Political Behavior and Biology: Evolutionary Leadership and Followership

Forthcoming: ed. Albert Somit and Steven A. Peterson (2016) Handbook of Biology and Politics (Edward Elgar Press) Political Behavior and Biology: Evolutionary Leadership and Followership By: Ronald F. White, Ph.D. Professor of Philosophy Mount St. Joseph University For centuries, scientists have observed that the species Homo sapiens is a social species; and that we naturally “organize” ourselves into groups based on “leadership and followership.” The myriad “organizations” that we create are at least intended to be functional, and serve purposes within religious, military, political, and business domains. And our association and disassociation with organizations also contributes to both our individual and collective identities. Historians have observed that, all organizations are subject to change over time. Some largescale organizations become small-scale; some small-scale organizations become large-scale; some “survive” for a long time, while others become “extinct.” Some organizations even “give birth” to new ones. Inexplicably, some apparently dysfunctional organizations survive for a long time, while some functional ones lose members and suffer extinction. And some extinct organizations are either revived or transformed into new ones. Most scientific research on organizational leadership has focused on two “domains,” political organizations and business organizations. This essay will focus on the political domain through the lens of Evolutionary Leadership Theory (ELT). There are three main theses that distinguish ELT from other leadership theories. First, leading and following are adaptive behavioral strategies that evolved over time to solve coordination problems among ancestral hunters and gatherers. Second, leadership (and followership) can be abused by self-interested participants. Third, modern organizational structures are often “mismatched” with our natural cognitive (and non-cognitive) instincts that shape our leader-follower behavior. (See: Wikipedia entry, “Evolutionary Leadership Theory”) Discipline-specific research on human behavior (in general) tends to be overly-simplistic, focusing on a few easily identified variables. ELT is unabashedly complex and interdisciplinary. That’s because it involves the causal interaction of individuals and groups at various “levels of analysis.” Research ranges from lower-level analysis (interaction of individual leaders and followers, and their respective brains, neurons, genes, molecules, and atoms); to higher-level analysis (interaction of organizations and their various sub-organizations). (Yammarino & Dansereau, 2011; Lord & Dinh, 2012) The pursuit of biosocial interdisciplinarity, however, is always challenging. (Frodeman, 2012). The scientific disciplines that comprise ELT (Political Science, Leadership Studies, and Evolutionary Biology) employ their own distinctive terminological, theoretical, and methodological perspectives; which often do not transfer very well across disciplines. And, of course, traditional scientific disciplines are “organizations” that are often dominated by leaders and/or powerful followers. Therefore, disagreement, both within and between disciplines will always be problematic. And finally, scientific disciplines (like all other organizations) “evolve” over time, therefore anything that I write about on “leadership and followership” will, eventually be challenged by other researchers. That’s why I will not even attempt to offer a detailed, logically complete, state-of-the-art, account of ELT. If that’s what you are after, check out: Naturally Selected (van Vugt & Ahuja, 2011) and The Nature of Leadership (Day & Antonakis, 2012). Instead, I will outline, in broad terms, some of the most important questions associated with political organizational leadership (in general) and ELT (in particular). I also acknowledge out front that, although there are important contextual variations within and between organizational domains, there may be at least some universal, high-level theories that apply across domains and contexts. Although, there may be some marginal disagreement, most scientists agree that throughout human history, the social function of all theories has been to explain, predict, and/or control phenomena. Therefore, any “complete” theory of political leadership would explain “who leads” (and “who follows”), “how leaders lead” (and “how followers follow”); and, ultimately, “why leaders lead” (and “why followers follow).” Although, most political scientists address that explanatory function, there is an increased expectation that political theories empower political scientists (or others) to predict “who will lead” (and “who will follow”); predict “how they will lead” (and follow) in various contexts; and, perhaps even empower scientists to control “who leads” (and “who follows”) and how leaders lead (and followers follow). In short, political science today must include elements of both pure science (explanation) and applied science (prediction). Scholars disagree as to whether or not it is possible or even desirable for scientists to “control” who leads and/or who follows. Finally, one of the least developed aspects of leadership is “bad leadership.” (Kellerman, 2004) Here, much depends on what one means by “good leaders” and “bad leaders.” Recent scholars distinguish between “Bright Side Leadership Traits,” that are exhibited by all “good leaders” (such as: conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, emotional stability, openness to experience, core self-evaluation, and intelligence); and “Dark Side Leadership Traits” that characterize “bad leaders” (such as: narcissism, histrionic personality, dominance, and Machiavellianism. (Judge & Long, 2012) Sometimes, “good” and “bad” refer to ethical leadership. Thus, some bad leaders are also “immoral,” when they violate moral rules based on the dictates