Leadership, Followership, and Evolution Some Lessons From the Past Mark Van Vugt University of Kent Robert Hogan Hogan Assessment Systems Robert B. Kaiser Kaplan DeVries Inc. This article analyzes the topic of leadership from an evo- Second, the literature focuses on leaders and tends to lutionary perspective and proposes three conclusions that ignore the essential role of followers (Hollander, 1992; are not part of mainstream theory. First, leading and Yukl, 2006). Third, research largely concentrates on prox- following are strategies that evolved for solving social imate issues of leadership (e.g., What makes one person a coordination problems in ancestral environments, includ- better leader than others?) and rarely considers its ultimate ing in particular the problems of group movement, intra- functions (e.g., How did leadership promote survival and group peacekeeping, and intergroup competition. Second, reproductive success among our ancestors?) (R. Hogan & the relationship between leaders and followers is inher- Kaiser, 2005). Finally, there has been little cross-fertiliza- ently ambivalent because of the potential for exploitation of tion between psychology and disciplines such as anthro- followers by leaders. Third, modern organizational struc- pology, economics, neuroscience, biology, and zoology, tures are sometimes inconsistent with aspects of our which also contain important insights about leadership evolved leadership psychology, which might explain the (Bennis, 2007; Van Vugt, 2006). alienation and frustration of many citizens and employees. This article offers a view of leadership inspired by The authors draw several implications of this evolutionary evolutionary theory, which modern scholars increasingly analysis for leadership theory, research, and practice. see as essential for understanding social life (Buss, 2005; Lawrence & Nohria, 2002; McAdams & Pals, 2006; Nettle, Keywords: evolution, leadership, followership, game the- 2006; Schaller, Simpson, & Kenrick, 2006). We argue first ory, mismatch hypothesis that an evolutionary approach to leadership raises some important new questions. Next we analyze the implications hy is leadership important? During times of of leader–follower relations in early human and nonhuman peace and prosperity, it seems not to matter. societies for theories of leadership. We use (evolutionary) WHowever, when politicians start wars, when game theory to model the emergence of leadership; this business leaders gamble with our life savings, and when model is followed by a hypothetical account of how lead- religious leaders create violent sectarian divides, leadership ership developed over four stages of evolutionary history. becomes a matter of life and death. We conclude with some novel implications of this analysis We know a lot about leadership (Bass, 1990; House & for leadership theory, research, and practice. Aditya, 1997; Yukl, 2006). It is a universal feature of human societies and affects the quality of life of citizens in An Evolutionary Analysis of important ways (Brown, 1991; R. Hogan, Curphy, & Leadership Hogan, 1994). When people are placed in ad hoc laboratory groups, leader–follower structures quickly emerge (Bales, Researchers define leadership in many ways (Stogdill, 1951; Mann, 1959; Van Vugt & De Cremer, 1999). Hu- 1974). We define it broadly in terms of (a) influencing mans easily recognize leadership potential in others (Lord, individuals to contribute to group goals and (b) coordinat- DeVader, & Alliger, 1986). People also romanticize lead- ership; we often attribute great importance to leaders even Mark Van Vugt, Robert Hogan, and Robert B. Kaiser contributed equally when it is not warranted (Hackman & Wageman, 2007; to this article. Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985). Leadership is an un- We are indebted to Rob Kurzban for his intellectual input and to avoidable theme in society and arguably the most important Robin Dunbar, Dominic Johnson, Muhammad Ghufran Ahmad, and Peter Richerson for their comments on previous versions. We also acknowledge problem in the social sciences. constructive criticism from William C. Howell. Although the leadership literature is enormous, it Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to lacks an integrative theoretical framework that can make Mark Van Vugt, Department of Psychology, University of Kent, Can- sense of the richness of the data (Chemers, 2000; R. Hogan terbury CT2 7NP, United Kingdom; Robert Hogan, Hogan Assessment Systems, 2622 East 21st Street, Tulsa, OK 74114; or Robert B. Kaiser, & Kaiser, 2005). There are several reasons for this. First, Kaplan DeVries Inc., 1903-G Ashwood Court, Greensboro, NC 27455. the literature contains many useful mid-level theories that E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], or rkaiser@ are not very well