The Evolutionary Psychology of Leadership: Theory, Review, and Roadmap

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/274471020
The evolutionary psychology of leadership: Theory, review, and roadmap
Article · January 2013

DOI: 10.1177/2041386613493635
CITATIONS READS
59 3,496
2 authors:
Mark Van Vugt Richard Ronay

VU University Amsterdam and University of Oxford University of Amsterdam Business School
203 PUBLICATIONS 9,157 CITATIONS 27 PUBLICATIONS 750 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Evolution of status and hierarchy View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Richard Ronay on 04 May 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Organizational
Psychology
Article Review
Organizational Psychology Review

2014, Vol. 4(1) 74–95
The evolutionary ª The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
psychology of leadership: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2041386613493635
Theory, review, opr.sagepub.com
and roadmap
Mark van Vugt

VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands; University of Kent, UK and
University of Oxford, UK
Richard Ronay
VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Abstract
Evolutionary leadership theory (ELT) argues that humans possess specialized psychological
mechanisms for solving coordination problems through leadership and followership. We discuss
the evolutionary functions and psychological processes underlying leadership, and how to study
leadership and followership from an integrated evolutionary perspective. An evolutionary
perspective offers novel insights into major barriers to leadership effectiveness in organizations.
These obstacles include (a) mismatches between modern and ancestral environments, (b) evolved
cognitive biases affecting leader selection and decision-making and (c) innate psychological mechan-
isms designed to dominate and exploit other individuals. Understanding the evolved psychological
mechanisms underlying leadership, in terms of adaptive functions, mismatches, and psychological
processes, is critical for the development and integration of leadership theory, research, and
practice.
Keywords
Evolutionary psychology, justice/fairness, leadership, power, followership
Paper received 23 November 2012; revised version accepted 17 May 2013.
Corresponding author:
Mark van Vugt, Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, VU University Amsterdam, van der Boechorsstraat 1,
Amsterdam, 1081 BT, The Netherlands.
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2015

Vugt and Ronay 75
Good leadership matters for the survival and human mind is the product of a process of evo-
prosperity of organizations (Day & Antonakis, lution through natural selection. As such, evolu-
2012). Yet for many organizations it is frustrat- tionary psychology contends that over many
ingly difficult to achieve. Climate surveys rou- thousands of years the human mind has been
tinely show that 60–70% of employees in work shaped in the same way as has the human body, as
organizations report that the most stressful well as the bodies and minds of all organisms.
aspect of their jobs is the interaction with their Evolutionary psychology further proposes that
immediate boss (R. Hogan, 2006). Further, the the human mind contains many specialized psy-
failure rate of managers in corporate America is chological mechanisms that have enabled early
estimated to be as much as 60% (R. Hogan & humans to solve recurrent problems affecting
Kaiser, 2005). Evolutionary psychology offers a their chances of survival and reproduction.
unique perspective into the obstacles that must Adaptations for foraging, self-protection, mating,
be overcome to achieve efective leadership and parenting, collaboration, and conflict resolution
improve organizational welfare and employee are but a handful of these mechanisms (Buss,
satisfaction. These insights are based on a deeper 2005; Kenrick, Li, & Butner, 2003; van Vugt
understanding of how the human mind works, & Kameda, 2012). One could conceive of
and the nature of its evolved functions. these evolved psychological mechanisms as
In this review we forward a new theoretical ‘‘if-then’’ decision rules or psychological
perspective on leadership, evolutionary leader- heuristics that evolved because they provided
ship theory (ELT)—inspired by evolutionary reproductive benefits to individuals adopting
psychology—and discuss the core assumptions these rules. For instance, a decision rule to
underlying this framework. We discuss some of ‘‘follow an individual that one trusts’’ is
the major research tools and methodologies clearly superior to a decision rule to ‘‘follow
available to evolutionarily minded psychologists any one individual’’ (van Vugt, 2006). Such
for testing hypotheses derived from ELT. We use decision rules need not be conscious, and in
this theory to highlight three major barriers for fact much of our behavior is guided by
effective leadership in organizations, (a) mis- highly automated decision rules (Bargh &
matches between modern and ancestral environ- Chartrand, 1999). Furthermore, because bio-
ments, (b) leader decision-making biases, and (c) logical evolution is a slow and gradual pro-
evolved psychological mechanisms for domi- cess, decision rules that provided adaptive
nance. For each obstacle we outline ideas for fur- benefits in past environments may no longer
ther research and intervention. produce adaptive outcomes in environments
if they underwent rapid change. This idea is
referred to as mismatch (van Vugt, Johnson,
The evolutionary psychology of Kaiser, & O’Gorman, 2008) and it has spe-
cial implications for studying leadership.
leadership: Theory and
Inspired by evolutionary psychology we pro-
assumptions pose that leadership and followership evolved in
Evolutionary leadership theory (ELT) studies humans, and in other species too, to solve recur-
leadership from the perspective of evolutionary rent coordination problems. We define leadership
psychology, which applies the principles of in terms of the coordination of the actions of two
evolutionary biology and behavioral ecology or more individuals to accomplish joint goals
to better understand human psychology (Barkow, (Hollander, 1992; van Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser,
Cosmides, & Tooby, 1992; Buss, 2005; Schaller, 2008). The classic coordination problem that
Simpson, & Kenrick, 2006). The core assumption gave rise to the emergence of leadership is group
underlying evolutionary psychology is that the movement. Social animals stay alive by moving

76 Organizational Psychology Review 4(1)
together. But how do group members decide from weak to strong leadership where leaders
where to go and when? Such coordination prob- have formalized, coercive powers is a relatively
lems can be solved easily by some individuals novel phenomenon in human history.
seizing the initiative and others following them.
Such leadership has been observed in a long list
of social species, including honeybees, gup- The evolutionary toolkit
pies, hyenas, dolphins, and baboons (for a To test evolutionary hypotheses about leader-
review see King, Johnson, & van Vugt, 2009). ship we can work with a diversity of methods,
A deceptively simple decision rule such as research tools, and analytical approaches (Buss,
‘‘follow the individual that moves first’’ can 2005; van Vugt & Schaller, 2008). Evolu-
produce something akin to leadership. Fur- tionary psychology is a diverse field, attracting
thermore, if we assume individual differences behavioral scientists with an unusually diverse
in the likelihood to move first this will then range of scholarly backgrounds, including
automatically produce consistent leaders and psychology, evolutionary biology, primatology,
followers (van Vugt, 2006). anthropology, economics, sociology, organiza-
Evolutionary leadership theory proposes that tional and political sciences. As it is impossible
in addition to group movement, leadership also to collect data in ancestral environments to
served additional functions in ancestral human track the evolution of alleged adaptations
groups, including conflict resolution, punish- for leadership and followership, evolutionary
ment, leading in warfare, teaching, and promot- minded researchers must rely on a multitude of
ing social cohesion. As humans started to live in indirect sources of evidence to test their
increasingly large, socially complex societies hypotheses (Schmitt & Pilcher, 2004).
perhaps some 200,000 years ago (Dunbar, 1993), General evolutionary theories can be invoked
conflicts between genetic stra-ngers became to guide attention towards potential psychological
paramount and this required some form of con- adaptations for leadership. Common theories
flict management in which leaders may have include kin selection theory, multilevel selection
taken on the role of punishers (O’Gorman, Hen- theory, parental investment theory, life-history
rich, & van Vugt, 2009). Our closest relatives, the theory, reciprocal altruism theory, and costly sig-
great apes, all practice some form of conflict naling theory (van Vugt & Schaller, 2008). If a
resolution and therefore it is almost certain to be a hypothesized psychological mechanism for lead-
feature of human leadership too (Boehm, 1999; ership flows directly from a theory under the gen-
de Waal, 1996). As population densities started to eral paradigm of evolution, then we can have
rise in human history, intensifying contact some confidence in its existence. For instance, a
between groups, leadership became useful in higher parental investment from females leads
managing intergroup relations too. This paved the to the hypothesis that women are interested in
way for the emergence of war and peace chiefs male partners who signal social dominance. This
which have been documented in various tradi- then leads to the prediction that men in leadership
tional societies such as the Navajo Indians (Spi- positions are deemed more (sexually) attractive
sak, Homan, Grabo, & van Vugt, 2011). Finally, by women and that men will be more likely to
ancestral leaders played a role in hunting and food assume leadership positions in the presence of
sharing practices. Within traditional societies Big women—both predictions have received support
Men leaders often take on such roles (van Vugt, (Jensen-Campbell, Graziano, & West, 1995).
Hogan, et al., 2008). For a large part of human In addition, we can employ mathematical and
evolutionary history, leadership was informal and evolutionary game theory models to study the
based on charisma and personalized influence— evolution of leadership and compliment the
what we regard as weak leadership. The transition insights gleaned from these models with computer

