1

Leadership and Evolutionary PsychologyNew Perspectives on an Old Topic

Robert B. Kaiser

Symposium presented at the21st Annual SIOP Conference

Dallas, TXApril 2006

Evolutionary Theory and Applied PsychologyRobert Hogan

Why an Evolutionary View of Leadership?Robert B. Kaiser

What Evolution Teaches Us about Leadership Mark Van Vugt

Adrian Furnham, DiscussantUniversity College of London

Genetic Influences on LeadershipRichard D. Arvey

Why an Evolutionary View of Leadership?

Robert B. Kaiser

Presented at the21st Annual SIOP Conference

Dallas, TXApril 2006

Why?• Evolution is a fact.

The most integrative scientific theory: a touchstone for all other explanations.

• Leadership is vastly important. And the literature is also vast. But the field has its shortcomings.

– Definition– Integration– Explanation

Evolutionary Psychology

• Why we are what we are as a function of surviving and reproducing in the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness

99% of genus history

50 to 75% of species history

2

Natural selection

• Variation• Heritability• Selection

Leda Cosmides & John Tooby (1997) Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer

A way of thinking

“Psychological adaptations”Function

Form

Solution

Adaptive Problemson the Savannah

• Survival, self-preservation• Group membership• Status within the group• Group survival

Human Social Nature• Self-preservation, status: Selfish• Group living, social bonding: Cooperation• Tribal rivalries: In-group/out-group

Problems in Leadership

• Definition• Integration• Explanation

Key Adaptive PressuresWithin group

• Coordination• Cooperation• Solidarity

How do you get selfish individuals to get along?

How do you guide the group to victory?

Between Group• Alliances• Rivalries

– Savage warfare– Gene politics

3

Leadership Defined

• functional resource for group survival• solution to the adaptive problem of

collective effort.

A process of social influence that persuades selfish individuals to set aside, for some time, their purely self-interested goals to cooperate with others in the pursuit of common goals—chiefly group survival amid competition with rival groups.

Kaiser & Hogan (2006) Leadership and the fate of organizationsHogan & Kaiser (2005) What we know about leadershipHogan, Curphy, & Hogan (1994) What we know…

Implications

• Relative group performance is the measure of leadership effectiveness

• Genuine leadership is about the fate of the led, not the leader

Hogan & Kaiser (2005) What we know about leadershipKaiser & Hogan (2006) Leadership and the fate of org’s

Problems in Leadership

• Definition• Integration• Explanation

Integration

• Lots of empirical generalizations• No framework to integrate them in a

compelling account of the phenomenon of leadership

Hogan & Kaiser (2005) What we know about leadershipVan Vugt (in press) Some lessons from the past

Evolutionary thinking is…• Biological: size, health, energy, age, sex

• Concerned with what goes on within and between groups

Emergence (status within group)

Effectiveness (between groups)

• Inherently ecological and “species typical”- Contingency theory (interactions) - “One best way”/Trait theories (main effects)

Problems in Leadership

• Definition• Integration• Explanation

4

Explanation – Why?

• Proximate• Ontogenetic• Phylogenetic• Ultimate/functional

Tinbergen (1963) On aims and methods in ethologyBuss (1999) Evolutionary Psychology

16 million living men carrying his Y-chromosome today

~ 8% of South Asia

5

What Evolution Teaches Us About Leadership:

Some Lessons From the Past

Mark Van Vugt University of Kentmvv@kent.ac.uk

Based on: Van Vugt, M. (in press). Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership. Personality and Social Psychology Review.

http://www.kent.ac.uk/psychology/department/people/van-vugtm/index.htm

What we know about leadership

What we know…Leadership is characteristic of all organized human groups (Bass, 1990; Hogan, Hogan, & Curphy, 1994)

MilitaryReligionNations, countries, and statesEducationBusiness

Leadership is a human universal:“The UP [Universal People] have leaders, though they may be

ephemeral or situational. The UP admire, or profess to admire, generosity and this is particularly desired in a leader. No leader of the UP ever has complete power lodged in himself alone. UP leaders go beyond the limits of UP reason and morality. Since the UP never have complete democracy, and never have complete autocracy, they always have a de facto oligarchy” (Brown, 1991; p. 138).

