behaviors associated with
leader–follower dynamics in human evolutionary history and, by extension,
the psychological mechanisms that evolved to facilitate them. At times, institutionalized structures may conflict with people’s evolved relational standards of fairness, integrity, or competence. The term commonly employed to
discuss this phenomenon is mismatch theory (Van Vugt et al., 2008; King et al.,

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

2009). For example, most organization heads are not selected by subordinates (Sessa, Kaiser, Taylor, & Campbell, 1998), yet higher levels of leadership
continuity have been found when groups could elect their own leader. This
suggests that distinctions need to be drawn between cultural stereotypes of
leadership and perceptions of leadership that may be more innate. An evolutionary approach offers new ways to account for this variation.
FUTURE WORK: UNIQUE CHALLENGES TO EVOLUTIONARY
UNDERSTANDINGS OF HUMAN LEADERSHIP
There are many fruitful avenues for future studies on human leadership;
here we discuss two promising areas where evolutionary psychology can
play an important role. First, there are several differences between the institutionalized role leaders have come to occupy in modern society and the
social structure that existed during the Pleistocene era, when many of our
cognitive adaptations were thought to evolve (Van Vugt et al., 2008). Several authors have argued that evolutionary approaches will help illuminate
organizational practices that conflict with evolved mechanisms for mediating social interactions—the problem of evolutionary mismatch (e.g., Johnson,
Price, & Van Vugt, 2013; King et al., 2009; Price & Johnson, 2011). In order
to conduct such work, however, more research is needed on the relationship between notions of leadership that originate from transmitted culture
(Scott-Phillips, Dickins, & West, 2011) and those that arose through adaptation. For example, evidence from primate studies suggests that mechanisms
for assessing equality/fairness (Brosnan & de Waal, 2003) and social rank
(Ghazanfar & Santos, 2004) have deep evolutionary roots. However, these
values may conflict with learned ideas of what constitutes an appropriate
leader–subordinate relationship in politics and business. Little is understood
about the interaction of learned and evolved behaviors, and much can be
gained from work in this area.
The second and potentially related area examines the effects of socialization on the expression of leadership behavior. Several studies have found
links between personality traits, such as boldness and leadership (Judge
et al., 2002). Boldness is often characterized as lower levels of fear in novel
situations and thus may correlate with leadership because of an increased
propensity to act independently of other group members. However, some
studies now show that the level of support a leader receives from his/her
subordinates alters the level at which s/he displays leader activities (e.g.,
Pepinsky, Hemphill, & Shevitz, 1958). Recent literature on animal behavior
has a growing interest in how socialization can alter the expression of
inherited traits (such as personality), and by extension, can produce a form
of “social inheritance” of phenotypic behaviors (for full discussion see

Leadership

11

Stamps, 1991). Such research could have important implications for how
leaders cope with failure.
Social psychologists and evolutionary biologists hold important insights
into two sides of the same coin. On one hand, social psychology helps lend
insights into contemporary human experience, including the values and culture that have come to play an integral role in defining our species. On the
other hand, evolutionary biology can help uncover the pressures and processes that shaped the way in which the human mind came to interpret the
environment, social life, and our place within it. Merging these two disparate
traditions is not an easy process, but it is invaluable if our understanding of
leadership is to climb out of disciplinary ravines to see the broader landscape
of how, when, why and who leads, and who follows.
REFERENCES
Alexander, R. (1974). The evolution of social behaviour. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics, 5, 325–383.
Bergvall, U. A., Schäpers, A., Kjellander, P., & Weiss, A. (2011). Personality and foraging decisions in fallow deer, Dama dama. Animal Behaviour, 81(1), 101–112.
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Brown, C. R., Brown, M. B., & Shaffer, M. L. (1991). Food-sharing signals among
socially foraging swallows. Animal Behavior, 42, 551–564.
Brosnan, S. F., & de Waal, F. B. (2003). Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature, 425,
297–299.
Buss, D. M. (2005). The handbook of evolutionary psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
Buss, D. M. (2008). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Boston, MA:
Pearson Education Inc.
Chemers, M. M. (2000). Leadership research and theory: A functional integration.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 27–43.
Confer, J. C., Easton, J. A., Fleischman, D. S., Goetz, C. D., Lewis, D. M. G., Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2010). Evolutionary psychology: Controversies, questions,
prospects, and limitations. American Psychologist, 65(2), 110–126.
Conradt, L., & Roper, T. J. (2003). Group decision-making in animals. Nature, 421,
155–158.
Couzin, I. D., Krause, J., Franks, N. R., & Levin, S. A. (2005). Effective leadership and
decision-making in animal groups on the move. Nature, 433, 513–515.
Darwin, C. (1909). The origin of species. New York, NY: P.F. Collier & Son.
Derue, S., Nahrgang, J., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. (2011). Trait and behavioral
theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64, 7–52.