Vugt and Ronay 77
simulations. Evolutionary game theory shows that better on cognitive tasks when in a high status
genes coding for leadership and followership position, whereas low testosterone individuals
traits can stabilize in a population at a relative perform better in low status positions. In addi-
frequency (van Vugt, 2006). Mathematical tion, research suggests that individuals higher
models show that democratic decision-making up in the hierarchy of an organization produce
processes work better than despotic decision less cortisol than those at lower levels of the
making—where one leader makes the decision hierarchy (G. D. Sherman et al., 2012). Beha-
on behalf of the group—when many individuals vioral genetics studies may help to provide an
possess unique information (Conradt & Roper, indication of whether leadership carries a sub-
2003). Simulation data reveal that a few informed stantial heritable component. A high herit-
agents can coordinate the actions of a large group ability suggests that there may be important
of uninformed individuals (Couzin, Krause, individual differences in these traits. Although
Franks, & Levin, 2005), producing something there is unlikely to be a single gene responsible
akin to leadership. for leadership, several studies show a substan-
Experimental methods from behavioral tial heritable component underlying general
economics and social psychology can be used personality and ability differences predicting
to further test evolutionary hypotheses about leadership such as extraversion, conscientious-
leadership. The experimental games method ness, and intelligence (Ilies, Arvey, & Bouch-
reveals basic principles of leadership through ard, 2006).
studying interactions between players in stan- Developmental psychology studies could
dard games such as the prisoner’s dilemma, the examine if cognitive leadership prototypes are
ultimatum game, the dictator game, and the culturally learnt or perhaps innate. A recent study
public good game. For instance, a recent study found that children as young as 5 years old can
suggests that in pure coordination games pro- pick the winners of political elections based only
social personality types are more likely to on information about the faces of the candidates
emerge as leaders than selfish personality types (Antonakis & Dalgas, 2009). Cross-cultural data
(Gillet, Cartwright, & van Vugt, 2011). are also useful. For instance, surveys from societ-
Neuroscience methods may be used to iden- ies around the globe show that some traits—
tify proximate leadership and followership vision, integrity, and trustworthiness—are uni-
mechanisms. Brain imaging studies provide data versally linked to good leadership, whereas other
attesting to the specific physiological structures traits such as generosity and status conscious are
involved in leader decision-making (Adolphs, culture specific (Den Hartog, House, Hanges,
1999). For instance, fMRI research shows that Ruiz-Quintanilla, & Dorfman, 1999).
there is activation in the reward areas of the brain Anthropological and ethnographic databases
when bystanders witness leaders being punished may provide further evidence for the universality
when they behave unfairly (Singer et al., 2006). of leadership mechanisms. This kind of evidence
Transcranial magnetic simulation (TMS) can be is necessary to differentiate between phenomena
used to disrupt activity in specific brain areas that are evolutionary adaptations, and those that
and might therefore be used to reveal which are more superficial, culture-specific manifes-
brain regions are involved in, for instance, suc- tations. Research on existing hunter-gatherer
cessful coordination between actors. societies such as the Kung San or the Hadza can
Hormone data can identify the hormonal tell us more about leadership in environments in
correlates of particular leadership experiences. which humans evolved (Boehm, 1999).
For instance, Josephs, Sellers, Newman, and Finally, cross-species evidence is instrumental
Mehta (2006) showed in an experimental study in testing speculations about the evolutionary his-
that high testosterone individuals perform tory of any alleged adaptation such as leadership.

In elephants, for instance, the oldest individual in modern organizational structures that we live
the herd takes on a leadership position during and work in have also produced many social
group movement to a waterhole that only she can problems such as stress and alienation among
remember (King et al., 2009). In humans too there employees, inequalities in access to wealth and
is an age bias in leadership (Bass, 1990). This health care, crime and overpopulation, and
finding implies that the underlying evolved heur- threats to global environmental sustainability.
istic—‘‘follow a more experienced individual if Evolutionary leadership theory argues that
you are uncertain what to do’’—may be the result this discrepancy between modern and ancestral
of convergent evolution. organizational environments is the result of an
When considered in conjunction, the find- evolutionary mismatch (Hagen & Hammerstein,
ings emerging from these diverse lines of 2006; van Vugt, Johnson, et al., 2008). All
inquiry can produce new insights into the evo- organisms, animals and plants, possess physical
lutionary functions of leadership. Although no and behavioral traits that have been passed down
single finding will allow us to accept or refute a through generations, preserved by natural
hypothesis derived from ELT, together through selection because of their adaptive function in a
a process of comparative analysis they may given environment. However, over time envir-
point to the existence of specialized psycholo- onments change, and so all organisms face the
gical mechanisms underlying leadership and risk of finding themselves perfectly equipped to
followership in humans. deal with challenges that may no longer exist,
and ill-equipped to deal with a host of new chal-
lenges. Traits that were at one time adaptive can
Barriers to improving leadership be ‘‘mismatched’’ to the environment in which
Evolutionary leadership theory produces sev- the organism currently resides. Because evolu-
eral novel insights into obstacles that need to be tion through natural selection is a slow, cumula-
overcome to improve the quality of leadership tive process mismatches are particularly likely if
in modern work organizations. These include environments undergo rapid change.
(a) discrepancies between modern and ancestral Such is the case for humans. The environ-
environments (mismatch), (b) evolved cogni- ment that most of us live in is very different
tive decision-making biases of leaders, and (c) from the environment that our ancestors lived in
evolved psychological mechanisms designed only some 13,000 years ago, before the advent
to dominate and exploit other individuals. In of agriculture. From 2.5 million years ago—
this section we look at each of the obstacles when the first hominids appeared in Africa—
through the lens of ELT, and discuss ideas for until the agricultural revolution humans lived in
future research and application. relatively small nomadic band societies of
around 150 individuals, leading a hunter-
gatherer life style. Further, fossil evidence indi-
Mismatches between modern and
cates that human brain size has remained
ancestral environments remarkably stable for at least the last 200,000
The modern work environment has provided years (Dunbar, 2004; Foley, 1997). This leads
many benefits to humans in recent history. Our some evolutionary psychologists to conclude
better health, greater wealth, and superior that ‘‘our modern skulls house a Stone Age
technology are all products of an intensification mind’’ (Tooby & Cosmides, 1997) with the
and diversification of labor that started several potential for significant mismatches.
millennia ago and which culminated in the One mismatch example is the widespread
creation of large-scale corporate structures after availability of sweet and fatty foods in modern
the Industrial Revolution. At the same time the society. Human bodies evolved to respond to

Vugt and Ronay 79
the taste of fat and sugar by feeling immense fairly good idea of what leadership may have
pleasure. Our ancestors evolved to quickly looked like in the environment in which humans
devour all available sweet or fatty foods because evolved (Boehm, 1999, 2012). Such bands do
such foods were perpetually scarce and per- not have formalized leadership. Instead there are
ishable in an ancestral world. Yet, now that individuals of influence who emerge as leaders
these foods are widely and cheaply available in when they embark on some specialized activity
supermarkets our evolved tendencies to take in such as hunting, making weapons, defending
calories produce all sorts of health problems the group, or preparing a new campsite for
such as obesity, diabetes, and cardio-vascular which they have some specialized expertise and
problems. Needless to say, modern environ- need to recruit other individuals to cooperate.
ments do not only pose mismatches for humans These individuals have no overall authority
but for many other species too. Many of the over the group, rather they exercise influence
environmental changes caused by human inter- in narrowly defined areas of expertise and only
vention such as overfishing, deforestation, and through persuasion are they able to emerge as
climate change create new selective environ- leaders in a temporary group activity. With the
ments which many species are not adapted for next activity leadership selection begins again.
(Griskevicius, Cantu, & van Vugt, 2012). This bottom-up approach selects for leaders
Thus, the discrepancy between modern and with certain characteristics that are universally
ancestral environments potentially creates mis- valued. Universally positive leader characteris-
matches between aspects of human evolved tics—which are also prominent in hunter-
psychology and the challenges of modern gatherer groups—include such qualities as
society. This may well be the underlying cause integrity, persistence, humility, competence,
of a wide range of problems causing failures in decisiveness, and vision (Den Hartog et al.,
leadership and organizational management. 1999; Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; R. Hogan &
Mismatches can pertain to both the selection of Kaiser, 2005; Lee, Ashton, & de Vries, 2005;
leaders and to their functioning and effective- Lord, Foti, & De Vader, 1984; Nicholson,
ness in modern organizations. Consider the 2005). It is noteworthy that so-called ‘‘derailed’’
selection of leadership in modern organizations. executives—bright, ambitious, and talented
This is often a top-down process in which man- managers who nonetheless fail—are often
agers at a lower level are appointed by manag- described as lacking these traits (McCall &
ers at levels higher up in the hierarchy. Or Lombardo, 1983; Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser,
individuals are ‘‘flown in’’ from outside the 2007). Their selection may be due primarily
organization to be appointed as managers. The to their ability to please their superiors. In mod-
selection process for leaders consists of an ern industrial and bureaucratic organizations,
assessment of an individual candidate’s person- however, leaders are accountable to, and often
ality, skills, and competencies based on some appointed by, managers senior to them in the
formalized tests, their CV, and an interview, organizational hierarchy and subordinates have
usually with individuals higher up the hierarchy little power to sanction their bosses. Modern
rather than with the subordinates whom they organizational ethnographers report that most
may lead (Colarelli, 2003). managers implicitly understand that pleasing
This is very much at odds with leadership superiors is more important to career success
emergence in ancestral human groups. Extra- than pleasing subordinates (Sayles, 1993). It is
polating from the anthropological evidence of noteworthy that executives are more likely to
past and present hunter-gather societies such as succeed if subordinates are included in the
the Kung San in Southern Africa, the Hadza in selection process (Colarelli, 2003; Sessa, Kai-
Tanzania, and the Ache in Paraguay we have a ser, Taylor, & Campbell, 1998).