of one (or more) of the three major moral theories: virtue-based theories, duty-based, theories, and consequentialist theories. (Sontag et.al, 2011) Consequentialist political theories argue that “bad” leadership reduces to functional effectiveness and ineffectiveness, and that “ethics” entails the analysis of means and ends. Thus, all “bad leaders” either fail to achieve “good ends” due to the lack of requisite leadership traits, behaviors, skills, and or knowledge; or they possess those attributes but employ them in pursuit of “bad ends:” Hence we have the socalled “Hitler Problem.” (Ciulla, 2012) Similarly, bad followers either fail to follow “good leaders” or willingly follow “bad leaders.” Ultimate and Proximate Leadership Theories By its very nature, ELT requires input from many different disciplines; most notably the biological sciences (evolutionary biology, primatology, neurology, genetics etc.) and social sciences (psychology, sociology, history, political science, etc.). However, biosocial interdisciplinary raises a thorny theoretical question: Under ELT, how do the traditional social sciences relate to the biological sciences? In order to advance biosocial interdisciplinarity, many evolutionary scholars distinguish between two different modes of theoretical explanation: Proximate Leadership Theories and Ultimate Leadership Theories. The proximate-ultimate distinction is central to all evolutionary theories of human behavior. (Scott-Phillips et. al., 2011). Proximate leadership theories address those “who” and “how” questions by identifying the social and biological mechanisms that underlie leadership and followership. Historically, these proximate theories have focused on identifying and describing the specific traits, behaviors, skills, and/or knowledge possessed by individual political leaders and followers. Political Science and Leadership Studies have been dominated by the social sciences, and therefore, focus on the proximate social mechanisms that produce leaders. Thus, political behaviors are treated as learned behaviors, transmitted within and between generations via imitation, teaching, and learning. In contrast, ELT also seeks to identify the proximate biological mechanisms that underlie those traits, behaviors, skills, and/or knowledge of both leaders and followers. Once identified, many biologists “reduce” higher-level mechanisms to lower-level mechanisms. For example, ELT scientists attempt to reduce male political behavior to lower-level material entities such as distinctive male brains, the presence of Y chromosomes and/or testosterone. According to ELT, political leaders and followers within all social species “emerge” out of various natural environmental contexts. ELT scientists agree that the political leadership preferences of followers are largely automatic and non-conscious; often forged on the basis of facial cues of leaders that “signal” health and intelligence. (Spisak et.al., 2014) Thus, based on the presence (or absence) of those “body signals,” ELT scientists can now explain, predict, and (to a certain degree) control who wins most democratic elections, regardless of the so-called campaign issues. However, what’s missing here is the answer to the ultimate “why question;” that is: Why do political followers tend to base their leadership preferences on non-cognitive “body signals,” given the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that, today, ‘tall, dark, and handsome’ male leaders’ are “better leaders? An Ultimate Theory of Leadership attempts to answer those elusive “why questions.” Evolutionary biologists answer all “why questions” in terms of function (or purpose) via Darwinian natural selection. Thus, leader-follower relationships are viewed as biological adaptations that have advanced the long-term (and/or short-term) survival of genes, individuals, and/or groups under various environmental conditions at various times and places. But the distinction between proximate and ultimate theories is not without ambiguity. Much debate focuses on the nature of teleology and/or teleological explanations. (Depew 20015; Auletta, Colage, and Ambrosio 2015 ). Most critics object to the use of the ambiguous term “ultimate.” Scientists who oppose “natural law theory” (natural=good) argue that Darwinian “survival of the fittest” surreptitiously replaced “divine purpose” with “natural purpose.” Other critics ask more basic questions such as: “How proximate is proximate?” and “How ultimate is ultimate?” If proximate theories are subject to multiple levels of analysis, then why must ultimate theories identify one, single (ultimate) function? Why value the ultimate survival of one group over another? This line of reasoning raises some pesky “prescriptive” questions. Suppose the survival of life on earth is (in fact) contingent upon the extinction of the human species? Would the long-term survival of other mammals, other primates, or even all “life on earth” morally justify global human genocide? While the ultimate-proximate distinction is open to scholarly debate, it does offer a promising long-term strategy for the reconciliation of biological and social sciences, and perhaps even serve as the foundation for the emergence of a truly interdisciplinary science of political leadership. So although the ultimate-proximate distinction raises many issues, most biologists agree that a complete understanding of human behavior requires both. (Scott-Phillips, 2011) Domination v. Democracy For Political Science, the primary fact-value disparity consists in the “fact” that, worldwide, the vast majority of political leaders maintain political power via domination (coercive force), while most Political Scientists and Leadership Scholars value democracy (persuasion). Somit and Peterson argued that the consistency of this pattern raises two very troubling questions: “Why are authoritarian governments so common and enduring—and democracies, in painful