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Dyer, J. R. G., Johansson, A., Helbing, D., Couzin, I. D., & Krause, J. (2009). Leadership, consensus decision making and collective behaviour in humans. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 364, 781–789.
Ghazanfar, A. A., & Santos, L. R. (2004). Primate brains in the wild: The sensory bases
for social interactions. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(8), 603–616.
Guttal, V., & Couzin, I. D. (2011). Leadership, collective motion and the evolution of
migratory strategies. Communicative & Integrative Biology, 4(3), 294–298.
Guastello, S. J. (2009). Evolutionary game theory. American Psychologist, 64, 53–54.
Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution
and Human Behavior, 22, 165–196.
Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General
Psychology, 9(2), 169–180.
Hunt, J. (2005). Explosion of the leadership field and LQ’s changing of the editorial
guard. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 1–8.
Hunter, S., Bedell-Avers, K., & Mumford, M. (2007). A typical leadership study:
Assumptions, implications, and potential remedies. The Leadership Quarterly, 18,
435–446.
Johnson, D. D. P., Price, M. E., & Van Vugt, M. (2013). Darwin’s invisible hand: Market
competition, evolution and the firm. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,
90, S128–S140.
Judge, T., Bono, J., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. (2002). Personality and leadership: A
qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765–780.
King, A. J., & Cowlishaw, G. (2009). Leaders, followers and group decision-making.
Communicative & Integrative Biology, 2(2), 147–150.
King, A. J., Johnson, D. D. P., & Van Vugt, M. (2009). The origins and evolution of
leadership. Current Biology, 19(19), R911–R916.
Lord, R. G. (1985). An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership perceptions, and behavioral measurement in organizational settings. In B.
M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp.
87–128). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Maynard Smith, J., & Harper, D. (2005). Animal signals. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Pepinsky, P. N., Hemphill, J. K., & Shevitz, R. (1958). Attempts to lead, group productivity, and morale under conditions of acceptance and rejection. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 57, 47–54.
Price, M. E., & Johnson, D. D. P. (2011). The adaptationist theory of cooperation in
groups: Evolutionary predictions for organizational cooperation. In G. Saad (Ed.),
Evolutionary psychology in the business sciences (pp. 95–134). Berlin: Springer.
Ratcliffe, J. M., & Hofstede, H. M. (2005). Roosts as information centres: Social learning of food preferences in bats. Biology Letters, 1(1), 72–74.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Leadership

13

Scott-Phillips, T. C., Dickins, T. E., & West, S. A. (2011). Evolutionary theory and the
ultimate-proximate distinction in the human behavioral sciences. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 6(1), 38–47.
Sessa, V. I., Kaiser, R., Taylor, J. K., & Campbell, R. J. (1998). Executive selection. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Sheehan, M. J., & Tibbetts, E. A. (2011). Specialized face learning is associated with
individual recognition in paper wasps. Science, 334, 1272–1275.
Stamps, J. A. (1991). Why evolutionary issues are reviving interest in proximate
behavior mechanisms. American Zoologist, 31, 338–348.
Staw, B. M. (1975). Attribution of the “causes” of performance: A general alternative
interpretation of cross-sectional research on organizations. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 13, 414–432.
Sumpter, D. J. T. (2010). Collective animal behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Templeton, J. J., & Giraldeau, L. A. (1996). Vicarious sampling: The use of personal and public information by starlings foraging in a simple patch environment.
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 38, 105–114.
Van Schaik, C. P. (1983). Why are diurnal primates living in groups? Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 87(1), 120–144.
Van Vugt, M. (2006). Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 354–371.
Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63(3), 182–196.
Ventura, R., Majolo, B., Koyama, N. F., Hardie, S., & Schino, G. (2006). Reciprocation
and interchange in wild Japanese macaques: Grooming, cofeeding, and agonistic
support. American Journal of Primatology, 68(12), 1138–1149.
Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions
need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66–85.

ADRIENNE TECZA SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Adrienne Tecza is currently a doctoral candidate in political science at
Oxford University under the supervision of Dr. Dominic Johnson. During her undergraduate study at Emory University in Atlanta, where she
received a joint degree in psychology and political science, Adrienne
worked in a psychobiology lab at the Yerkes National Primate Research
Center. In 2009, Adrienne spent 7 months in the field working for a
National-Geographic-funded study of white-faced capuchins in Costa Rica.
She has spent the last year at Princeton University as a visiting student
research collaborator in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary
Biology. Combining her background in evolution, psychology, and political
science, Adrienne’s work seeks to understand how people’s cognitive
adaptations influence their ability to cooperate in a modern institutionalized
environment.

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

DOMINIC JOHNSON SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Dominic Johnson received a DPhil from Oxford University in evolutionary
biology, and a PhD from Geneva University in political science. Drawing on
both disciplines, he is interested in how new research on evolution, biology,
and human nature is challenging theories of international relations, conflict,
and cooperation. He has published two books. Overconfidence and War: The
Havoc and Glory of Positive Illusions (Harvard University Press, 2004) argues
that common psychological biases to maintain overly positive images of our
capabilities, our control over events, and the future play a key role in the
causes of war. Failing to Win: Perceptions of Victory and Defeat in International
Politics (Harvard University Press, 2006), with Dominic Tierney, examines
how and why popular misperceptions commonly create undeserved victories or defeats in international wars and crises. His current work focuses on
the role of evolutionary dynamics, evolutionary psychology, and religion in
human conflict and cooperation.
RELATED ESSAYS
The Underrepresentation of Women in Elective Office (Political Science),
Sarah F. Anzia
Emergence of Stratification in Small Groups (Sociology), Noah Askin et al.
Global Economic Networks (Sociology), Nina Bandelj et al.
Returns to Education in Different Labor Market Contexts (Sociology), Klaus
Schöemann and Rolf Becker
The Sexual Division of Labor (Anthropology), Rebecca Bliege Bird and Brian
F. Codding
Authenticity: Attribution, Value, and Meaning (Sociology), Glenn R. Carroll
Why So Few Women in Mathematically Intensive Fields? (Psychology),
Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams
Gender Segregation in Higher Education (Sociology), Alexandra Hendley
and Maria Charles
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
Youth Entrepreneurship (Psychology), William Damon et al.
Resilience (Psychology), Erica D. Diminich and George A. Bonanno
Expertise (Sociology), Gil Eyal
Presidential Power (Political Science), William G. Howell
The Development of Social Trust (Psychology), Vikram K. Jaswal and Marissa
B. Drell
Herd Behavior (Psychology), Tatsuya Kameda and Reid Hastie
Reconciliation and Peace-Making: Insights from Studies on Nonhuman
Animals (Anthropology), Sonja E. Koski