A different mismatch pertains to what we are suggests that the height-leadership bias applies
we looking for in our leaders. Implicit leadership more strongly to male candidates than to female
theories (ILT) argue that humans possess certain candidates (Blaker et al., 2013). There is no
prototypes about what constitutes good leader- obvious reason why height and physical for-
ship based on learning and individuals who midability would still gain individuals a leader-
match these prototypes are more likely to ship advantage in modern organizations. So
emerge as leaders (Lord et al., 1984). Unlike selection on these cues seems to represent a
ILT, evolutionary leadership theory assumes mismatch.
that these leadership prototypes have evolved Another mismatch may provide clues to the
features and that different prototypes are controversial issue of gender biases in leader-
automatically activated in adaptively relevant ship. Because of the physical aspects involved
environments. Yet because the environment in in ancestral leadership, masculine leaders were
which these prototypes evolved looks so differ- the norm. This gender bias remains the case in
ent from the modern world, there remains the most modern organizations. For instance,
potential for a mismatch (van Vugt & Ahuja, although women make up half of the American
2010). Leadership in ancestral humans was often labor force, in 2009 only 12 of the Fortune 500
a physical activity such as in hunting or warfare. companies had a female CEO, a meager 2%. It
Leaders led by example and often from the front, remains to be seen how beneficial the male
and so there would have been selection on cues leadership bias is in a global economy that
of health, stamina, and an imposing physique emphasizes communication skills and net-
(van Vugt, 2006). Although it may have been working (Eagly & Carli, 2003). For instance,
beneficial for groups in the past to endorse a there is evidence that women have better verbal
more physically formidable leader, this might memory, empathy, and social skills than men
not be the case in a modern environment in (van Vugt, 2006). Thus, women should perform
which individuals are often leading from the better as leaders where these skills are impor-
back—e.g., the president in the Oval Office. tant. It has been shown that women in executive
There is some evidence that we are still stuck functions adopt a more transformational lead-
with these biases for ancestral leader proto- ership style than their male counterparts, and
types. For example, height is one of the more are more effective leaders as a result. Yet this
consistent predictors of leadership emergence effect might be due to self-selection forces
in business and politics. Taller individuals are where only the most talented females make it
perceived as higher in status, have higher levels to the top (Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart, &
of educational achievement, higher starting Lalive, 2010; Eagly & Carli, 2003). Neverthe-
salaries, earn more money across their careers, less, this ‘‘think leader, think male bias’’ may
and occupy higher positions in organizations be a vestige of our ancestral past which is hard
(Blaker, Rompa, Dessing, Vriend, Herschberg, to overcome with socialization practices.
& van Vugt, 2013; Judge & Cable, 2004). For instance, when women and men work
Height even predicts the outcome of presiden- together on group tasks, men are quicker to
tial elections where taller candidates get more claim leadership roles even if the women are
votes and are more likely to get reelected better qualified (Mezulis, Abramson, Hyde, &
(Murray & Schmitz, 2011; Stulp, Buunk, Ver- Hankin, 2004). Regardless of their talent, men
hulst, & Pollet, 2013). In terms of psychological are also more likely to assume leadership roles
properties, taller individuals are seen as more when being observed by women perhaps
intelligent, healthier, and socially dominant, because women prefer high status in potential
perhaps explaining why they are seen as more mates (Jensen-Campbell et al., 1995). In inter-
leader-like. A recent experimental study group conflicts both men and women prefer a

Vugt and Ronay 81
male or masculine leader. Recent studies show intimacy between leaders and followers. Yet
that during war people prefer to vote for a even in large bureaucratic organizations we still
leader who has more masculine facial features prefer leaders to adopt an inspirational and per-
such as a strong jawline and narrow eyes (Little, sonalized leadership style, and such leaders
Burriss, Jones, & Roberts, 2007; Spisak et al., tend to be more effective (Bass, 1985; Burns,
2011). This male leadership bias might also 1978).
occur in highly competitive business environ- In past environments humans knew their
ments that our minds may process as situations leaders personally and there was no distinction
resembling wars between groups. Finally, there between people’s private and public lives. As a
is a consistent but subtle bias in the way many consequence, our minds may have difficulties
executives—including those who espouse separating the role of the leader from the person
diversity—evaluate women leaders (Lyons & occupying this role in modern organizations. In
McArthur, 2007). the past, information about people’s personality
The scale and complexity of leadership also and their personal norms, values, and ambitions
provides the potential for a mismatch. The were critical in determining whether they should
small hunter-gatherer band societies of our get the chance to lead the group because this was
ancestral past were essentially extended fami- the only information available. In the modern
lies: Members knew each other, understood world we crave this information but we do not
their interdependencies, and had a genetic often get it. We are quite aware that, for instance,
investment in one another’s fate (Dunbar, middle-level managers have only limited influ-
2004; Foley, 1997). These groups were held ence because they are following orders of senior
together by kinship and norms of fairness and management. Because our psychological
reciprocity, which require that individuals can machinery is not very well adapted to these com-
depend on each other for assistance and will plex multilayer hierarchies, we hold them per-
return in kind (van Vugt & van Lange, 2006). sonally accountable for any decisions that are
There was room for particularly charismatic harmful to our interests (‘‘My boss is a nasty per-
individuals to emerge as leaders. Charismatic son’’). Making trait inferences about leaders is
leadership works in part by influencing fol- called the ‘‘leader attribution error’’ (Hackman
lowers to identify with a collective enterprise & Wageman, 2007) and it might well be another
and internalize group aspirations (Shamir, aspect of our evolved leadership psychology,
House, & Arthur, 1993; van Knippenberg, van resembling a possible mismatch.
Knippenberg, De Cremer, & Hogg, 2004; van Finally, leadership in the ancestral environ-
Vugt & De Cremer, 1999). Charismatic leaders ment was fluid, distributed, and situational. The
change the way followers see themselves— individual most qualified for the task at hand
from self-interested individuals to members of had the greatest influence on collective actions.
a cohesive group—through emphasizing the Rarely would one individual coordinate all
similarity and shared fate among group mem- group activity and make all group decisions.
bers as if they are kin. However, charismatic However, with modern bureaucracies and
leadership is an exception in the modern world formal leadership roles, one individual—the
(Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). In traditional societ- ‘‘leader’’—is responsible for managing all
ies the Big Men leaders are often extremely these functions. Leader versatility—the ability
charismatic (A. W. Johnson & Earle, 2000). to perform multiple, even competing, roles—is
Being inspiring, persuasive, and visionary are increasingly associated with leadership effec-
important attributes of aspiring leaders in small tiveness, but few leaders have the range of skills
face-to-face groups. In modern organizations it needed to perform such a wide array of duties
is extremely hard to get the same levels of (Kaiser, Lindberg, & Craig, 2007; Kaplan &

Kaiser, 2006). This may contribute to the high chain of command so that the size of functional
failure rate of senior managers. Modern societies units approximates that of a hunter-gatherer
attribute enormous importance to leadership and band (anywhere up to 150–200 individuals).
often hold leaders personally responsible for Research is needed to examine if workers
organizational success or failure even if this is are indeed happier and more productive in
not always warranted or fair. Thus, the so- small-scale, egalitarian teams and organiza-
called ‘‘romance of leadership’’ may well be a tions. Some data suggest that decentralized
vestige of our ancestral past (Meindl, Ehrlich, decision-making improves employee morale
& Dukerich, 1985). and organizational commitment, which are in
These are just some examples that suggest turn associated with greater productivity, finan-
that discrepancies between modern and ances- cial results, and customer satisfaction (Harter,
tral conditions can impede leadership selection Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Padilla et al., 2007).
and effectiveness. Other possibilities for a An implication for leadership is that a charis-
mismatch include the sense of powerlessness matic, personalized, and transformational lead-
modern humans feel in large anonymous orga- ership style might be more effective to motivate
nizations (Wenegrat, 1990), the opportunities followers, as this is the kind of leadership style
for toxic leaders to move between organizations that humans naturally crave. A combination of
(Padilla et al., 2007), and the prejudice and survey data, behavioral and neuroscience data
suspicion against out-group leaders (van Vugt might show if exposure to transformational
& De Cremer, 1999). These discrepancies leaders increases satisfaction and activates
between modern and ancestral environments ancient reward areas in the brain.
may interfere with the quest for good leader- Another area for further investigation is the
ship. More research is needed to study potential notion of shared or distributed leadership. In
leadership mismatches and the extent to which ancestral human environments leadership was
they affect organizational functioning. situational, fluid, and shared. The individual most
qualified for the task at hand would exercise the
greatest influence. Yet rarely would one indi-
Implications for research and
vidual coordinate all the group activities or make
practice all the group decisions. With bureaucracy and
The societies of our ancestors were essentially formality reigning in the work place, however,
extended interdependent families in which the fate of an organization ultimately rests in one
everyone knew everyone else and their position pair of hands. Echoing this, the ability to per-
in the group. Social networks with a maximum form multiple, even competing leadership
of around 150 individuals were held together by roles—leader versatility—is an important
informal, consensual, and prestige-based, char- aspect of leadership effectiveness. But few
ismatic leaders, so-called Big Men (A. W. John- modern leaders have the range of skills needed
son & Earle, 2000). This upper limit of 150 is to perform a wide array of duties (Kaplan &
about the maximum number of individuals that Kaiser, 2006). The demands we make on our
can held together informally without coercive leaders to pull off multiple roles partly accounts
control (Dunbar, 1993). The human mind might for the high failure rate of senior managers.
be adapted to organizations of this size. Some Recent studies show that shared leadership
organizations like Toyota, GoreTex, and Virgin can improve employee satisfaction, team pro-
are designed and structured in a way—whether ductivity, and prosocial behavior in the work-
wittingly or not—that resembles hunter- place (Pearce & Conger, 2003; Wassenaar &
gatherer bands. These companies delegate Pearce, 2012). We hypothesize that organiza-
decision-making to managers far down the tions do better if they recognize that expertise is