What we know…Leader-follower patterns are found across many group-living species:

Teaching in ants (Franks & Richardson, 2006)Voting patterns to determine direction of group movement in buffalo (Prins, 1968) and baboon (Dunbar, 1983; Kummer, 1968)“Control” animal in primates (De Waal, 1996; Wilson, 1975) Coalition formations in chimpanzees

overthrowing dominant (De Waal, 1996)defending territory (Boehm, 1999; Wrangham & Peterson, 1996)

What we know….Leadership emerges quickly and spontaneously among groups of strangers in the field and the lab (Sherif, 1966; Van Vugt & De Cremer, 1999)

Leadership matters, but the rate of leadership failure is estimated at as much as 60%-75% (Hogan et al., 1994)

Leadership is one of the most widely studied phenomenon in social/organizational psychology (Bass, 1990)

Psychological literature on leadership contains a wealth of data, but there is very little integration into an overarching theoretical framework (such as evolutionary theory) and no cross-fertilization between disciplines interested in leadership

“The academic tradition is a collection of dependable empirical nuggets, but it is also a collection of decontextualized facts that do not add up to a persuasive account of leadership” (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005)

Any psychological theory of leadership must ultimately be consisted with evolutionary theory to explain its own assumptions (e.g., where do leader prototypes come from?)

An evolutionary perspective on leadership

From an evolutionary perspective, the really puzzling behaviour is followership (why would any organism voluntarily defer to another?)

Asking the Why-question (Tinbergen, 1963)

Why follow this particular leader at this particular point in time? (psychological or proximate question)How does one become a leader or follower? (the developmental or ontogenetic question)When did leadership first emerge in our and other species? (historical or phylogenetic question)Why did leadership and followership evolve? (ultimate or evolutionary question); adaptation and natural selection

6

Two evolutionary hypotheses on leadership (Van Vugt, in press)

Leadership as by-product dominance

Leadership as adaptive coordination strategy

Leadership as costly signal (sexual selection)

A dominance theory of leadershipLeadership is a by-product of the emergence of dominance hierarchies in group living species (Buss, 2004; Nicholson, 2000; Wilson, 1975)Individuals compete for scarce resources and the winners dominate the losers – the notorious pecking orderDominants exercise control over group activities, and therefore emerge as leaders sometimes

Hypothesis: Leadership correlates with measures of dominanceThis is not supported in the human (psychological)

literature

Leadership correlates very modestly with dominance scales (Bass, 1990; Stogdill, 1974)Groups do not vote for dominant leaders, even in a crisis (Rutte & Wilke, 1984; Van Vugt & De Cremer, 1999)Groups react negatively to autocratic leaders (Boehm, 1999; Lewin et al., 1943, Van Vugt et al., 2004)

Preference for leaders in a group crisis (Van Vugt & De Cremer, 1999; JPSP)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

preferencefor leader

type

autocratic democratic appointed elected external internal

types of leadership

Moving away from autocratic leaders (Van Vugt et al., 2004; JESP)

0

510

1520

2530

3540

% exit from group

autocratic democratic laissez-faire

leadership style

Leadership as evolved game strategy

Leadership and followership are complimentary strategies in coordination games;

These strategies have become design features of organisms as genes that code for these strategies have spread through the population by virtue of the superior decision rules they adopt (Maynard-Smith, 1982)

Examples of coordination/cooperation problems:Group movement (e.g., to a new waterhole, hunting ground)Group defenseResource distributionPeacekeeping

7

The Leader GamePlayer 2

Follow Lead

Follow 0,0 100, 200

Player 1Lead 200, 100 -100, -100

Pay-offs are in fitness benefitsPayoffs for Players 1, 2 respectivelyGame Equilibria are in Bold

Leading is the risky optionGame can be easily solved in sequential playPossible selection for adaptations associated with timing

Hypothesis: Leadership correlates with initiative-takingRationale: First movers are more likely to emerge as leaders

Supported in the psychological literature:

A large study among AT&T-executives (Bray & Howard, 1983) found that leaders differed in activity and energy levels, industriousness, ambition, and readiness to make decisions

Leadership correlates with traits associated with initiative taking (Bass, 1990; Hogan & Kaiser, 2005) Assertiveness

ImpatienceSelf-esteemExtraversionOpennessRisk-taking

Participation in group activities predicts leadership (the “babble” hypothesis); Sorrentino & Boutillier, 1975) .

Many leader traits have a substantial heritable component (Arvey, 2006; Judge et al., 2002)

But, leaders can move too far ahead of their troops!

Hypothesis: Leadership correlates with measures of (social) intelligence

Rationale: Individuals better at reading other’s preferences are more likely to emerge as leaders

Supported in the literature

In Bass’ (1990) review, no less than 58 studies are reported, the majority of them (48) finding a positive relationship between intelligence and leadership. The average correlation coefficient across the studies is +.28. In an archive study of the personalities of former US presidents, Simonton (1994) found evidence for superior intellectual abilities among presidents (Goethals, 2005). IQ component that is most strongly associated with leadership isthe verbal ability test (Korman, 1968). Using observational measures of empathy – how leaders work with specific members in a group setting – reveals positive associations between leadership and empathy (Mann, 1959).