Leadership

15

Women Running for Office (Political Science), Jennifer L. Lawless
Understanding Risk-Taking Behavior: Insights from Evolutionary Psychology (Psychology), Karin Machluf and David F. Bjorklund
Transformation of the Employment Relationship (Sociology), Arne L. Kalleberg and Peter V. Marsden
Gender Inequality in Educational Attainment (Sociology), Anne McDaniel
and Claudia Buchmann
Participatory Governance (Political Science), Stephanie L. McNulty and Brian
Wampler
Gender and Women’s Influence in Public Settings (Political Science), Tali
Mendelberg et al.
Money in Politics (Political Science), Jeffrey Milyo
Feminists in Power (Sociology), Ann Orloff and Talia Schiff
Health and Social Inequality (Sociology), Bernice A. Pescosolido
Evolutionary Theory and Political Behavior (Political Science), Michael Bang
Petersen and Lene Aarøe
Sociology of Entrepreneurship (Sociology), Martin Ruef
Stereotype Threat (Psychology), Toni Schmader and William M. Hall
Ethical Decision-Making: Contemporary Research on the Role of the Self
(Psychology), Lisa L. Shu and Daniel A. Effron
Impact of Limited Education on Employment Prospects in Advanced
Economies (Sociology), Heike Solga
Creativity in Teams (Psychology), Leigh L. Thompson and Elizabeth Ruth
Wilson


Leadership
ADRIENNE TECZA and DOMINIC JOHNSON

Abstract
Historically, research on human leadership has been the sole domain of the social
sciences, and has focused on the formalized role leaders have come to play in modern institutions. However, an independent yet parallel body of work has recently
emerged in biology, where evolutionary theory is being used to investigate the origins and function of leader–follower dynamics in nonhuman animals. In recent years,
interdisciplinary scholars in evolutionary psychology have attempted to merge these
previously disparate research traditions, investigating whether the leader–follower
relationships that evolved to help our species overcome challenges in the past holds
insights for leadership strategies in our modern world. In this essay, we investigate
the feasibility of such an interdisciplinary approach, the obstacles it faces, and the
promise it holds for the future of leadership research.

INTRODUCTION
The breadth of ways leadership has been examined over the last century
reflects the impressive number of disciplines that have taken interest in the
topic. Any serious consideration of behavior among social organisms must,
at some point, contend with questions about the leader–follower relationship and, as a consequence, the phenomenon has been studied across several
different species, including humans. Historically, empirical work on leadership in human and nonhuman animals has been divided along disciplinary
lines, with social psychology focusing on the former and evolutionary biology on the latter. In recent years, however, leadership research has caught the
attention of evolutionary psychologists, and the result has been an increase
in studies attempting to blend these previously disparate research traditions.
While the fusion of biological and social approaches is commonly touted as
the “next step” in the study of human leadership, evolutionary psychologists
must contend with deep theoretical differences between biological and social
approaches that have resulted in distinct research traditions. The primary
purpose of this essay will be to discuss the assumptions surrounding research
on human and animal leadership, how those assumptions impact the way in
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

which data are collected and interpreted, and what that means for current
and future trends toward the evolutionary study of human leadership.
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY: TRADITIONAL APPROACHES
TO HUMAN LEADERSHIP
Leaders have been a feature of human societies throughout history, yet formal research on leadership remained sparse until the beginning of the twentieth century. During this time, the West and the United States in particular saw
a rise in the hierarchical business model and a centralization of the political
system which brought with it a focus on the individuals at the top of this organizational structure. For many social scientists, studying leadership was an
important step in understanding institutional success. As Hogan and Kaiser
(2005) noted, “leadership solves the problem of how to organize collective
effort and is thus the key to organizational effectiveness” (p.169). It is thus not
surprising that human leadership studies have found their strongest footing
in journals and departments dedicated to organizational management. While
generating a wealth of empirical data on leaders in their working environments, leadership research on humans continues to struggle with ambiguous definitions, theoretical inconsistency, and contradictory results (Derue,
Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011). In many ways, these problems may
stem from assumptions about what leadership is, and what purpose it is
meant to serve.
From the 1950s until today, work on leadership in the social sciences has
been dominated by research attempting to find a link between leader behaviors and group performance. In these studies, a leader’s “effectiveness” is
commonly operationalized using measures of either objective group success
(e.g., firm profit), or the level of support received from peers, subordinates,
and supervisors (e.g., satisfaction with firm performance). A common
research design looks for correlations between measures of effectiveness
and the type of behavior or “style” (e.g., McGregor, 1960) the leader most
commonly employs, with some studies incorporating situational mediators.
Leadership styles are most commonly ascertained by distributing a survey
or questionnaire to members of an organization or working unit, asking
them to rate their supervisor’s behavior through a series of measures
preselected by the researcher. Traditionally the focus has been on behaviors
associated with a leader’s control over aspects of followers’ work environment including rewards and punishment, resources, training, and the level
of input the leader has in decision-making. Although field studies of this
type remain one of the most commonly employed methods for leadership
research, their design carries several, often unrecognized, assumptions
(Hunter, Bedell-Avers, & Mumford, 2007).