Vugt and Ronay 83
widely distributed within the organization. ancestral environment, such as integrity, vision,
Organizations that utilize these wisdom-of- and competence (Den Hartog et al., 1999). Yet
crowd effects may indeed do better (Surowiecki, we should question whether such traits as
2004). The advantages of group decision- height, weight, health, facial symmetry, a
making are obvious as it allows organizations masculine appearance and strong physique are
to pool information from many brains. Further- still functional leadership traits today (Blaker
more, it ensures that extreme opinions do not et al., 2013; Spisak et al., 2011). Today’s
gain too much credence, thus preventing group managers and leaders rarely lead the group
think (Janis, 1972). Yet we do not know enough from the front in a battle and so are these qua-
about shared leadership models yet in how they lities still critical for leadership success? It
affect team performance and cohesion. Model- seems that in today’s global village, inter-
ing data in combination with team experiments personal skills and networking are supremely
could show under what conditions shared valuable abilities and there is good evidence
decision making works better than centralized that women armed with better empathic and
decision making. social skills, cope better in these novel envir-
A third area for investigation is leadership onments (Eagly & Carli, 2003). So how could
selection procedures. Modern organizations we bypass these potential ancestral prejudices?
apply a form of artificial leader selection In some countries such as the USA, candidates
whereby senior managers appoint like-minded omit their gender and age from job application
individuals who may be more interested in forms, and we should study whether that pro-
pleasing superiors than in leading their team duces the desired effects. Studies into how
(Nicholson, 2000). This is unlike our ancestral corporate leaders are hired show that validated
environment where leadership emerged psychometric assessment tools are rarely used
bottom-up. We do not know yet what works and this may facilitate mismatch biases (Sessa
better. Some research shows that hiring deci- et al., 1998). Third, does it help to frame
sions for executives are more successful if sub- the organizational context differently? For
ordinates play an active role in the hiring instance, if one frames a business as a highly
process (Padilla et al., 2007). Psychological cooperative and socially responsible, does a
studies suggest that when employees are given more feminine leadership prototype emerge
a voice in the leader selection process they are (Spisak et al., 2011)? Fourth, we could inves-
more satisfied with the outcome regardless of tigate the influence of remuneration packages.
whether their favorite was selected (Tyler & High rewards for top managers might make it
Lind, 1992). This suggests that employee invol- attractive for certain individuals to compete for
vement in leadership recruitment is a good these positions (Padilla et al., 2007). ELT
thing. The highly successful U.S. company hypothesizes that these tend to be males with a
GoreTex, which has an employee turnover of constellation of dark personality traits like
just 5% (Wassenaar & Pearce, 2012), has a Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psycho-
particularly original way of choosing its CEO. pathy (Jonason & Webster, 2010). Hormonal
It throws the post completely open and invites studies could detect if these dark triad person-
employees to nominate candidates with the alities have higher levels of baseline testoster-
assumption that the one attracting the most fol- one—the status hormone—and lower levels of
lowers is the best leader. cortisol—the hormone regulating stress.
Finally we need to find out more about Thus, modern organizational arrangements
whether mismatch produces leader selection might impede good leadership because they are
biases. Many prototypical traits of good lead- mismatched with our evolved followership psy-
ership are just as valid today as they were in our chology. Further research is needed into the

benefits of small-scale organizations, shared lead- sensitive to displays of competence and one such
ership arrangements, and egalitarian practices for display is that of confidence. Beyond confidence
improving leadership and team performance. in one’s actual abilities, overconfidence too
Finally, researchers could study the extent to appears to offer advantages to aspiring leaders,
which ancestral cues of leadership affect manage- resulting in higher social status (Anderson, Brion,
ment selection procedure. Moore, & Kennedy, 2012; Berger, Cohen, &
Zelditch, 1972; Driskell & Mullen, 1990), and
contributing to the selection of overconfident
Biases underlying leaders’
team leaders (Reuben, Rey-Biel, Sapienza, &
selection and decision-making Zingales, 2012), and even CEOs (Goel & Thakor,
Leaders often make decisions on behalf of their 2008). Although there are potential costs associ-
group and any biases in their decision-making ated with overconfidence, there may also be fit-
will have great implications for the organizations ness benefits that arise from self- and group-
that they lead, both positive and negative. There is enhancement. For instance, overconfidence is
a large body of work documenting how decision- adaptive insofar as it motivates people and groups
making biases affect human judgments (e.g., to enter competitions they would not otherwise
Arkes & Blumer, 1985; Epley & Gilovich, contest (D. D. Johnson & Fowler, 2011). Thus,
2006; Langer, 1975; Nickerson, 1998; Nisbett for many thousands of years overconfidence
& Ross, 1980; Staw, 1976; Tversky & Kahne- would have been less costly than an accurate
man, 1974; Wason, 1960). The question of why appraisal of one’s competence.
such cognitive biases should exist is one that has ELT suggests however that within contem-
been explored by evolutionary psychologists porary organizations the cost to benefit ratio
through the lens of error management theory associated with overconfidence in leadership
(EMT; Haselton & Buss, 2000; Haselton & Net- selection is such that modern leaders are likely to
tle, 2006). The crux of EMT is that any cognitive be particularly prone to this self-evaluative bias.
mechanism can risk the possibility of two types of Within ancestral environments, the costs associ-
errors—a false positive (assuming a false belief), ated with falsely attributing confidence to com-
and false negative (failing to assume a belief that petence (i.e., overconfidence) would have been
is true). Critical to the theory is that the two types kept in check. Overconfidence in leadership
of errors may not always be equivalent in terms of would have been a regulated problem, as indi-
their costs. For instance, falsely recognizing a viduals could easily cease following overconfi-
stick to be a snake may produce a moment of dent leaders who provided more harm than
unpleasant anxiety, but failing to recognize a benefit to groups (Boehm, 1999). Thus, for
snake when one is actually present can have far ancestral groups, the opportunity cost of failing
more costly and long-lasting consequences. Thus, to assume competence from displays of confi-
humans have evolved to make more errors of the dence would have been greater than the costs
former variety than the latter. We suggest that this incurred by providing aspiring leaders with suf-
core principle of EMT has important implications ficient latitude to test their ostensible skills and
both for who is being selected into leadership abilities. However, as modern business environ-
positions and the types of decision-making biases ments are essentially dominance hierarchies, in
that leaders may be especially prone to. which high-ranking individuals can unilaterally
Both historically and today one of the most influence organizational deci-sion-making, lead-
critical problems faced by groups is how to best ership overconfidence is today less effectively
assess whether aspiring leaders possess the observed and regulated from the bottom up.
talents and skills necessary to lead the group If overconfident individuals are indeed more
towards their goals. As such, people are highly likely to be selected for positions of leadership, it