Hypothesis: Leadership should emerge whenever there is a need for group coordinationRationale: Individuals only follow someone if there are likely

benefits of coordinated action

Supported in research

Leadership emerges quickly if there is an intergroup conflict (Sherif, 1966) or a resource crisis (Van Vugt & De Cremer, 1999)Leadership is suppressed in highly cohesive groups (Haslamet al., 1998), or when a technology is available that renders central coordination unneccessary (Kerr & Jermier, 1978)In stressful situations (such as one’s imminent death), individuals look for leaders with charismatic qualities (Cohen et al., 2004);

Leadership and mortality threat (Cohen et al. 2004; PS)

2.62.72.82.9

33.13.23.33.43.5

charismatic relationship

type of leader

Evaluation of leader

exam salientmortality salient

8

Charismatic leadership: Evolutionary roots?

Hypothesis: Leadership correlates with traits signalling generosity and fairness Rationale: Fear of exploitation

determines that individuals should select leaders that appear generous and fair

Leader’s fairness is an important concern for followers – both distributive (Thibaut & Walker, 1975) and procedural (Tyler & Lind, 1992)In the ultimate bargaining game the proposer (leader) often comes up with a fair allocation (Fehr & Fishbacher, 2003)Leaders are more generous than followers (Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006); but see De Cremer & Van Dijk (2005)

0102030405060708090

% contributions

to public good

leaders followers

Other predictions: Leadership correlates with indices of health, age, and sex

Health: Rationale: The delay in benefits makes followers sensitive

to cues about the health and vitality of leaders: Healthy-looking individuals attract more followers

(Simonton, 1994)

Age: Rationale: Age should predict leadership in knowledge

domains, but not in physical domains

(Bass, 1990)

Gender:Rationale: Status and reproductive success are linked for

men but not as much for women (Buss, 2004). Thus, men should seize leadership positions more quickly if there are large status benefits to be gained

The greater the benefits for leaders, the more likely men compete for these positions (CEO-evidence?)

Male coalitions are more hierarchical in humans (possibly due to a history of intergroup conflict), and therefore men should lead in a more autocratic manner

(Eagley & Johnson, 1990)

A short evolutionary history of leadership

Leadership derives from a simple coordination problem like group movement, which does not require much intelligence and, hence, can be observed in many animal groups (social insects, birds, mammals)In humans (and perhaps other primates), leadership has been co-opted to solve group cooperation problems, such as punishment of cheaters, and redistribution of resources Advanced cognitive facilities such as theory of mind and language have opened up opportunities to have leadership in large groups (Dunbar, 2004)For much of our evolutionary past, leadership was informal and egalitarian (Boehm, 1999). Leadership has probably only become formalized since the agricultural revolution, which made it possible for leaders to accumulate resources and use them to protect their privileged position, resulting in an increased power difference between leaders and followers (Diamond, 1997).

Some myths about leadershipLeadership is a recent human inventionLeadership is dominanceLeaders are madeLeadership is inevitableLeaders and followers’ goals are always in tune

9

Genetic and Environmental Components of Leadership Role Occupancy

Richard D. Arvey, University of MinnesotaCo-authors: Maria Rotundo, Wendy

Johnson, Zhen Zhang, Matt McGue

“Are Leaders Born or Made?”

Frequent question—long historyGalton (1869) found that individuals who had attained “eminence” in their field was rare, but was more prevalent among family membersProblem: Families share common environment and genesPeople have well developed opinions on this issue

Potential Traits Posited to be Related to Leadership

Cognitive Dimensions: Lord, et al. (1986) meta-analysis of relationship between intelligence and leadership emergence (.50)Personality: Many dimensions suggested (e.g. aggressiveness, cooperativeness, achievement, etc.)

Evidence that personality factors are indeed related to different facets of leadership (Schneider, et al., 1999; Judge, Bono, Illies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Chang & Drasgow, 2001)

Evidence that such traits are also heritable

Heritability—The proportion of variance accounted for by genetic factorsCognitive functioning: Well established finding that the heritabilities are around .50Personality: Jan, Livesley, & Vernon (1996) showed that the “Big Five” factors were also heritable:

Neuroticism—41%Extroversion--53%Openness—61%Agreeableness—41%Conscientiousness—44%

Lohelin (1992) gave similar estimates

Little direct evidence for the heritability of Leadership

Twin Studies-Identical twins share 100% of their genes, fraternal twins share 50% on averageJohnson, Vernon, McCarthy, Molson, Harris, & Jang (1998)

Used Monozygotic (n=183) and Dizygotic (n=64) same sex twin pairsUsed a self-report measure—Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (80-items)

Measure of 9 different concepts: Attributed charisma, idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, etc.