Leadership

3

First, by asking subordinates to rate their superiors on measures of leadership, researchers inherently equated managers with leaders, regardless
of whether this view is shared by the subordinate. Second, scholars tend
to operationalize “leadership” as those actions undertaken by someone
in a leadership position. Such a broad and ambiguous interpretation has
resulted in leadership being measured along several dimensions including
task-oriented (e.g., planning and organizing), relation-oriented (e.g., supporting and empowering followers), and change-oriented (e.g., envisioning
and advocating innovation) behaviors. Often questionnaires differ both
in the behaviors they focused on and the way in which those behaviors
are measured. As Yukl (2012) stated, “the bewildering variety of behavior
constructs used for leadership research makes it difficult to compare and
integrate findings” (p. 66). In many ways, these assumptions reflect the
twentieth century focus on institutional leadership, rather than leadership
that may arise from unrestricted social interactions. Such problems drove
Hunter and others to argue that, “research must first be more explicit in their
operationalization and justification for what a leader is and why, precisely, a
given sample represents ‘leaders’” (2007, p. 438).
It would be misleading to say that the entire leadership field can be captured by the description above. As James Hunt, senior editor for Leadership
Quarterly recently stated, “the field is literally exploding with new developments and it has moved far beyond the view of a hierarchical, top-down
order-giving man or white hat on a white horse hero who saves the town”
(Hunt, 2005, p. 1). Nonetheless, the discipline’s theoretical traditions and
continued focus on institutionalized leaders may be obscuring other more
informal leader–follower processes arising from social interactions outside
the formal hierarchy.
One promising exception has arisen from the cognitive revolution of the
1970s and the success of attribution theory. Attribution theory is primarily
concerned with how people’s interpretation of events can impact their
subsequent behavior. Work by Lord and his associates (Lord, 1985) found
two mental processes of attribution—recognition and inferential—which
they believed to be involved in an individual’s assessment of leadership.
Recognition processes are related to the prototypes of leadership held by
individuals (Rosch, 1978). The higher the degree of overlap between an actor
and an observer’s prototypic expectations, the greater the chance of a leader
attribution being made. In instances where overlap is low, leaders may be
viewed as less legitimate or effective regardless of objective achievement or
their formal title (Chemers, 2000). Inferential processes cause individuals to
attribute the success or failure of a group to the performance of the leader,
regardless of differences in leadership style (Staw, 1975). Thus, a subordinate
may view their superior as a “good” leader simply because the group

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

is succeeding, regardless of whether the leader is making any objective
contribution to that success. Attribution theory represents one of the first
attempts to understand leadership as a product of human psychology,
rather than simply the actions and consequences of individuals at the top
of a social hierarchy. As we will come to show in the next section, these
psychological biases may be no accident, deriving from a much more innate
leader–follower dynamic, forged by evolution to meet the unique social
challenges of our species.
EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY: NEW APPROACHES
TO NONHUMAN AND HUMAN LEADERSHIP
It may be difficult to envision leadership in animals. They do not have sophisticated language to persuade one another, many species lack the cognitive
capacity to plan or strategize about the future, and in many cases (such as
flocks of birds or schools of fish), individuals may only be aware of the actions
of their immediate neighbors. How then can biologists speak about animal
leadership? This section will examine an alternative interpretation of leadership than those commonly seen in the social science literature, a theory
of leadership that operates through psychological mechanisms designed to
facilitate survival, rather than an institutionalized hierarchy of power. But
first, it is important to understand how human and other animals’ psychology can be shaped by evolution.
EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY IN A NUTSHELL
Darwin’s (1909) theory of evolution posits that if a population displays variation in a given trait, and if offspring can inherit those traits from their parents, then the variants of a trait that improve survival or reproduction in a
given environment will increase in frequency from one generation to the next.
Variants that hindered survival or reproduction will diminish over time, as
they are transmitted to offspring at lower rates relative to their more productive counterparts. An inherited characteristic that, within the time period in
which it evolves, improves an individual’s ability to survive and reproduce
compared with an alternative variation of the trait is referred to as an adaptation. However, the process of natural selection can also produce by-products.
By-products can be thought of as the consequence of adaptive traits that serve
no function in their own right (e.g., calcium evolved as the material for bones
because of its structural advantages, but the fact that it causes bones to be
white is a by-product of calcium’s chemical structure).
Although an evolutionary framework is commonly applied to explain
anatomical or physiological traits in a species, it is of no less importance in

Leadership

5

understanding how the brains of humans and nonhuman animals developed to process information and generate behavioral strategies. Utilizing
the definition offered by Confer and her colleagues, the psychological
mechanisms that are generated by natural selection can be understood as,
“information-processing circuits that take in delimited units of information
and transform that information into functional output designed to solve a
particular adaptive problem” (2010, p. 111). These inputs can be thought of as
social or environmental signals and the outputs are emotional or behavioral
responses to those signals. The mechanism itself can be understood as the
neural/physiological pathway that defines the nature of the relationship
between the two.
There are two main levels at which evolutionary approaches can be applied
to understand psychological phenomena. The first considers the ultimate
function of a behavior or cognitive ability—why the psychological trait
exists—based on the fitness benefits it is thought to confer on its possessor.
The second approach looks at proximate physiological mechanisms that
cause it to occur—how the trait actually functions to provide a benefit.
Although generally considered complementary, proximate levels of analysis
can have important implications for comparative studies, as behaviors that
appear alike and offer similar fitness benefits may be governed by different
cognitive mechanisms across species. Now that we have outlined the logic
of the evolutionary approach, we can examine how it has been applied to
study leadership in nonhuman animals.
EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP IN NONHUMAN ANIMALS
From a fitness perspective, there are many benefits to grouping including
decreased risk of predation, increased foraging success, communal defense
of resources, or more accurate migration. However, such benefits may only be
achieved if individuals are able to maintain some degree of cohesion, either
through physical proximity or through signaling at a distance. Even then, any
attempt to remain together as a group (especially over longer distances) will
require individuals to engage in some degree of coordination in the activities
they pursue. Put simply, individuals in the group cannot engage in activities that are so divergent as to compromise cohesion. However, in forfeiting
their optimal action to comply with the group, an individual pays a fitness
cost referred to by Conradt and Roper as a consensus cost (2003). These consensus costs are important to evolutionary theories of leadership because
they present a fitness paradox. It is in the best interest of any given member of a group to move the group toward their preferred activity (avoiding
the consensus cost), but if all members pursue their own interests, the group
risks fragmentation and the grouping benefits are lost. Thus, if groups are to