Vugt and Ronay 85
is worth considering what other biases may be These are various examples of evolved
expected to co-occur with an elevated perception decision-making biases that may impede effec-
of one’s abilities. ELT suggests that leaders may tive leadership in modern organizations. More
be selected on the basis of the very qualities that research is needed to examine the impact of
ultimately threaten their capacity for effective these biases on leader decision making and how
leadership. These qualities include a number of to avoid them.
traits that might emerge from overconfidence,
such as lack of self-awareness, inflated self-
evaluations, defensiveness in the face of error,
Implications for research and practice
and failure to learn from experience (J. Hogan, Testing the possible relationship between
Hogan, & Kaiser, 2010). Such qualities might all overconfidence, leadership selection, and
be functional in maintaining one’s positive public decision-making biases might be achieved with
image and increasing the chances of promotion to a three-prong strategy. Firstly, future research
a leadership role, but they may also make leaders should seek to show that individual differences
more prone to a number of decision-making in overconfidence do indeed increase the
biases including hindsight biases, illusions of chances of selection to leadership positions
control, confirmation biases, anchoring and within organizational settings. This could be
adjustment biases, and escalating commitment. achieved by assessing the overconfidence of
Leaders may be particularly prone to these biases those in more senior management roles and
as they likely stem from the same self- comparing it to the overconfidence of those
enhancement tendencies that promote overconfi- they lead. Alternatively, future research might
dence (von Hippel & Trivers, 2011) and in turn capture trait-level overconfidence of individu-
increase one’s chances for leadership selection. als as they pass through recruitment centers and
Consider how overconfidence is likely to use this as a predictor of selection and promo-
affect anchoring and adjustment. Following tion over time.
an initial estimate, adjustment can occur in Second, experimental work could seek to
response to new data as it comes to hand, but test the proposed positive relationship between
such adjustments are typically insufficient, with overconfidence and increased errors in judg-
final decisions being ‘‘anchored’’ to initial ment and decision making on biases that are
values (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). When related to the elevation of one’s personal sense
people are overconfident in their initial esti- of self (e.g., escalation of commitment). If this
mates they may be more subject to anchoring relationship were found to disassociate from
biases. Leadership overconfidence might also more general decision-making biases (e.g.,
intensify the dangers of escalating commit- base-rate neglect) it would provide evidence
ment, another adaptive decision-making bias. of an underlying mechanism that may well
Once a significant amount of time and money drive both the chances of leadership selection
is committed to a particular project, the likeli- and the chances of faulty decision making.
hood of changing course usually decreases Third, if overconfidence is indeed related to
(Staw, 1976). When people receive feedback a general need to self-enhance, then meeting
that a planned project is failing they often that self-enhancement goal should serve to
allocate more money and resources to the attenuate overconfidence. Leader overconfi-
project than if they receive positive feedback dence might then be overcome through self-
(Staw, 1981). Overconfident leaders may be affirmation processes (D. K. Sherman & Cohen,
especially vulnerable to this bias as they may 2006; Steele, 1988). Self-affirmation involves
overestimate the chances of success despite reminding people of their self-worth, making
the contrary evidence. them less motivated to justify their decisions

and defend their position (Correll, Spencer, & genetic relatives all live in groups characterized
Zanna, 2004; D. K. Sherman et al., 2009). by dominance and power hierarchies. It is not
Self-affirmation procedures have been found surprising that modern humans retain the ves-
to reduce cognitive biases and improve decision tiges of these dominance hierarchies.
making (Sivanathan, Molden, Galinsky, & Ku, Yet, humans have taken a somewhat differ-
2008). Leaders who find themselves at the helm ent evolutionary trajectory from other primates
by virtue of their overconfidence are inevitably by going out to live on the savannah in which
going to encounter situations in which they the best strategy to survive was to cooperate
are overstretched. Improving their self-worth with each other in large groups (Dunbar, 2004;
temporarily through a self-affirmation mani- King et al., 2009). To be able to live and
pulation might prevent them to sticking with function in highly cooperative groups requires
a course of action that might damage the mechanisms and procedures for coordinating
organization. social activities, sharing resources, keeping
Thus, evolved cognitive biases such as groups together, and leveraging the benefits of
overconfidence and anchoring effects might participatory decision-making (van Vugt &
impede leadership in modern organizations. Kameda, 2012). This phase of evolution caused
Further research is needed into the effects of attenuation of the traditional dominance hierar-
these biases on leader decision making and how chy, replacing it with a decision-making hierar-
they can be avoided or suppressed. chy benefiting the entire group rather than a few
powerful individuals (van Vugt, Hogan, et al.,
2008).
Psychological adaptations for
Dominance was thus replaced by leader-
dominance ship, whereby individuals voluntarily coordi-
A third barrier to effective leadership, accord- nated their actions and goals with people they
ing to ELT, stems from the competition inher- believed could help them achieve group goals.
ent to the process of evolution via natural In return, individual leaders competed with
selection. An individual’s reproductive success each other to attract followers but this com-
is always relative: How well does an individual petition was based more on prestige and
with a particular trait do compared to other respect than on dominance and coercion. This
individuals with alternative traits? Because move away from dominance to prestige-based
natural selection operates on variation between leadership was a pivotal step in human evolu-
individuals, one person’s gain in reproductive tion, accounting for the emergence of egalitar-
success is often another person’s loss. An ian hunter-gatherer societies with Big Men
implication is that humans have evolved psy- leaders. The anthropologist Mervyn Meggitt
chological mechanisms designed to dominate (1977) describes a decision-making process
and exploit others, ascend social hierarchies, in the Mae Enga, a tribe in Papua New Guinea:
and prevent rivals from achieving dominance. (pp. 77–78)
ELT suggests that leadership encapsulates
two different forms of hierarchies. The first is the The major Big Man then solicits responses from
traditional dominance hierarchy that results the audience. Ideally everyone present has a voice
from competition for scarce resources, where and being among his own clansmen can speak with
the strongest and most determined individual in complete freedom. The task of the Big Man at this
the group, usually a male, prevails and controls stage is to ensure that all have a chance to offer
group resources and directs group activities their opinions and facts in full and to make no
(van Vugt, 2006; Wilson, 1975). Dominance attempt to cut off any but obviously irrelevant
is part of our primate heritage. Our closest speeches. (pp. 77–78)

Vugt and Ronay 87
Nonetheless, dominance is still part of our Second, leaders can consolidate their power
ancient primate heritage and there is plenty of base through providing public goods gener-
evidence from traditional and modern societies ously to followers. In leadership competitions,
that leaders will coerce followers if they believe individuals may be inclined to engage in con-
they can get away with it (Betzig, 1993; Padilla spicuous wasteful behaviors to impress rivals
et al., 2007). To get your way as a leader it is and potential followers, for example, by pro-
much easier to dominate than to convince mising tax deductions for the rich or giving out
people to follow you. This makes the leader– food vouchers. This process is called competi-
follower relationship fundamentally ambiva- tive altruism and it is a common ritual in tra-
lent, for two different reasons (Hollander, 1992). ditional societies where Big Men compete for
First, many people with leadership aspirations status for example though organizing large
do not become leaders (R. Hogan, 2006). feasts (Hardy & van Vugt, 2006). Similarly,
Accession to leadership is itself a Darwinian some business leaders generously hand out
process; through a series of events influenced bonuses and organize conspicuous company
by circumstances and luck one person prevails. events to please their employees. However, it is
The losers join the ranks of the followers and a short-term strategy to curry favors and it may
can scheme against the leader to gain power in ultimately undermine the efficiency of an
the future. Second, when they get into power organization.
leaders can bully their own group for personal Third, leaders can strengthen their position
gain. through winning an intergroup competition.
There are various mechanisms that enable Legendary warlords like Alexander the Great,
leaders to increase or consolidate their power Genghis Khan, and Napoleon were military
that are deeply rooted in our evolutionary his- geniuses who increased their power base
tory. Unfortunately, these mechanisms some- through invading their neighbor’s territories.
times undermine effective leadership in Dictators fed on wars and other external threats
organizations. First, individuals can achieve that justified their existence—swift military
power through corruption, bribery, or nepotism. action requires a central command-and-control
For instance, when leaders distribute resources structure. Half of the 20th-century rulers
between themselves and followers they tend to engaged in battles at some point in their reign
keep more for themselves (De Cremer & van (van Vugt, Hogan, et al., 2008). Experimental
Dijk, 2005). It makes good sense from an social psychological research suggests that
evolutionary perspective to benefit either one- when a democratic leader feels his power posi-
self or individuals to which a person is closely tion is being threatened, they are more likely to
(genetically) aligned—this is referred to as kin start a conflict with another group than when
selection—and nepotism is a common strategy their position is secure (Padilla et al., 2007).
in both humans (Gandossy & Sonnenfeld, The same might apply to business leaders.
2004) and chimpanzees (de Waal, 1982). Some When they feel their power position is unstable,
political leaders in history turned their rule into they might be more prone to start a price war to
a hereditary position to directly benefit their deflect attention but this tactic might have dire
offspring (Betzig, 1993; Diamond, 1997; A. W. consequences for the organization.
Johnson & Earle, 2000). This evolutionary Fourth, leaders can dominate groups by
strategy is also seen in family businesses that controlling the flow of information within an
recruit their prospective leaders from a very organization. Throughout history, leaders have
small pool of candidates, usually sons or sons- tried to control the free press, fearing criticism
in-laws, making them more prone to leadership and unrest. Leaders can shut down the media
failure (Nicholson, 2005). completely or they can turn it into a propaganda

