Leadership, Followership, and Evolution - Mark …

1 leadership , followership , and EvolutionSome Lessons From the PastMark Van VugtUniversity of KentRobert HoganHogan Assessment SystemsRobert B. KaiserKaplan DeVries article analyzes the topic of leadership from an evo-lutionary perspective and proposes three conclusions thatare not part of mainstream theory. First, leading andfollowing are strategies that evolved for solving socialcoordination problems in ancestral environments, includ-ing in particular the problems of group movement, intra-group peacekeeping, and intergroup competition. Second,the relationship between leaders and followers is inher-ently ambivalent because of the potential for exploitation offollowers by leaders. Third, modern organizational struc-tures are sometimes inconsistent with aspects of ourevolved leadership psychology, which might explain thealienation and frustration of many citizens and authors draw several implications of this evolutionaryanalysis for leadership theory, research, and : Evolution , leadership , followership , game the-ory, mismatch hypothesisWhy is leadership important?

2 During times ofpeace and prosperity, it seems not to , when politicians start wars, whenbusiness leaders gamble with our life savings, and whenreligious leaders create violent sectarian divides, leadershipbecomes a matter of life and know a lot about leadership (Bass, 1990; House &Aditya, 1997; Yukl, 2006). It is a universal feature ofhuman societies and affects the quality of life of citizens inimportant ways (Brown, 1991; R. Hogan, Curphy, &Hogan, 1994). When people are placed in ad hoc laboratorygroups, leader follower structures quickly emerge (Bales,1951; Mann, 1959; Van Vugt & De Cremer, 1999). Hu-mans easily recognize leadership potential in others (Lord,DeVader, & Alliger, 1986). People also romanticize lead-ership; we often attribute great importance to leaders evenwhen it is not warranted (Hackman & Wageman, 2007;Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985).

3 leadership is an un-avoidable theme in society and arguably the most importantproblem in the social the leadership literature is enormous, itlacks an integrative theoretical framework that can makesense of the richness of the data (Chemers, 2000; R. Hogan& Kaiser, 2005). There are several reasons for this. First,the literature contains many useful mid-level theories thatare not very well connected (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 2006).Second, the literature focuses on leaders and tends toignore the essential role of followers (Hollander, 1992;Yukl, 2006). Third, research largely concentrates on prox-imate issues of leadership ( , What makes one person abetter leader than others?) and rarely considers its ultimatefunctions ( , How did leadership promote survival andreproductive success among our ancestors?)

4 (R. Hogan &Kaiser, 2005). Finally, there has been little cross-fertiliza-tion between psychology and disciplines such as anthro-pology, economics, neuroscience, biology, and zoology,which also contain important insights about leadership (Bennis, 2007; Van Vugt, 2006).This article offers a view of leadership inspired byevolutionary theory, which modern scholars increasinglysee as essential for understanding social life (Buss, 2005;Lawrence & Nohria, 2002; McAdams & Pals, 2006; Nettle,2006; Schaller, Simpson, & Kenrick, 2006). We argue firstthat an evolutionary approach to leadership raises someimportant new questions. Next we analyze the implicationsof leader follower relations in early human and nonhumansocieties for theories of leadership .

5 We use (evolutionary)game theory to model the emergence of leadership ; thismodel is followed by a hypothetical account of how lead-ership developed over four stages of evolutionary conclude with some novel implications of this analysisfor leadership theory, research, and Evolutionary Analysis ofLeadershipResearchers define leadership in many ways (Stogdill,1974). We define it broadly in terms of (a) influencingindividuals to contribute to group goals and (b) coordinat-Mark Van Vugt, Robert Hogan, and Robert B. Kaiser contributed equallyto this are indebted to Rob Kurzban for his intellectual input and toRobin Dunbar, Dominic Johnson, Muhammad Ghufran Ahmad, and PeterRicherson for their comments on previous versions. We also acknowledgeconstructive criticism from William C.

6 Concerning this article should be addressed toMark Van Vugt, Department of Psychology, university of kent , Can-terbury CT2 7NP, United Kingdom; Robert Hogan, Hogan AssessmentSystems, 2622 East 21st Street, Tulsa, OK 74114; or Robert B. Kaiser,Kaplan DeVries Inc., 1903-G Ashwood Court, Greensboro, NC : or 2008 American PsychologistCopyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association 0003-066X/08/$ 63, No. 3, 182 196 DOI: the pursuit of those goals (cf. Bass, 1990; Hollander,1992; Yukl, 2006). We think pragmatically of leadership asbuilding a team and guiding it to victory (R. Hogan et al.,1994). leadership is both a resource for groups and anattribute of individuals, but we believe that its primarysignificance concerns group performance (R.)

7 Hogan &Kaiser, 2005; Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008). Given thefitness and reproductive benefits associated with socialstatus (Betzig, 1993; Buss, 2005; Chagnon, 1997), the selfish-gene view of Evolution (Dawkins, 1976) suggeststhat everyone should strive to become a leader. From thissame perspective it is not obvious why some would vol-untarily subordinate themselves. Researchers rarely con-sider the origins of followership , but the topic is central toan evolutionary Sigmund Freud, William James, WilliamMcDougall, and E. L. Thorndike were enthusiastic Dar-winians, evolutionary thinking fell out of favor in main-stream psychology for most of the 20th century (Pinker,2002). It is now returning in the form of evolutionarypsychology.

8 Evolutionary psychology proposes that themind is composed of mechanisms, called psychologicaladaptations, that were favored by natural selection becausethey solved adaptive problems faced by our of such mechanisms include mating strategies,cheater detection, status sensitivity, and language (Barkow,Cosmides, & Tooby, 1992; Buss, 2005; Schaller et al.,2006; cf. Darwin, 1871).Evolutionary psychologists use Tinbergen s (1963)four functions model to analyze psychological adapta-tions. This framework first asks about the proximatefunctions of a mechanism. For leadership we can askwhat kind of people make good leaders, a question thatinterests social, industrial/organizational, and appliedpsychologists. The second question concerns ontogene-sis: When do leader follower patterns emerge in the lifespan?

9 Does developmental history predict leadershippropensity? Developmental, personality, and educationalpsychologists are interested in these issues. The thirdquestion concerns phylogenesis: When did leadershipemerge in our species, and are there parallels in otherspecies? This question concerns comparative psycholo-gists, anthropologists, and zoologists. Finally, there isthe question of the ultimate (evolutionary) functions of amechanism, a question that interests evolutionary psy-chologists and biologists: Did leadership promote thesurvival of our forebearers so that it became part of ourevolved psychology?Each of Tinbergen s (1963) functions analyzes lead-ership from a different perspective and should be keptdistinct. For instance, functional theories assume that lead-ership involves identifying obstacles between groups andtheir goals and then finding ways to overcome those ob-stacles (Hackman & Walton, 1986; Lord, 1977).

10 Thesetheories offer proximate explanations for why particularleaders are effective in particular circumstances. They canbe complemented with an analysis of the functions ofleadership in ancestral environments, which may explainwhy and how the role of leadership evolved in the Evolution , Group Life, andLeadershipHumans evolved as group-living animals (Baumeister &Leary, 1995; D. T. Campbell, 1975; Darwin, 1871). ThegenusHomois estimated to be about million years old,and for most of their existence, hominids lived in small,kin-based bands on the African savannah, adopting a no-madic hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Group living allowed ourancestors to cope with an environment well supplied withpredators but poorly supplied with shelter, water, and food(Foley, 1997; E.)