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

remain intact, some members must get their way, whereas others must follow.
Here, we see the first and most simplistic way leadership is conceptualized
in animal groups, as those behaviors that determine the type, timing, direction, or duration of group activities (e.g., Dyer, Johansson, Helbing, Couzin,
& Krause, 2009; Guttal & Couzin, 2011). To understand this more fully, let us
consider a concrete example.
One of the most common fitness benefits of grouping seen across taxa, and
considered to be the origins of grouping in primates (van Schaik, 1983), is
the reduction in the risk of predation (Alexander, 1974). This can be due to
either increased vigilance or decreased probability of any given individual
being the target of attack. Particularly in the latter instance, maintaining proximity to neighbors is necessary for the fitness gains to be achieved. When
considering a proximate explanation, staying near others in the group can
be understood as an increased fear response to states of isolation (Bergvall,
Schäpers, Kjellander, & Weiss, 2011). At some point, however, the consensus cost associated with remaining near others may become too high for an
individual (e.g., when an individual deer needs water but the herd is foraging). In these instances, needs such as thirst or hunger may outweigh fear
of isolation and the individual will break with the group. If other members
are not themselves in a high state of need (are not thirsty or too hungry), the
drive to maintain proximity may result in following the departing individual.
By the nature of this relationship, any individual with a higher energy need
than other members, or simply a lower fear response to isolation (sometimes
termed boldness), may emerge as a “leader” (at least for a time). This increased
need may result from many characteristics including physical traits such as
larger body size (King, Johnson, & Van Vugt, 2009). Several authors have used
this argument to explain why more consistent leader–follower roles are established in stable social groups where size often correlates with dominance
(e.g., King & Cowlishaw, 2009).
Interestingly, decision rules that involve maintaining proximity with conspecifics can produce leadership in groups that have only local knowledge
(individuals can only see the activities of their neighbors and not necessarily
the activity of the “leader”). Ian Couzin and colleagues have demonstrated
the remarkable ability of a few “knowledgeable” fish to lead entire schools
of “ignorant” fish to resources, simply because those individuals who did
not know the location of the resource stayed close to their neighbors and the
information percolated from the “leaders” to the rest of the group (Couzin,
Krause, Franks, & Levin, 2005).
At this point, one might wonder how this type of leadership is relevant
for humans. At the most basic level, Dyer and his colleagues demonstrated
that human groups could exhibit similar leadership and followership behaviors to those discussed above (Dyer et al., 2009). In his work, Dyer showed

Leadership

7

how a group of naive individuals could be lead out of a novel room by a few
people who knew the location of exits, without the need for verbal communication. In doing so, Dyer highlighted how a person’s physical position within
a group can impact the level of influence they have over others. Now consider a company where individuals may only interact with a subset of their
coworkers. Individuals who are optimally located in this colleague network
(perhaps those with the most connections) may have the ability to influence
how others think and feel about their job more so than individuals with fewer
ties, regardless of their formal position. To a biologist, this type of influence
may be interpreted as a form of leadership.
Some authors (e.g., Guastello, 2009) have argued that for the purposes
of evolutionary discussion, decision rules associated with staying or leaving a group should not be characterized as an example of an evolved
leader–follower relationship. In part, this objection stems from the fact that
the mechanism of influence (maintaining proximity) is unrelated to the
decision being pursued (followers are not considering the choice of the
leader). In this sense, leadership would be viewed as a by-product of grouping behavior rather than an adaptive solution to problems of coordination.
Such arguments are valuable to the extent that they remind researchers
that phenotypically similar actions, such as one individual displaying
the same behavior as a conspecific at different points in time, may have
different proximate explanations and thus there may be a need for more
precise terminology than “leadership” to avoid confusion. In the section
that follows, we expand on the different types of cognitive mechanisms
capable of producing leader–follower dynamics and how unique selection
pressures can result in the development of more complex leader–follower
relationships.
It is worth noting here that despite the propensity for evolutionary psychologists to discuss adaptations independently of one another, cognitive
mechanisms should not necessarily be viewed as isolated modules in the
brain. While there is some evidence that certain brain regions, as well as subclasses of neurons, serve specific functions (e.g., areas involved in language,
and facial neurons associated with individual recognition in mammals; see
Sheehan & Tibbetts, 2011), most psychological adaptations draw on multiple
cognitive components, including regions of the brain associated with perception and memory. Additionally, these mechanisms do not operate in a
vacuum, but rather build and interact in complex ways to produce adaptive
behaviors (Buss, 2008; see Confer et al., 2010).
As bottom-up environmental factors such as predation and resource availability drive animals to aggregate, new selection pressures can emerge and
influence how individuals cope with, and take advantage of, their relative
proximity (Van Schaik, 1983). The type of problem a species is faced with