connected (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 2006). kaplandevries.com 182 April 2008 ● American Psychologist Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association 0003-066X/08/$12.00 Vol. 63, No. 3, 182–196 DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.182 psychologists. The second question concerns ontogene- sis: When do leader–follower patterns emerge in the life span? Does developmental history predict leadership propensity? Developmental, personality, and educational psychologists are interested in these issues. The third question concerns phylogenesis: When did leadership emerge in our species, and are there parallels in other species? This question concerns comparative psycholo- gists, anthropologists, and zoologists. Finally, there is the question of the ultimate (evolutionary) functions of a mechanism, a question that interests evolutionary psy- chologists and biologists: Did leadership promote the survival of our forebearers so that it became part of our evolved psychology? Each of Tinbergen’s (1963) functions analyzes lead- ership from a different perspective and should be kept distinct. For instance, functional theories assume that lead- ership involves identifying obstacles between groups and their goals and then finding ways to overcome those ob- stacles (Hackman & Walton, 1986; Lord, 1977). These Mark theories offer proximate explanations for why particular Van Vugt leaders are effective in particular circumstances. They can be complemented with an analysis of the functions of leadership in ancestral environments, which may explain why and how the role of leadership evolved in the first ing the pursuit of those goals (cf. Bass, 1990; Hollander, place. 1992; Yukl, 2006). We think pragmatically of leadership as building a team and guiding it to victory (R. Hogan et al., Human Evolution, Group Life, and 1994). Leadership is both a resource for groups and an Leadership attribute of individuals, but we believe that its primary Humans evolved as group-living animals (Baumeister & significance concerns group performance (R. Hogan & Leary, 1995; D. T. Campbell, 1975; Darwin, 1871). The Kaiser, 2005; Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008). Given the genus Homo is estimated to be about 2.5 million years old, fitness and reproductive benefits associated with social and for most of their existence, hominids lived in small, status (Betzig, 1993; Buss, 2005; Chagnon, 1997), the kin-based bands on the African savannah, adopting a no- “selfish-gene” view of evolution (Dawkins, 1976) suggests madic hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Group living allowed our that everyone should strive to become a leader. From this ancestors to cope with an environment well supplied with same perspective it is not obvious why some would vol- predators but poorly supplied with shelter, water, and food untarily subordinate themselves. Researchers rarely con- (Foley, 1997; E. O. Wilson, 1975). Collective foraging and sider the origins of followership, but the topic is central to hunting, food sharing, division of labor, group defenses, an evolutionary analysis. and communal parenting provided a buffer against external Although Sigmund Freud, William James, William threats (Kenrick, Li, & Butner, 2003). The need for collec- McDougall, and E. L. Thorndike were enthusiastic Dar- tive action raises the question of how individuals in social winians, evolutionary thinking fell out of favor in main- groups decide what to do and how and when to do it. For stream psychology for most of the 20th century (Pinker, example, finding food would require group members to 2002). It is now returning in the form of evolutionary decide on the location and timing of foraging activities psychology. Evolutionary psychology proposes that the (Couzin, Krause, Franks, & Levin, 2005). Such problems mind is composed of mechanisms, called psychological can be solved by a decision-making process in which one adaptations, that were favored by natural selection because individual takes the initiative and provides direction while they solved adaptive problems faced by our ancestors. others acquiesce and follow that direction. Examples of such mechanisms include mating strategies, Individual and group survival would also have de- cheater detection, status sensitivity, and language (Barkow, pended on cooperative effort and group cohesion (Bloom, Cosmides, & Tooby, 1992; Buss, 2005; Schaller et al., 2000; Darwin, 1871; Sober & Wilson, 1998), which are 2006; cf. Darwin, 1871). inversely related to group size (Dunbar, 2004; Ingham, Evolutionary psychologists use Tinbergen’s (1963) Levinger, Graves, & Peckham, 1974). Anthropological ev- four functions model to analyze psychological adapta- idence suggests that life in ancestral groups involved con- tions. This framework first