machine for their regime. The former Italian highly asymmetric pay-offs between leaders
Prime Minister Berlusconi owned nearly half of and followers in many modern organizations
Italy’s media, including national television may stimulate a kind of leadership that fol-
channels, radio stations, newspapers, and lowers naturally resist and that may impede
magazines. These outlets carefully managed organizational welfare.
Berlusconi’s public image and shielded him The propensity of leaders to use exploitative
from criticism. The problem, of course, is that strategies might be augmented by the selection
when leaders are protected from criticism they process of leaders and managers in organiza-
might make the wrong decisions and sub- tions. When the privileges associated with
ordinates who cannot express their criticism get leadership positions are substantial and there is
alienated from the organization. intense competition for a scarce number of
Finally, leaders might decide to get rid of positions, this might select for the wrong kinds
rivals in order to consolidate power. The Afri- of leaders (Padilla et al., 2007). Power might be
can dictator Idi Amin who came to power after particularly appealing for individuals with
a military coup in Uganda decided to extermi- selfish personalities because they can use this
nate his political rivals and many of the people position to promote their evolutionary interests.
who supported them. He is estimated to have The dark triad leaders are an example—leaders
killed 300,000 people during his 8-year reign. who score high on narcissism, Machiavellian-
His victims included cabinet ministers, judicial ism, and psychopathy. This triumvirate makes
figures, bankers, intellectuals, and a former them self-centered, status-obsessive, emotion-
prime minister. Although this is an extreme ally cold, and aggressive. Unfortunately, part
example, getting rid of highly talented people of their talent lies in image management. Out-
in an organization because they are perceived ward they appear normal and even charming,
as a threat may be attractive to leaders to yet they have difficulty empathizing with oth-
strengthen their power base but it does little to ers. According to psychologists Babiak and
serve the interest of the organization. Hare (2009) such personality types are overre-
There are additional costs to dominance for presented in top leadership positions in
organizations in terms of what power differ- business.
ences do psychologically. In ancestral envir- Finally, the competitive selection process of
onments, leaders were kept in check largely leaders in large corporations might select for
because there were only minimal status and individuals, usually males, with high levels of
wealth differences between leaders and fol- baseline testosterone. According to research,
lowers (Boehm, 1999; Nicholson, 2000). Yet in high testosterone individuals thrive in high
modern businesses average salaries for CEOs power positions (Josephs et al., 2006). Yet as
are over 100 times the average worker’s salary leaders these individuals have difficulties
(van Vugt, Hogan, et al., 2008). Social psy- empathizing with others, which undermines
chological experiments show that giving their effectiveness (Ronay & Carney, 2013).
someone power increases power abuse (Kipnis, Furthermore, when high testosterone individu-
1972). Power also threatens leader–follower als feel their position is being undermined, they
relations by decreasing the ability to empathize counter with aggression (Ronay & Galinsky,
with subordinates (Galinsky, Magee, Inesi, & 2011; van Vugt, Johnson, et al., 2008).
Gruenfeld, 2006) and increasing the use of These examples suggest that human adap-
stereotypes in the appraisal of subordinates tations to dominate may stand in the way of
(Fiske & Dépret, 1996). Finally, inequality in effective leadership. Our evolved tendencies to
resources undermines the cohesion and the dominate, which we inherited from primate
solidarity of teams and organizations. Thus, ancestors, might make us prone to corruption,

Vugt and Ronay 89
power abuse, aggression, and conflict when we are effective in decreasing power relations in
find ourselves in leadership positions. organizations.
In traditional hunter-gatherer societies indi-
viduals develop prestige and authority based on
the contributions they make to the welfare of the
Implications for research and practice group (Henrich & Gil-White, 2001). Is that true in
Given that natural selection has fashioned pow- modern work organizations? Behavioral experi-
erful mechanisms that drive humans to seek ments show that individuals who make higher
dominance it seems exceedingly difficult to sup- team contributions are more often chosen as
press dominance tendencies within organizations, group leaders (Hardy & van Vugt, 2006). It would
and foster effective leader–follower relations. be interesting to study if employees who display
One strategy that has been proposed for suppres- organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) in
sing dominance is the leveling of social hier- the workplace have a higher status within their
archies, such that inequality in power and access organization. In general, it would be interesting
to resources is mitigated. Traditional hunter- to see if individual managers scoring high on
gatherer societies are fiercely egalitarian and they either dominance or prestige (Henrich & Gil-
have various ‘‘leveling’’ mechanisms in place to White, 2001) lead their employees in different
avoid being exploited and bullied by leaders ways. Our research shows that prestigious leaders
(Boehm, 1999, 2012). Examples are gossip and are mimicked more by followers, suggesting that
ridicule, criticism, desertion, and exclusion. It people want to affiliate with them more.
would be interesting to see if such mechanisms are Research on nepotism and corruption is also
available in modern organizations, and how their important. Humans have evolved to favor kin
presence or absence affects good leadership. over nonkin, which encourages them, con-
Should subordinates be forced to stick with a sciously or subconsciously, to favor relatives over
leader or manager that they do not want to work genetic strangers. This is an obvious problem for
for? In a paradoxical way, ELT suggests that large modern businesses in which genetic stran-
encouraging criticism, dissent, ridicule, dis- gers must work closely together. In family busi-
obedience, and exit options among employees nesses the practice of nepotism could lead to
is a recipe for healthy leadership and organi- corruption and a waste of leadership talent. On the
zational outcomes. other hand: they are extremely successful
Organizational and management studies because there are high levels of cooperation and
could find out if these leveling mechanisms are trust. Around 90% of businesses in the USA are
common in organizations, and whether their small family-owned concerns. It would be inter-
absence undermines effective leadership. Social esting to study small family businesses from an
psychology experiments could investigate if evolutionary perspective (Nicholson, 2008).
gossip and ridicule tend to be focused on indi- Taken together, evolved psychological me-
viduals in high status positions and if they chanisms for dominance might undermine
undermine authoritarian leadership. Further- effective leadership. Anthropological studies
more, ELT predicts that when exit options are suggest that traditional small-scale societies have
unavailable leadership styles tend to be more leveling mechanisms in place to suppress domi-
authoritarian. Van Vugt, Jepson, Hart, and De nance (van Vugt & Ahuja, 2010). We do not know
Cremer (2004) found that the attrition rates in enough about how such leveling mechanisms
groups led by authoritarian leaders were four operate psychologically, and whether they are
times greater than in democratically led groups. effective in controlling leaders. More studies are
Finally, archive and case studies (e.g., ENRON) also needed to determine the extent to which
could find out if whistle-blowing mechanisms workers displaying OCBs receive more status and

prestige in their organization. Finally, family- such as the benefits of climbing up the hierarchy
operated businesses seem to provide an ideal test versus the costs of more responsibility and work.
case to study evolutionary hypotheses about kin Humans have conquered many of the hostile
selection and cooperation (Nicholson, 2008). forces of nature by creating large cooperative
organizations consisting of leaders and followers
(van Vugt, 2006). A deeper understanding of the
Conclusions evolved psychological mechanisms underlying
Inspired by evolutionary psychology thinking, leadership and followership may provide us with
evolutionary leadership theory (ELT) proposes the knowledge to select the right leaders and
that leadership evolved to solve important design more effective organizations. Through
coordination problems among group living applying insights from evolutionary psychology,
organisms. Hence, leadership is abundant in the and evolutionary leadership theory in particular,
social animal world, from ants to baboons and we may be able to better understand leadership
from honeybees to humans. ELT generates a and fulfill the need for effective leadership.
wide range of research methods to test hypot-
heses. ELT also yields insights into some of the
major obstacles to achieving effective leadership References
in organizations—mismatches between modern Adolps, R. (1999). Social cognition and the human
and ancestral conditions, decision-making biases brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 469–479.
that might be especially pronounced among Anderson, C., Brion, S., Moore, D. A., & Kennedy, J.
modern leaders, and evolved mechanisms to A. (2012). A status-enhancement account of over-
dominate and exploit. Given these circumstances confidence. Journal of Personality and Social
and constraints, improving leadership will not be Psychology, 103, 718–735.
easy or simple. Knowledge of evolutionary psy- Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive,
chology is important for studying these obsta- R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review
cles, and ultimately, for overcoming them. and recommendations. Leadership Quarterly,
In terms of limitations, this article has only 21, 1086–1120.
briefly touched on many of the complexities of Antonakis, J., & Dalgas, O. (2009). Predicting elec-
leadership, such as the finding that there are tions: Child’s play! Science, 323, 1183.
individual differences in leadership (Judge, Col- Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology
bert, & Ilies, 2002), that leadership is partly heri- of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and
table (Ilies et al., 2006; Judge et al., 2004), and that Human Decision Processes, 35, 124–140.
cultures, societies, and organizations differ in Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2009). Snakes in suits.
what they regard as good leadership (Den Hartog New York, NY: Harper
et al., 1999; Hofstede, 1980; van Der Vliert, Bargh, J., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable
2006). A full evolutionary theory of leadership automaticity of being. American Psychologist,
will have to explain such individual and cross- 54, 462–479.
cultural differences. A more complete theory must Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). The
also explain why leadership styles differ between adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the
men and women, and between the same individu- generation of culture. New York, NY: Oxford
als at different stages of life as they confront pre- University Press.
dictably different adaptive problems such as Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance
finding a partner and parenting (Buss, 2005). beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Future work could profitably also include an Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transfor-
account of the evolutionary psychology of trade- mational leadership: Learning to share the vision.
offs inherent in achieving leadership positions Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19–31.