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

can therefore alter the mechanisms through which leadership operates (Van
Vugt, 2006). For example, one potential challenge to living near conspecifics
is that it may be difficult for an animal to hide its movements toward, or
discovery of, food (e.g., Ratcliffe & Hofstede, 2005). These “cues” are not
evolved mechanisms for communication between the “finder” and those
around him, but rather a by-product of living in close proximity that can
result in a leader–follower conflict. In these instances, followers may be
thought of as “social parasites” and their choice to follow may actually run
counter to the interests of the “leader” (Sumpter, 2010). However, in some
cases, individuals can actually develop specific adaptations for detecting
when followership will be most advantageous. Starlings, for example, tend
to make decisions about leaving or staying in a food patch based on the
observed success of conspecifics (e.g., Templeton & Giraldeau, 1996). Such
instances would be an example of an evolved capacity for followership.
The models used to represent trade-offs between gaining information from
others as opposed to searching for oneself are known as producer-scrounger
models, and they represent a rich theoretical literature on leader–follower
dynamics, including how strategies may be adapted to environmental
changes (Sumpter, 2010).
The presence of conspecifics does not always represent a challenge to
resource acquisition for leaders. Under certain circumstances, they may
actually be of benefit, resulting in an individual’s active recruitment of
others when food is discovered. In cliff swallows, for example, there is
evidence that group members are recruited to swarms of insects because the
increased numbers helps the birds track their prey (Brown, Brown, & Shaffer,
1991). This type of behavior is often referred to as signaling. Signaling can be
understood as “an act or structure that alters the behavior of another organism, which evolved because of that effect, and which is effective because
the receiver’s response has also evolved” (Maynard Smith & Harper, 2005;
cited in Sumpter, 2010 p. 58). Such abilities to sense and interpret cues
and signals represent mechanisms that evolved to facilitate the follower
side of leadership dynamics. It is possible that the prototypes discussed in
attribution theories of social psychology serve a similar purpose—helping
people find “good” leaders that will be advantageous to follow.
EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP IN HUMANS
While all of these examples represent relationships of influence in which
individuals are “led” toward a resource, the leader–follower dynamic is governed by different evolved processes shaped by each species’ unique evolutionary history (Buss, 2005). While much of the logic outlined in the section
above on nonhuman animals may therefore shed light on human leadership,

Leadership

9

there are also likely to be evolutionary causes and consequences of leadership
and followership behavior that are unique to our own lineage. Identifying the
unique cognitive adaptations that may have impacted our species social relations is an important and growing aspect of current research on evolutionary
leadership in humans. Some scholars, most notably Gil-White and his colleagues, have proposed that specific adaptations for social learning have been
integral in shaping our species’ leadership dynamics (Henrich & Gil-White,
2001). In their model of “prestige,” Henrich and Gil-White argue that with the
advent of the human cognitive capacity for cultural transmission, fitness benefits could be attained by preferentially learning from the most skilled individuals. Unlike more primitive forms of copying found in other species (Boyd
& Richerson, 1985), which could be utilized at a distance, social learning in
humans was facilitated by increased access to informed or skilled individuals. This created a selection pressure for behaviors aimed at gaining greater
access to high performing individuals, including deference. There is some
evidence for this effect in hunter–gatherer societies in which outright leaders
are rare, but certain individuals wield influence confined to their own areas
of expertise (Van Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2008). Interestingly, trading deference for productivity is not unique to humans. In macaques (Ventura, Majolo,
Koyama, Hardie, & Schino, 2006), high performing foragers are preferentially
groomed, even if they are low ranking in the dominance hierarchy.
The unique nature of human phylogenetic history may raise questions
about the value of studying leadership in other taxa. The complex nature of
human cognition and social structure can make isolating the processes that
contribute to any behavior incredibly difficult. Cross-species comparative
research can control for noise and mediating variables, as well as simplify
environmental factors. But there is no guarantee that understanding the
ultimate and proximate explanations for leadership in other species will
translate directly into understanding leader–follower dynamics in humans,
given our own unique evolutionary history (Buss, 2005; Van Vugt, Hogan, &
Kaiser, 2008). However, it does offer the promise of identifying fundamental,
underlying patterns that transcend species boundaries. When general terms
such as “leadership” are abandoned, and the focus is confined to specific
behaviors, several interesting patterns may emerge.
In conclusion, current institutionalized leadership roles—while prevalent
in today’s society—may not reflect the types of behaviors associated with
leader–follower dynamics in human evolutionary history and, by extension,
the psychological mechanisms that evolved to facilitate them. At times, institutionalized structures may conflict with people’s evolved relational standards of fairness, integrity, or competence. The term commonly employed to
discuss this phenomenon is mismatch theory (Van Vugt et al., 2008; King et al.,

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

2009). For example, most organization heads are not selected by subordinates (Sessa, Kaiser, Taylor, & Campbell, 1998), yet higher levels of leadership
continuity have been found when groups could elect their own leader. This
suggests that distinctions need to be drawn between cultural stereotypes of
leadership and perceptions of leadership that may be more innate. An evolutionary approach offers new ways to account for this variation.
FUTURE WORK: UNIQUE CHALLENGES TO EVOLUTIONARY
UNDERSTANDINGS OF HUMAN LEADERSHIP
There are many fruitful avenues for future studies on human leadership;
here we discuss two promising areas where evolutionary psychology can
play an important role. First, there are several differences between the institutionalized role leaders have come to occupy in modern society and the
social structure that existed during the Pleistocene era, when many of our
cognitive adaptations were thought to evolve (Van Vugt et al., 2008). Several authors have argued that evolutionary approaches will help illuminate
organizational practices that conflict with evolved mechanisms for mediating social interactions—the problem of evolutionary mismatch (e.g., Johnson,
Price, & Van Vugt, 2013; King et al., 2009; Price & Johnson, 2011). In order
to conduct such work, however, more research is needed on the relationship between notions of leadership that originate from transmitted culture
(Scott-Phillips, Dickins, & West, 2011) and those that arose through adaptation. For example, evidence from primate studies suggests that mechanisms
for assessing equality/fairness (Brosnan & de Waal, 2003) and social rank
(Ghazanfar & Santos, 2004) have deep evolutionary roots. However, these
values may conflict with learned ideas of what constitutes an appropriate
leader–subordinate relationship in politics and business. Little is understood
about the interaction of learned and evolved behaviors, and much can be
gained from work in this area.
The second and potentially related area examines the effects of socialization on the expression of leadership behavior. Several studies have found
links between personality traits, such as boldness and leadership (Judge
et al., 2002). Boldness is often characterized as lower levels of fear in novel
situations and thus may correlate with leadership because of an increased
propensity to act independently of other group members. However, some
studies now show that the level of support a leader receives from his/her
subordinates alters the level at which s/he displays leader activities (e.g.,
Pepinsky, Hemphill, & Shevitz, 1958). Recent literature on animal behavior
has a growing interest in how socialization can alter the expression of
inherited traits (such as personality), and by extension, can produce a form
of “social inheritance” of phenotypic behaviors (for full discussion see

