So I looked at a number of cases of groups
being in very demanding circumstances.
I looked at a sample of shipwrecks, for example
20 cases of groups of 19 or more people stranded
for two or more months on isolated shores.
I looked at the Shackleton expedition.
I looked at the Mutiny on the Bounty and the
Pitcairn Islanders.
I've looked at groups of scientists that were
self-isolated in Antarctica for nine months
on their own.
I've looked at all of these and more types
of groups of people and the role that leadership
might play in them, and how natural selection
may have shaped our desire for leadership
and our capacity for leadership.
I've also looked at evidence done by other
scientists on primate groups and the role
of leadership in primate groups, including
experiments in which the leading primates
were experimentally removed from the group
to see how the group functioned after removal
of the leader.
And all of this evidence tends towards a set
of conclusions, one of which is that human
beings are equipped for and prefer a kind
of mild hierarchy.
We don't want leaders that are too powerful
or too autocratic or are too able to impose
punishment on ourselves, and there's a lot
of evidence that in ancient times what human
beings did in those types of circumstances
is that the lower guys on the totem pole kind
of bonded together to kill a person who was
too violent or too aggressive or exercising
too much control over the group.
So this is known as the self-domestication
hypothesis, the idea that we humans made ourselves
more peaceful in part by weeding out those
among us that were too autocratic or too capable
of inflicting harm on those below us.
Furthermore, however, we are not too egalitarian.
We don't want groups in which everyone is
equal in status or equally capable.
And this evidence comes from a number of sources.
One piece of evidence, for instance, looks
at the role of inequality even in forager
groups.
So there's something known as the Gini coefficient,
which varies from 0 to 1.
It's a measure of economic inequality, but
you can also look at other kinds of inequality.
0 is perfect equality everyone, for instance,
has the same amount of money.
And 1 is perfect inequality one person has
all the money, everyone else has nothing.
And in the United States the inequality the
Gini right now is about 0.4.
In Scandinavian countries, it's about 0.2.
Among forager populations, it's about 0.12
approximately.
It's not zero.
So even in forager populations, there is some
natural inequality that's present.
And furthermore, when you look at forager
populations, forger populations have other
ways of communicating hierarchy and status.
So what human beings care about is not just
status, but we also care about prestige.
So we don't just care about individuals who
are powerful.
We care about individuals who have prestige
because they are knowledgeable.
So the argument goes that evolution has shaped
us for two conflicting ways of achieving some
kind of hierarchy.
One has to do with how strong you are in essence,
and one has to do with how much you know.
So we value people who know stuff.
We're interested in leaders who manifest a
kind of mild hierarchy, who know more than
we know, who maintain our ability to work
together by a kind of tamping down on violence
and conflict, but who are not themselves autocratic.
And if you look at well-functioning teams
in the examples that I mentioned earlier,
often you find exactly that kind of leadership.
For example, Shackleton in the Shackleton
expedition and this was about 30 guys that
were stranded for a couple of years during
a failed exploration of Antarctica Shackleton
famously imposed strong leadership.
Like, there was someone who challenged his
leadership, and he tamped down on that.
But he was a kind of benevolent dictator.
He said that all food rations should be shared
equally.
In fact, he surrendered his rations to other
people.
But in one of the shipwrecks that I studied,
the Grafton wreck, which took place on the
South Auckland Islands in 1846, north of Antarctica,
south of New Zealand in the Grafton, five
men were stranded for about two years.
They had extremely capable leadership.
But one of the things that they did is they
agreed to democratically elect their leader,
they agreed to be able to replace their leader
whenever they wanted, and they started a school
in which they affirmatively made efforts to
teach each other things, in which case they
took turns on who was on top.
So one day you're teaching me Norwegian, the
next day I'm teaching you Portuguese.
One day you're teaching me algebra, the next
day I'm teaching you how to make shoes.
And so they had a kind of school in which
they took turns teaching and learning.
And they were explicitly aware of the fact
how these reversals tended to build solidarity
in the group, even though they also had an
acknowledged leader.
So I guess I would sum up by saying that some
of the lessons from all of this evolutionary
and historical material that are relevant
to leadership is that you want some but not
too much hierarchy complete egalitarianism
is not good for groups, nor is too much hierarchy
you want leaders who are able to foster connections,
friendships, and cooperation among their subordinates,
and you want leaders who know things that
their subordinates don't know And you want
leaders who can acquire status not because
of the costs that they can impose on their
subordinates but rather because of the benefits
they can confer to their subordinates.