contrast, so rare and, all too often, so fragile? To this question, many answers have been offered; as their sheer number and variety testifies, none has yet been particularly persuasive. (Somit & Peterson, 1997) ELT seeks to explain the basic “facts,” of political behavior via both proximate and ultimate theories. Proximate Leadership Theories address two kinds of questions: “Who rules?” and “How do they rule?” Over time, the single-minded pursuit of proximate theories by Political Science and Leadership Studies generated a morass of irreconcilably conflicting scientific explanations. Leadership Studies, for example, has also been long plagued by a host of incommensurable leadership theories and conflicting definitions of “key concepts.” (Maturano & Gosling, 2008) Since the 1960s, proposed theories include: Trait Theory (some humans are born with specific biological traits which cause the emergence of leadership (such as: masculinity, intelligence, height, or health); Behavioral Theory (aspiring leaders can be taught specific behaviors, skills, and knowledge necessary for leadership; such as: public oratory and/or military skills); Contingency Theory (questions of “who leads” and “how they lead” are relative to contextual factors; such as: domain, time, and place); Relational Theory (leadership involves complex, two-sided, interactive, relationships within and between individuals and groups of leaders and followers); Skeptical Theory (traditional leadership theories based on questionnaires and surveys is fundamentally flawed); Information-Processing Theory (leaders and followers process information), and Charismatic Theory (followers follow leaders because of the presence of a mysterious personality trait called “charisma” that attracts followers to those charismatic leaders). And, Social Identity Theory (followers tend to follow leaders within organizations that that maintain a common group identity). (Hogg, 2008; van Knippenberg, 2012) All of these proximate theories are supported by scientific evidence, but they (at least) seem to be logically incompatible. In 2006, James MacGregor Burns, one of the founders of the Leadership Studies, bemoaned the fact that Leadership Studies lacked a “General Theory” that might unify those conflicting theories and provide focus for future research. He, therefore, invited 14 scholars to gather together to discuss the possibility of forging a “general theory of leadership.” Conferees agreed that the effort was a failure, but disagreed (in print) over why it failed. (Goethals, 2006) As I noted in a previous publication, one obvious reason for its failure was that Burns did not invite any ELT scientists. (White, 2011) The hallmark of ELT is that its primary research goals include: “who leads and who follows,” “how leaders lead and how followers follow,” and ultimately, “why leaders lead and why followers follow. ELT scholars argue that in order to resolve conflicts between incommensurable proximate theories, political scientists develop Ultimate Leadership Theories that address those “why questions.” Some political scientists argue that authoritarianism is not only a “fact” but also a “value” and that (over the long-run) political dominance, ultimately, brought about positive “social goods,” such as: peace, an optimum distribution of scarce resources, and/or reproductive efficiency. In order to address these “why questions,” proponents of ELT argue that traditional Political Science and Leadership Studies must expand beyond their traditional disciplinary borders and take into account the findings of other outside disciplines, especially those associated with Evolutionary Biology. Biological and Cultural Evolution ELT is distinctive, not only in its incorporation of both proximate and ultimate theories; it also acknowledges both biological evolution and cultural evolution. Darwinian natural selection involves three, complementary mechanisms: (1) Variation in traits between individuals within the same species. (2) Heritability of at least some of these variable traits. And, (3) at least some of these trait variations give individuals an edge in the competition for resources. (Van Vugt, 2012) Darwin also acknowledged a role for “sexual selection” that is, the process by which humans select “mates.” The natural selection and sexual selection of physical traits is fairly straightforward. Ancestral humans first appeared on the African savanna, 2 million years ago, during the early Pleistocene Era. Originally, the physical trait of standing upright was a genetic mutation that “accidentally” appeared among the progeny of those early hominids. On the grassy savanna standing upright (as opposed to “standing on all fours”) offered a competitive advantage to those who possessed that trait, by enabling them to find food more efficiently (and/or identify predators from a distance). Over time, standing upright also became an object of sexual selection, as females (and males) became sexually attracted to reproductive partners who stood upright. Today the vast majority of humans stand upright because that mutation improved the “inclusive fitness” of the species during the Pleistocene Era. Today, however, many of the natural (and sexual) advantages associated with standing upright have been lessened by technological innovations such as wheel chairs, back braces, and by legal mechanisms such as the Americans with Disabilities Act. ELT scholars argue that human behavior also evolves based on natural selection and sexual selection. However, they also observe that, since the Pleistocene Era, leader-follower relationships (along with many other behaviors) have also been shaped by cultural evolution. Dawkins and Wilson both acknowledged that any complete explanation of human behavior involves both biological and cultural evolution. So, if the proximate goal of biology evolution is to reduce behavior to the interaction of genes, then, the proximate goal of social