Vugt and Ronay 91
Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1972). Culture-specific and cross-culturally generalizable
Status characteristics and social interaction. implicit leadership theories: A longitudinal
American Sociological Review, 37, 1–55. investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 219–256.
Betzig, L. (1993). Sex, succession, and stratification De Waal, F. B. M. (1982). Chimpanzee politics:
in the first six civilizations: How powerful men Power and sex among apes. New York, NY:
reproduced, passed power on to their sons, and Harper & Row.
used power to defend their wealth, women, and De Waal, F. B. M. (1996). Good natured: The origins
children. In L. Ellis (Ed.), Social stratification of right and wrong in human and other animals.
and socioeconomic inequality (Vol. 1, pp. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37–74). Westport, CT: Praeger. Diamond, J. (1997). Guns, germs and steel. London,
Blaker, N. M., Rompa, I., Dessing, I. H., Vriend, A. F., UK: Vintage.
Herschberg, C., & van Vugt, M. (2013). The Driskell, J. E., & Mullen, B. (1990). Status, expecta-
height leadership advantage in men and women: tions, and behavior: A meta- analytic review and
Testing some evolutionary psychology predic- test of the theory. Personality and Social Psy-
tions. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, chology Bulletin, 16, 541–553.
16, 17–27. Dunbar, R. I. M. (1993). Coevolution of neocortex
Boehm, C. (1999). Hierarchy in the forest. London, size, group size and language in humans. Beha-
UK: Harvard University Press. vioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 681–735.
Boehm, C. (2012). Moral origins: The evolution of Dunbar, R. I. M. (2004). Grooming, gossip, and the evo-
virtue, altruism, and shame. New York, NY: lution of language. London, UK: Faber & Faber.
Basic Books. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female lead-
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: ership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence.
Harper & Row. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 807–834.
Buss, D. M. (2005). Handbook of evolutionary psy- Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leader-
chology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. ship theories in applied settings: Factor structure,
Colarelli, S. (2003). No best way: An evolutionary generalizability and stability over time. Journal
perspective on human resource management. of Applied Psychology, 89, 293–310.
Greenwich, CT: Praeger. Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2006). The anchoring-
Conradt, L., & Roper, T. J. (2003). Group decision- and-adjustment heuristic why the adjustments
making in animals. Nature, 421, 155–158. are insufficient. Psychological Science, 17,
Correll, J., Spencer, S. J., & Zanna, M. P. (2004). 311–318.
An affirmed self and an open mind: Self- Fiske, S. T., & Dépret, E. (1996). Control, interdepen-
affirmation and sensitivity to argument strength. dence, and power: Understanding social cognition
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, in its social context. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone
350–356. (Eds.), European review of social psychology
Couzin, I. D., Krause, J., Franks, N. R., & Levin, S. A. (Vol. 7, pp. 31–61). New York, NY: Wiley.
(2005). Effective leadership and decision making Foley, R. A. (1997). The adaptive legacy of human
in animal groups on the move. Nature, 433, evolution: A search for the environment of evolu-
513–516. tionary adaptedness. Evolutionary Anthropology,
Day, D. V., & Antonakis, J. (2012). The nature of 4, 194–203.
leadership. London, UK: Sage. Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruen-
De Cremer, D., & van Dijk, E. (2005). When and feld, D. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not
why leaders put themselves first. European Jour- taken. Psychological Science, 17, 1068–1074.
nal of Social Psychology, 35, 553–563. Gandossy, R., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (2004). Leader-
Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz- ship and governance from the inside out. London,
Quintanilla, S. A., & Dorfman, P. W. (1999). UK: Wiley.

Gillet, J., Cartwright, E., & van Vugt, M. (2011). Association Handbook of Industrial and Organi-
Selfish or servant leadership: Evidence for lead- zational Psychology, 3, 555–575.
ership personalities in coordination games. Per- Hogan, R. (2006). Personality and the fate of organi-
sonality and Individual Differences, 51, 231–236. zations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goel, A. M., & Thakor, A. V. (2008). Overconfi- Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. (2005). What we know
dence, CEO selection, and corporate governance. about leadership. Review of General Psychology,
The Journal of Finance, 63, 2737–2784. 9, 169–180.
Griskevicius, V., Cantu, S. M., & van Vugt, M. Hollander, E. P. (1992). The essential interdepen-
(2012). The evolutionary bases for sustainable dence of leadership and followership. Current
behavior: Implications for marketing, policy, and Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 71–75.
social entrepreneurship. Journal of Public Policy Ilies, R., Arvey, R. D., & Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (2006).
and Marketing, 31, 115–128. Darwinism, behavioral genetics, and organizational
Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2007). Asking the behavior: A review and agenda for future research.
right questions about leadership. American Psy- Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 121–141.
chologist, 62, 43–47. Janis, I. (1972) Victims of groupthink. Boston, MA:
Hagen, E. H., & Hammerstein, P. (2006). Game the- Houghton-Mifflin.
ory and human evolution: A critique of some Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Graziano, W. G., & West, S.
recent interpretations of experimental games. G. (1995). Dominance, prosocial orientation, and
Theoretical Population Biology, 69, 339–348. female preferences: Do nice guys really finish
Hardy, C., & van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice guys finish last? Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Per- ogy, 68, 427–440.
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, Johnson, A. W., & Earle, T. (2000). The evolution of
1402–1413. human societies. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer-
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). sity Press.
Business-unit-level relationship between employee Johnson, D. D., & Fowler, J. H. (2011). The evolu-
satisfaction, employee engagement, and business tion of overconfidence. Nature, 477, 317–320.
outcomes: A meta- analysis. Journal of Applied Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty
Psychology, 87, 268–279. dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psy-
Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error man- chological Assessment, 22, 420–432.
agement theory: A new perspective on biases in Josephs, R. A., Sellers, J. G., Newman, M. L., &
cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality Mehta, P. H. (2006). The mismatch effect: When
and Social Psychology, 78, 81. testosterone and status are at odds. Journal of
Haselton, M. G., & Nettle, D. (2006). The paranoid Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 999–
optimist: An integrative evolutionary model of 1013.
cognitive biases. Personality and Social Psychol- Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (2004). The effect of
ogy Review, 10, 47–66. physical height on workplace success and
Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution income: Preliminary test of a theoretical model.
of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 428–441.
mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural Judge, T. A., Colbert, A. E., & Ilies, R. (2004). Intel-
transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, ligence and leadership: A quantitative review and
22, 165–196. test of theoretical propositions. Journal of
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: Inter- Applied Psychology, 89, 542–552.
national differences in work-related values. Bev- Kaiser, R. B., Lindberg, J. T., & Craig, S. B. (2007).
erly Hills, CA: Sage. Assessing the flexibility of managers: A compar-
Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2010). Man- ison of methods. International Journal of Selec-
agement derailment. American Psychological tion and Assessment, 16, 40–55.

Vugt and Ronay 93
Kaplan, R. E., & Kaiser, R. B. (2006). The versatile Nicholson, N. (2000). Managing the human animal.
leader: Make the most of your strengths—without London, UK: Texere Publishing.
overdoing it. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. Nicholson, N. (2005). Meeting the Maasai: Messages
Kenrick, D. T., Li, N. P., & Butner, J. (2003). Dynami- for management. Journal of Management Inquiry,
cal evolutionary psychology: Individual decision 14, 255–267.
rules and emergent social norms. Psychological Nicholson, N. (2008). Evolutionary psychology,
Review, 110, 3–28. organizational culture and the family firm. Acad-
King, A. J., Johnson, D. D. P., & van Vugt, M. emy of Management Perspectives, 22, 73–84.
(2009). The origins and evolution of leadership. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubi-
Current Biology, 19, R911–R916. quitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of
Kipnis, D. (1972). Does power corrupt? Journal of General Psychology, 2, 175.
Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 33–41. Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference:
Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment.
Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311–328. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., & de Vries, R. E. (2005). Pre- O’Gorman, R. O., Henrich, J., & van Vugt, M.
dicting workplace delinquency with the HEX- (2009). Constraining free-riding in public goods
ACO and five-factor models of personality games: Designated solitary punishers can sustain
structure. Human Performance, 18, 179–197. human cooperation. Proceedings of Royal Soci-
Little, A. C., Burriss, R. P., Jones, B. C., & Roberts, S. ety-B, 276, 323–329.
C. (2007). Facial appearance affects voting deci- Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The
sions. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 18–27. toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, vulnerable fol-
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). A test lowers, and conducive environments. Leadership
of leadership categorization theory. Organizational Quarterly, 18, 176–194.
Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 343–378. Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leader-
Lyons, D., & McArthur, C. (2007). Gender’s unspo- ship: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership.
ken role in leadership evaluations. Human Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Resource Planning, 30, 24–32. Reuben, E., Rey-Biel, P., Sapienza, P., & Zingales,
McCall, M. W., Jr., & Lombardo, M. M. (1983). Off L. (2012). The emergence of male leadership in
the track: Why and how successful executives get competitive environments. Journal of Economic
derailed. Greensboro, NC: Centre for Creative Behavior & Organization, 83, 111–117.
Leadership. Ronay, R., & Carney, D. R. (2013). Testosterone’s
Meggitt, M. (1977). Blood is their argument. Palo negative relationship with empathic accuracy and
Alto, CA: Mayfield. perceived leadership ability. Social Psychologi-
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. cal and Personality Science, 4, 92–99.
(1985). The romance of leadership. Administra- Ronay, R., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). Lex talionis:
tive Science Quarterly, 30, 78–102. Testosterone and the law of retaliation. Journal
Mezulis, A., Abramson, L., Hyde, J. S., & Hankin, B. of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 702–705.
L. (2004). Is there a universal positivity bias in Sayles, R. (1993). The working leader: The tri-
attributions? A meta-analytic review of individ- umph of high performance over conventional
ual, developmental, and cultural differences in management principles. New York, NY:
the self-serving attributional bias. Psychological McGraw-Hill.
Bulletin, 130, 711–746. Schaller, M., Simpson, J. A., & Kenrick, D. T.
Murray, G. R., & Schmitz, J. D. (2011). Caveman (2006). Evolution and social psychology. New
politics: Evolutionary leadership preferences and York, NY: Psychology Press.
physical stature. Social Science Quarterly, 92, Schmitt, D. P., & Pilcher, J. J. (2004). Evaluating
1215–1235. evidence of psychological adaptation: How do