Johnson, et al. Results

While limited evidence for significant heritabilities for the nine scales, a general factor--“Transactional Leadership”—showed a heritability of 48%Another general factor—”Transformational Leadership”—showed a heritability of 59%

10

Our Recent Study

To investigate the role of genetic influences in explaining these traits and leadershipIn addition, to examine the roles played by personality factors in explaining leadership

Sample

Surveys sent out to 1116 malesTotal sample of 650 (response rate of 58%)—426 with complete data

Monozygotic (MZ) pairs: 119 (n=238)Dizygotic (DZ) pairs: 94 (n=188)Predominately white (98%)Mean age = 36.8 (s.d. = 1.54)

Sample description

34.3% working in production, construction, operating, maintenance, material handling jobs26.6% working in professional, paraprofessional, or technical occupationsNo differences observed between twin types on these variable.

Measures

Bio-History Measure of LeadershipList the work-related professional associations in which they served as a leaderPositions at work held that would be considered managerial or supervisory in natureWe standardized and summed these two scores to from a “Work Leadership Scale”

Correlated with other variables according to expectations

Other MeasuresPersonality Measures:

Tellegen’s “Differential Personality Questionnaire”: Social Potency, AchievementA general factor of Positive AffectivityOne factor of Negative Affectivity

AnalysesAssumptions with twin research:

Equal Environments AssumptionAssume additive genetic effectsV = Vg + Vs + VnsVs=variance due to the shared environments experienced by twins reared together in the same familiesVns=variance due to experiences of twins due to exogenous or external factors and errorThe covariance between the MZ twins reflects variance due to shared environment and heredity only (Vg + Vs)The covariance for DZ twins reflects .5 heredity (Vg) + variance due to shared environment (Vs)Therefore, MZ twins should be more similar than DZ twins

11

Equal Environments Assumption

Environmental effects (e.g. income, SES, books, parental presence and behavior, etc.) are about the same for both twin typesSome criticism of this assumption—Idea is that identical twins are treated more similarly and therefore demonstrate more similarity in measured traitsOther research shows some evidence for MZ twins being treated more similarlyBouchard’s review indicates that no impact on either IQ or personalityWe correlated the degree of contact the twins had with each other and leadership similarity and found no relationship

Preliminary Model

Intraclass correlationsMZ DZ

Leadership .37 .00 SP .58 .19 Ach .47 .11

Preliminary evidence for the heritabilities of leadership using these measures

One estimate of heritability is: (IntraclassMZ-IntraclassDZ)*2

Structural equation modeling

Can give estimates of how much variance to apportion to different sources:

Genetic (additive)Shared Environmental factors*Non-shared environmental factors**

*The covariance for MZ twins carries information on both Vg and Vs. So, Vs can be calculated by Vs=intraclassMZ –h2

**Calculated by “what’s left over”; also includes error

Model Estimates (Best Fitting)

Genetics Shared Non-sharedEnvir Envir

Leadership .30 .00 .70SP .54 .00 .46Ach .43 .00 .57Pos Affect .34 .00 .66Neg Affect .49 .00 .51

Results (continued)Intra-class correlations indicate significant heritabilities for the Leadership and other measuresModel testing procedures indicate significant heritabilities for Leadership and other measures. Roughly 30% of the variation in measured leadership is associated with genetic factors.Shared Environment plays minor role

Other Analyses

Measure of personality were correlated against leadership measure: Social Potency (.23) and Achievement (.17)These personality factors also demonstrated significant heritabilitiesPower too low to discern potential mediation effects

12

pSample(with Zhang, Krueger, Avolio)

MZ twins (107 pairs, n = 214)DZ twins (89 pairs, n = 178)Intraclass for MZ = .51, DZ = -.05Heritability estimate of .32Shared Environment factor also non-significant

Two Developmental Factors Assessed

Work Experiences (Training and development, Prior Challenges in jobs, etc.)Family Experiences (Parents, Other family members, Religious Beliefs, etc.)Both significantly related to Leadership variable (.48 and .19) but only Work Experiences significant after partialling out genetic factor

Discussion

Assumptions: Early environments for MZ and DZ are roughly equalProblems with self-report measures—verification neededNo identification of specific gene structuresDidn’t look at more complex models (e.g. interactions, dominance, etc.)Many developmental implications that need exploration

Questions?

Do individuals with different genetic backgrounds experience objectively similar environments differently to produce dramatically different outcomes?Are there specific environmental interventions that we can specify that will contribute to leadership emergence and effectiveness?What role does early environmental experiences play in interaction with genetic structures in influencing leadership emergence and effectiveness?

Evolutionary Theory and Applied Psychology

Robert HoganPresented at the21st Annual SIOP Conference

Dallas, TXApril 2006

Evolutionary Theory and Applied PsychologyRobert Hogan

Why an Evolutionary View of Leadership?Robert B. Kaiser

What Evolution Teaches Us about Leadership Mark Van Vugt

Adrian Furnham, DiscussantUniversity College of London

Genetic Influences on LeadershipRichard D. Arvey

Handouts available at

www.kaplandevries.com