麻豆传媒

DONALD TRUMP in the US and Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand. Vladimir Putin in Russia and Sanna Marin in Finland. It is hard to imagine more drastically different political figures. Yet each of these individuals has reached the highest office in their country. Given the vast differences in their personal qualities, behaviour and rhetoric, can we ever understand what makes for a successful leader? How is it that Trump, Ardern, Putin and Marin can all become leaders of their nations?

If you have had any exposure to business leadership theories, you may see a pattern here. Many identify two main ways that leaders exert their influence over groups. These dichotomies go by names such as democratic versus autocratic, participative versus directive and personalised versus positional. This sort of analysis may be helpful in characterising leadership styles, but it can only take us so far in understanding why we have the leaders we do. Now, an idea emerging from evolutionary biology promises to do much more.

This approach connects the two distinct leadership styles with deeper human drives and motivations. Its proponents argue that through this perspective, we can explain a lot about the state of the world today, from the US-China trade war to the success of countries such as New Zealand, Germany and Taiwan in responding to covid-19, and from Boris Johnson鈥檚 victory in last year鈥檚 UK general election to the under-representation of women in boardrooms. Some believe this model can even predict the outcome of the forthcoming US presidential election. Can they be right?

Evolutionary biologists call the two styles of leadership 鈥渄ominance鈥� and 鈥減restige鈥�. A prestige leader influences people through their superior personal attributes, such as knowledge, wisdom and vision. These leaders may also be charismatic and use their skill at rhetoric to win over followers: think of Jesus or Confucius. Or, for a more contemporary case, take the German chancellor Angela Merkel. Women aren鈥檛 restricted to prestige leadership alone, but it is thought by some that female leaders generally operate this way because women鈥檚 responsibilities for childcare and food-gathering throughout most of human history have left them with an 鈥渆volved psychology鈥� that is more cooperative, in general, than men鈥檚. At least, that鈥檚 how prestige leadership is depicted by Mark van Vugt at Vrije University in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and Jennifer Smith at Mills College in Oakland, California, in a paper published last year that .

鈥淧restige leaders use their superior personal attributes to influence鈥�

They say that dominance leaders, in contrast, exert influence by demanding support, instilling fear in would-be dissenters and threatening sanctions for anyone who fails to toe the line. Think of any Machiavellian ruler, from Attila the Hun to Stalin. There are also plenty of examples of milder dominance leaders around today, including Trump, Putin, China鈥檚 Xi Jinping and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil. Being physically imposing is often key to their approach, so such leaders are almost always men, according to the dominance/prestige model.

Van Vugt and Smith point to a range of evidence indicating that these two leadership styles are rooted in biology. of group leaders reveal that those adopting a dominance style score higher for aggression, disagreeableness and psychopathy (a collection of traits including a lack of empathy and remorse), whereas prestige leaders are strong on agreeableness and conscientiousness. Dominance leaders, especially male ones, tend to have , which manifest in more masculinised faces and bigger bodies. In contrast, some studies indicate that prestige leaders may have higher levels of the prosocial hormone oxytocin. There are also differences in the non-verbal displays people use to . Prestige leaders smile more, for example, and dominance leaders have more expansive bodily gestures.

What鈥檚 more, it would appear that these two leadership styles evolved far before our species. They have been , from meerkats and hyenas to killer whales and elephants, and are particularly apparent in the behaviour of our closest relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos. In bonobo societies, females take the lead in resolving disputes. 鈥淭he prestige style of leadership by females within these groups results in social lives with very little conflict,鈥� says Smith, who is a behavioural ecologist. By contrast, chimps are led by alpha males that rely primarily on dominance leadership, and there is far more conflict within and between chimp groups than among bonobos.

Prehistoric influencers

There are some hints that our species is naturally more bonobo-like than chimp-like. Anthropologists have long noted that dominance leaders are relatively rare within modern hunter-gatherer societies, which live as people have done for most of human existence. Van Vugt and Smith argue that until quite recently, in evolutionary terms, people favoured prestige leaders and actively selected against dominance ones. But if that鈥檚 the case, why do so many modern leaders adopt a dominance style?

The key, they say, isn鈥檛 biological evolution, but cultural evolution. In traditional, small-scale societies, everybody knew each other and most people were related. This changed when urbanisation began, around 6000 years ago. A shift towards more complex, hierarchical, larger-scale societies of unrelated strangers would inevitably have resulted in some individuals trying to game the system. Dominance leaders are , while also offering to protect their group from outsiders. So the new social set-up would have favoured them.

These influences on leadership are even more pronounced in the modern, globalised world. Nationalistic ideologies often portray immigrants as scroungers, for example. Global competition also makes it easy to perceive other nations as threatening. For example, Trump and many of his supporters view China as an economic threat, North Korea and Iran as military threats and Russia as an existential threat. The coronavirus pandemic just adds to this. Van Vugt, a psychologist, has found that against outsiders, heightening perceptions of external threats. Trump has played on this, recently referring to the covid-19 pathogen as the 鈥淜ung flu鈥�.