we know one when we see one? Psychological In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
Science, 15, 643–649. social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261–302). New
Sessa, V. I., Kaiser, R., Taylor, J. K., & Campbell, R. York, NY: Academic Press.
J. (1998). Executive selection: A research report Stulp, G., Buunk, A. P., Verhulst, S., & Pollet, T. V.
on what works and what doesn’t. Greensboro, (2013). Tall claims? Sense and nonsense about
NC: Center for Creative Leadership. the importance of height of US presidents. The
Shamir, B., House, R., & Arthur, M. (1993). The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 159–171.
motivational effects of charismatic leadership: Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. New
A self-concept based theory. Organization Sci- York, NY: Anchor Books.
ence, 4, 577–594. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1997). Evolutionary psy-
Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2006). The psychology: A primer. Retrieved from http://www.ce
chology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory. p.ucsb.edu/primer.html
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement
38, 183–242. under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science,
Sherman, D. K., Cohen, G. L., Nelson, L. D., Nuss- 185, 1124–1131.
baum, A. D., Bunyan, D. P., & Garcia, J. (2009). Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational
Affirmed yet unaware: Exploring the role of aware- model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna
ness in the process of self-affirmation. Journal of (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychol-
Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 745–764. ogy (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). New York, NY: Aca-
Sherman, G. D., Lee, J. J., Cuddy, A. J. C., Renshon, demic Press.
J., Oveis, C., Gross, J. J., & Lerner, S. L. (2012). Van Der Vliert, E. (2006). Autocratic leadership
Leadership is associated with lower levels of around the globe: Do climate and wealth drive
stress. PNAS, 109, 17903–17907. leadership culture? Journal of Cross-Cultural
Singer, T., Seymour, B., O’Doherty, J. P., Stepahn, K. Psychology, 37, 42–59.
E., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2006). Empathic Van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cre-
neural responses are modulated by the perceived mer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leadership, self
fairness of others. Nature, 439, 466–469. and identity: A review and research agenda.
Sivanathan, N., Molden, D. C., Galinsky, A. D., & Leadership Quarterly, 15, 825–856.
Ku, G. (2008). The promise and peril of self- Van Vugt, M. (2006). The evolutionary origins of
affirmation in de-escalation of commitment. leadership and followership. Personality and
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Social Psychology Review, 10, 354–372.
Processes, 107, 1–14. Van Vugt, M. (2012). The nature in leadership: Evolu-
Spisak, B., Homan, A., Grabo, A., & van Vugt, M. tionary, biological and social neuroscience perspec-
(2011). Facing the situation: Testing a biosocial tives. In D. Day & J. Antonakis (Eds.), The nature of
contingency model of leadership in intergroup leadership (pp. 141–178). London, UK: Sage.
relations using masculine and feminine faces. The Van Vugt, M., & Ahuja, A. (2010). Selected: Why
Leadership Quarterly, 23, 273–280. some people lead and others follow, and why it
Staw, B. M. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: A matters. London, UK: Profile.
study of escalating commitment to a chosen Van Vugt, M., & De Cremer, D. (1999). Leadership
course of action. Organizational Behavior and in social dilemmas: The effects of group identifi-
Human Performance, 16, 27–44. cation on collective actions to provide public
Staw, B. M. (1981). The escalation of commitment to goods. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
a course of action. The Academy of Management chology, 76, 587–599.
Review, 6, 577–587. Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. (2008). Leader-
Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self- ship, followership, and evolution: Some lessons
affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. from the past. American Psychologist, 63, 182–196.

Vugt and Ronay 95
Van Vugt, M., Jepson, S. F., Hart, C. M., & De Cre- Honorary Professor at Oxford University and
mer, D. (2004). Autocratic leadership in social the University of Kent, UK. He is the author
dilemmas: A threat to group stability. Journal of of more than 100 scientific articles, books, and
Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 1–13. book chapters in which he applies evolutionary
Van Vugt, M., Johnson, D. D. P., Kaiser, R. B., &
perspectives to understand human social and
O’Gorman, R. (2008). Evolution and the social
organizational behavior. He is interested in
psychology of leadership: The mismatch hypoth-
themes such as leadership, power, status, altru-
esis. In C. Hoyt, D. Forsyth, & A. Goethals (Eds.),
Social psychology and leadership (pp. 267–282). ism, cooperation, and intergroup conflict.
New York, NY: Praeger Perspectives. Insights from his research have been applied
Van Vugt, M., & Kameda, T. (2012). Evolution and to various societal challenges involving ethical
groups. In J. Levine (Ed.), Group processes (pp. leadership and management, financial risk-
297–322). New York, NY: Psychology Press. taking, environmental sustainability, philan-
Van Vugt, M., & Schaller, M. (2008). Evolutionary thropy, warfare, and poverty. Professor van
perspectives on group dynamics: An introduction. Vugt is member of the team that won the pres-
Group Dynamics, 12, 1–6. tigious £1.2 million British Academy grant
Van Vugt, M., & van Lange, P. A. M. (2006). The ‘‘From Lucy to Language: The Archaeology
altruism puzzle: Psychological adaptations for pro-
of the Social Brain.’’ He is author and coauthor
social behaviour. In M. Schaller, D. Kenrick, & J.
of several books including popular science
Simpson (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology
books on leadership and a student text on
(pp. 237–261). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Von Hippel, W., & Trivers, R. (2011). The evolution applying psychology. Mark van Vugt is a for-
and psychology of self-deception. Behavioral and mer Associate Editor at the Journal of Person-
Brain Sciences, 34, 1–16. ality and Social Psychology and consulting
Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate editor of various journals in psychology and
hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Jour- evolution. He is the cofounder of the Nether-
nal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129–140. lands Institute for Management and Evolution-
Wassenaar, C. L., & Pearce, C. L. (2012). The nature ary Psychology (NIMEP).
of shared leadership. In D. Day & J. Antonakis
(Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 363–392).
London, UK: Sage. Richard Ronay is an assistant professor of
Wenegrat, B. (1990). The divine archetype: The Social and Organizational Psychology at VU
sociobiology and psychology of religion. Lexing- University Amsterdam. He received his PhD
ton, MA: Lexington Books. in social psychology from the University of
Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synth- Queensland in Brisbane, Australia before mov-
esis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ing to a postdoctoral research scholarship at
Columbia Business School in New York City.
Author biographies
His research interests include risk taking, nego-
Mark van Vugt is a professor of evolution- tiations, overconfidence, social intelligence,
ary and organizational psychology at the VU power, status, and leadership, and the effect of
University Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and hierarchy on organizational dynamics.

View publication stats

The Evolutionary Psychology of Leadership: Theory, Review, and Roadmap

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Evolutionary Psychology of Leadership: Theory, Review, and Roadmap

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Evolutionary Psychology of Leadership: Theory, Review, and Roadmap

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is evolutionary leadership theory?

What is evolutionary leadership theory?

What are some of the major obstacles to effective leadership according to the theory?

What are some of the major obstacles to effective leadership according to the theory?

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The evolutionary psychology of leadership: Theory, review, and roadmap

Article · January 2013

Mark Van Vugt Richard Ronay

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Evolution of status and hierarchy View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Organizational Psychology Review

Theory, review, opr.sagepub.com

Mark van Vugt

Paper received 23 November 2012; revised version accepted 17 May 2013.

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2015

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2015

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2015

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2015

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2015

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2015

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2015

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2015

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2015

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2015

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2015

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2015

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2015

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2015

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2015

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2015

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2015

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2015

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2015

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2015

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2015

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2015

View publication stats

You might also like