Leadership

11

Stamps, 1991). Such research could have important implications for how
leaders cope with failure.
Social psychologists and evolutionary biologists hold important insights
into two sides of the same coin. On one hand, social psychology helps lend
insights into contemporary human experience, including the values and culture that have come to play an integral role in defining our species. On the
other hand, evolutionary biology can help uncover the pressures and processes that shaped the way in which the human mind came to interpret the
environment, social life, and our place within it. Merging these two disparate
traditions is not an easy process, but it is invaluable if our understanding of
leadership is to climb out of disciplinary ravines to see the broader landscape
of how, when, why and who leads, and who follows.
REFERENCES
Alexander, R. (1974). The evolution of social behaviour. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics, 5, 325–383.
Bergvall, U. A., Schäpers, A., Kjellander, P., & Weiss, A. (2011). Personality and foraging decisions in fallow deer, Dama dama. Animal Behaviour, 81(1), 101–112.
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Brown, C. R., Brown, M. B., & Shaffer, M. L. (1991). Food-sharing signals among
socially foraging swallows. Animal Behavior, 42, 551–564.
Brosnan, S. F., & de Waal, F. B. (2003). Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature, 425,
297–299.
Buss, D. M. (2005). The handbook of evolutionary psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
Buss, D. M. (2008). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Boston, MA:
Pearson Education Inc.
Chemers, M. M. (2000). Leadership research and theory: A functional integration.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 27–43.
Confer, J. C., Easton, J. A., Fleischman, D. S., Goetz, C. D., Lewis, D. M. G., Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2010). Evolutionary psychology: Controversies, questions,
prospects, and limitations. American Psychologist, 65(2), 110–126.
Conradt, L., & Roper, T. J. (2003). Group decision-making in animals. Nature, 421,
155–158.
Couzin, I. D., Krause, J., Franks, N. R., & Levin, S. A. (2005). Effective leadership and
decision-making in animal groups on the move. Nature, 433, 513–515.
Darwin, C. (1909). The origin of species. New York, NY: P.F. Collier & Son.
Derue, S., Nahrgang, J., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. (2011). Trait and behavioral
theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64, 7–52.

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Dyer, J. R. G., Johansson, A., Helbing, D., Couzin, I. D., & Krause, J. (2009). Leadership, consensus decision making and collective behaviour in humans. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 364, 781–789.
Ghazanfar, A. A., & Santos, L. R. (2004). Primate brains in the wild: The sensory bases
for social interactions. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(8), 603–616.
Guttal, V., & Couzin, I. D. (2011). Leadership, collective motion and the evolution of
migratory strategies. Communicative & Integrative Biology, 4(3), 294–298.
Guastello, S. J. (2009). Evolutionary game theory. American Psychologist, 64, 53–54.
Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution
and Human Behavior, 22, 165–196.
Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General
Psychology, 9(2), 169–180.
Hunt, J. (2005). Explosion of the leadership field and LQ’s changing of the editorial
guard. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 1–8.
Hunter, S., Bedell-Avers, K., & Mumford, M. (2007). A typical leadership study:
Assumptions, implications, and potential remedies. The Leadership Quarterly, 18,
435–446.
Johnson, D. D. P., Price, M. E., & Van Vugt, M. (2013). Darwin’s invisible hand: Market
competition, evolution and the firm. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,
90, S128–S140.
Judge, T., Bono, J., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. (2002). Personality and leadership: A
qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765–780.
King, A. J., & Cowlishaw, G. (2009). Leaders, followers and group decision-making.
Communicative & Integrative Biology, 2(2), 147–150.
King, A. J., Johnson, D. D. P., & Van Vugt, M. (2009). The origins and evolution of
leadership. Current Biology, 19(19), R911–R916.
Lord, R. G. (1985). An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership perceptions, and behavioral measurement in organizational settings. In B.
M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp.
87–128). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Maynard Smith, J., & Harper, D. (2005). Animal signals. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Pepinsky, P. N., Hemphill, J. K., & Shevitz, R. (1958). Attempts to lead, group productivity, and morale under conditions of acceptance and rejection. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 57, 47–54.
Price, M. E., & Johnson, D. D. P. (2011). The adaptationist theory of cooperation in
groups: Evolutionary predictions for organizational cooperation. In G. Saad (Ed.),
Evolutionary psychology in the business sciences (pp. 95–134). Berlin: Springer.
Ratcliffe, J. M., & Hofstede, H. M. (2005). Roosts as information centres: Social learning of food preferences in bats. Biology Letters, 1(1), 72–74.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Leadership