Of course, it isn鈥檛 always black and white. Politicians tend to use a combination of both prestige and dominance to achieve power. Trump鈥檚 talent at doing deals, making money and getting things done were lionised by his presidential campaign team. And, as Jane Mansbridge at Harvard University observes, Xi rose through a system that rewards meritocratic excellence, as well as ruthless political savvy. Modern humans haven鈥檛 shifted to crave dominance alone, stresses van Vugt. We still want prestige in our leaders and look for signs of competence and ability.

Still, the model predicts that voters favour more dominant leaders when they feel threatened. This might help explain why Boris Johnson beat Jeremy Corbyn in the UK general election last year, when the country was deeply divided over Brexit. It also makes sense of the rise of Ardern in New Zealand and Marin in Finland. These countries are both relatively small and isolated, and under reasonably low levels of threat.

Furthermore, once in power, leaders set the tone of how a group reacts to a genuine threat. Following the mosque shootings in Christchurch last year, for example, Ardern focused on consoling people and bringing society back together. In responding to covid-19, she has exhibited 鈥� traits mirrored by other prestige leaders including Tsai Ing-wen in Taiwan and Angela Merkel in Germany.

But are these nothing more than just-so stories? Mansbridge thinks the idea that we tend to prefer 鈥渟trong men鈥� in the face of threat is an 鈥渋nteresting and fruitful hypothesis鈥�, but it needs to be explored further. Dorothy Carter, a psychologist who heads the Leadership, Innovation, Networks, and Collaboration Lab at the University of Georgia is less equivocal. 鈥淭he evidence is pretty strong to suggest that when people experience threat, due to conflict or economic insecurity, for example, they tend to be more willing to grant leadership to potential leaders who exhibit dominant leadership behaviours,鈥� she says. The evidence is there, agrees Wendy de Waal-Andrews, who studies social relations in groups and organisations at Vrije University. However, she isn鈥檛 convinced that the rise of dominance leadership is recent. War and natural threats were probably frequent in prehistoric times, she says. 鈥淭he difference with modern societies may not be so much the extent to which leaders with a dominant style emerge, but their ability to remain in a leadership position after the immediate threat has passed.鈥�

One possible explanation for the pre-eminence of dominance leadership in today鈥檚 world is a sort of global arms race. 鈥淲hen big countries start to elect authoritarian leaders, then other countries feel they have to do that as well,鈥� says van Vugt. 鈥淎nd that鈥檚 a real warning, I think, for the stability of world peace and world order.鈥� It isn鈥檛 that dominance leaders are inherently bad, but 鈥� whether from the right, left or centre of politics 鈥� it is in their interests to emphasise potential threats and play on people鈥檚 fears.

However, van Vugt and Smith identify a way that we might shift the balance more towards prestige leadership. Other animals tend to rely on different leaders depending on the situation. If the group is threatened, it is generally a male, or males, who will lead the defence or counter-attack. But when it comes to deciding when to move on, find food or seek sanctuary, a female is more likely to take the lead. 鈥淔emales, particularly elderly females, often have the most experience and knowledge, so they are followed to food resources, watering holes and to safe places away from danger,鈥� says Smith. Some human societies have traditionally adopted a similar approach. For example, the traditional authority system of the Navajo people in the south-west US had distinct leaders of war and peace, and also separate leaders for hunting, medicine and ceremonial songs. Of course, all societies have experts who lead in their own field. Yet countries and organisations currently tend to devolve ultimate power to a single leader at the top.

鈥淒ominance leaders exert influence by demanding support and instilling fear鈥�

Dethroning dominance

In an attempt to buck this trend, some businesses are consciously promoting a more distributive approach to leadership. Gore-Tex in the US and Semco in Brazil, for instance, have adopted a system of decentralised management called , which gives decision-making powers to fluid teams, who can then choose the best person for a particular job. It has been argued that flatter organisational structures like these also help get more women into leadership roles, which might give another boost to prestige-style leadership. However, Carter is sceptical. 鈥淭here is evidence to suggest that men tend to be granted leadership informally in self-managing teams more often than women, despite equal capabilities,鈥� she says.

At the national level, it may be even harder to shift away from dominance leadership. The difficulties are exemplified in US politics, according to van Vugt. Before the 2016 presidential election, he and his colleagues used their model to over Hilary Clinton. This time around, given the current US position both domestically and in its relations with other powerful countries such as China and Russia, and given who leads these countries, it again seems unlikely that a prestige-style opponent could beat Trump. His inept response to the Black Lives Matter protests and to the threat posed by covid-19 may act as a counterbalance. Still, things don鈥檛 look good for Democratic challenger Joe Biden. 鈥淏iden has been counting on a prestige approach, appealing to people who fear and detest Trump鈥檚 dominance model,鈥� says Mansbridge.

Despite the trajectory we appear to be on, van Vugt believes that things could change. 鈥淥ne result of economic prosperity is that people want more freedom, a more liberal approach, which favours more prestige-based leaders,鈥� he says. Mansbridge, meanwhile, sees hope in research suggesting that humanity is becoming less violent. As people become increasingly interdependent, both within and between nations, dominance leadership undermines our goals and the need for prestige leadership increases. 鈥淚f that is the case,鈥� she says, 鈥渢hen Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand and Sanna Marin in Finland are the wave of the future.鈥