13

Scott-Phillips, T. C., Dickins, T. E., & West, S. A. (2011). Evolutionary theory and the
ultimate-proximate distinction in the human behavioral sciences. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 6(1), 38–47.
Sessa, V. I., Kaiser, R., Taylor, J. K., & Campbell, R. J. (1998). Executive selection. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Sheehan, M. J., & Tibbetts, E. A. (2011). Specialized face learning is associated with
individual recognition in paper wasps. Science, 334, 1272–1275.
Stamps, J. A. (1991). Why evolutionary issues are reviving interest in proximate
behavior mechanisms. American Zoologist, 31, 338–348.
Staw, B. M. (1975). Attribution of the “causes” of performance: A general alternative
interpretation of cross-sectional research on organizations. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 13, 414–432.
Sumpter, D. J. T. (2010). Collective animal behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Templeton, J. J., & Giraldeau, L. A. (1996). Vicarious sampling: The use of personal and public information by starlings foraging in a simple patch environment.
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 38, 105–114.
Van Schaik, C. P. (1983). Why are diurnal primates living in groups? Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 87(1), 120–144.
Van Vugt, M. (2006). Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 354–371.
Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63(3), 182–196.
Ventura, R., Majolo, B., Koyama, N. F., Hardie, S., & Schino, G. (2006). Reciprocation
and interchange in wild Japanese macaques: Grooming, cofeeding, and agonistic
support. American Journal of Primatology, 68(12), 1138–1149.
Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions
need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66–85.

ADRIENNE TECZA SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Adrienne Tecza is currently a doctoral candidate in political science at
Oxford University under the supervision of Dr. Dominic Johnson. During her undergraduate study at Emory University in Atlanta, where she
received a joint degree in psychology and political science, Adrienne
worked in a psychobiology lab at the Yerkes National Primate Research
Center. In 2009, Adrienne spent 7 months in the field working for a
National-Geographic-funded study of white-faced capuchins in Costa Rica.
She has spent the last year at Princeton University as a visiting student
research collaborator in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary
Biology. Combining her background in evolution, psychology, and political
science, Adrienne’s work seeks to understand how people’s cognitive
adaptations influence their ability to cooperate in a modern institutionalized
environment.

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

DOMINIC JOHNSON SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Dominic Johnson received a DPhil from Oxford University in evolutionary
biology, and a PhD from Geneva University in political science. Drawing on
both disciplines, he is interested in how new research on evolution, biology,
and human nature is challenging theories of international relations, conflict,
and cooperation. He has published two books. Overconfidence and War: The
Havoc and Glory of Positive Illusions (Harvard University Press, 2004) argues
that common psychological biases to maintain overly positive images of our
capabilities, our control over events, and the future play a key role in the
causes of war. Failing to Win: Perceptions of Victory and Defeat in International
Politics (Harvard University Press, 2006), with Dominic Tierney, examines
how and why popular misperceptions commonly create undeserved victories or defeats in international wars and crises. His current work focuses on
the role of evolutionary dynamics, evolutionary psychology, and religion in
human conflict and cooperation.
RELATED ESSAYS
The Underrepresentation of Women in Elective Office (Political Science),
Sarah F. Anzia
Emergence of Stratification in Small Groups (Sociology), Noah Askin et al.
Global Economic Networks (Sociology), Nina Bandelj et al.
Returns to Education in Different Labor Market Contexts (Sociology), Klaus
Schöemann and Rolf Becker
The Sexual Division of Labor (Anthropology), Rebecca Bliege Bird and Brian
F. Codding
Authenticity: Attribution, Value, and Meaning (Sociology), Glenn R. Carroll
Why So Few Women in Mathematically Intensive Fields? (Psychology),
Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams
Gender Segregation in Higher Education (Sociology), Alexandra Hendley
and Maria Charles
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
Youth Entrepreneurship (Psychology), William Damon et al.
Resilience (Psychology), Erica D. Diminich and George A. Bonanno
Expertise (Sociology), Gil Eyal
Presidential Power (Political Science), William G. Howell
The Development of Social Trust (Psychology), Vikram K. Jaswal and Marissa
B. Drell
Herd Behavior (Psychology), Tatsuya Kameda and Reid Hastie
Reconciliation and Peace-Making: Insights from Studies on Nonhuman
Animals (Anthropology), Sonja E. Koski

Leadership

15

Women Running for Office (Political Science), Jennifer L. Lawless
Understanding Risk-Taking Behavior: Insights from Evolutionary Psychology (Psychology), Karin Machluf and David F. Bjorklund
Transformation of the Employment Relationship (Sociology), Arne L. Kalleberg and Peter V. Marsden
Gender Inequality in Educational Attainment (Sociology), Anne McDaniel
and Claudia Buchmann
Participatory Governance (Political Science), Stephanie L. McNulty and Brian
Wampler
Gender and Women’s Influence in Public Settings (Political Science), Tali
Mendelberg et al.
Money in Politics (Political Science), Jeffrey Milyo
Feminists in Power (Sociology), Ann Orloff and Talia Schiff
Health and Social Inequality (Sociology), Bernice A. Pescosolido
Evolutionary Theory and Political Behavior (Political Science), Michael Bang
Petersen and Lene Aarøe
Sociology of Entrepreneurship (Sociology), Martin Ruef
Stereotype Threat (Psychology), Toni Schmader and William M. Hall
Ethical Decision-Making: Contemporary Research on the Role of the Self
(Psychology), Lisa L. Shu and Daniel A. Effron
Impact of Limited Education on Employment Prospects in Advanced
Economies (Sociology), Heike Solga
Creativity in Teams (Psychology), Leigh L. Thompson and Elizabeth Ruth
Wilson



Media

Leadership