science is to reduce behavior to “memes” (Dawkins, 1976) or “culturgens” (Wilson, 1998). Wilson explained that human behavior is constrained by two “leashes,” which together explain human behavior. First, there is that relatively short “genetic leash” that sets objective limits on the variability and malleability of certain human behaviors. For example, incest avoidance among humans is on a short, genetic leash, and therefore deliberate acts of incest are extremely unlikely to emerge within any cultural environment. The “culturgenic leash,” however, permits much more behavioral variability and sociopolitical malleability. Consequently, leader-follower relationships are neither infinitely variable nor infinitely malleable, because biology sets objective limits on cultural evolution. But what are those limits? Most evolutionary psychologists now agree that psychological traits, behaviors, skills, and knowledge are constrained by a “genetic leash” provided by the human brain, while others still insist that evolutionary biology and cultural evolution are completely independent. Contemporary brain theory suggests that it is not merely a glorified computer that generates rational behavior. Empirical facts indicate that it is a compound organ comprised of individual “modules,” each of which have evolved over millions of years (within and between non-human and human species). These modules are essentially intergenerational solutions to problems that, historically, have interfered with the survival of genes, individual humans, and groups of humans. Given that many of the modules are compound, the brain is, probably, infinitely complex, but not infinitely malleable. Some modules are cognitive mechanisms located in the (more recently evolved) outer brain, or cerebral cortex; while others are non-cognitive mechanisms located in the (less recently evolved) non-cognitive “inner brain.” The so-called “social brain” consists of those cognitive and non-cognitive modules that directly contribute to living together in groups. The modular brain theory is not without its critics. One line of criticism questions Cosmides and Tooby’s original thesis; namely, that all modules are “domain-specific” and that there are no “general-purpose” modules. (Fetzer, 2005). Similarly, we might also question how and why individual modules might serve multiple domains. Nevertheless, ELT argues that leader-follower social organization during the Pleistocene Era was on a short genetic leash, and that the relationship(s) between political leaders and followers was shaped (largely) by non-cognitive mechanisms inherited from other species; especially chimpanzees and bonobos. The Biological Evolution of Cooperation Among all social species, the long-term “inclusive fitness” (of genes, individuals, and groups) is increased by leader-follower “cooperation.” (Spisak et. al 2014) ELT acknowledges that human sociability is a biological adaptation directly associated with a vast collection of modules called the “social brain.” Leader-follower cooperation emerged among humans in order to accomplish a few social goals that improved the overall “inclusive fitness” of the species; that is, complex organized activities that could not be achieved by the actions of solitary individuals. There are many non-human species that exhibit various forms of leader-follower cooperation, including social insects such as ants and bees. However, few evolutionary scholars argue that the study of social insects shed much light on the nature of human cooperation. (DeWaal, 2005) Among non-human primates, the exemplar of cooperation is probably, grooming behavior: “If you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.” ELT argues that political behavior is a more complex instance of that “you scratch my back…” principle. Scholars who study the origins of political organization have long-observed that mutually-beneficial reciprocal relationships among primates (and later humans) require at least a degree of self-sacrifice or altruism. Scientists have identified three foundations for self-sacrifice: kin-altruism (humans are (in fact) most likely to sacrifice their own self-interests for the sake of close genetic relatives), and reciprocal altruism (humans are (in-fact) also likely to sacrifice their own self-interest for the benefit of other humans with whom they have a history of mutuallybeneficial reciprocity). And, altruism based on group identity (humans are (in-fact) most likely to sacrifice their own interests for the sake of individuals with whom they “share” a collective identity. Let’s look at all three. Among ancestral humans, “effective” leader-follower cooperation, most likely, evolved during the Pleistocene Era among bands, clans, and tribes of genetically related individuals. Thus, shared identity was based, primarily, on kin altruism. The purpose of self-sacrificial cooperation between leaders and followers was to bring-about a fairly short list of complex “social goods,” such as: food provision, migration, and defense from external aggression. Historically, the evolution of leader-follower cooperation took place in four stages: Stage 1: Animal Leadership, Stage 2: Band and Tribal Leadership, Stage 3: Chiefs, Kings, and Warlords, and Stage 4: Modern State and Business Leadership. (van Vugt et.al, 2012) The first two stages are often characterized as “apolitical organization” in the sense that cooperation was informal, consensual, and democratic. The second two stages marked the emergence of “political organization” and the rise of formal, rule-based, domination. Henceforth, the challenge for political leadership was how to manufacture consensual followership among strangers. The rise of apolitical leadership was based on biological evolution; and the emergence of political leadership the product of cultural evolution. Apolitical cooperation emerged about 2 million years ago among hominid hunters and gatherers. It was the direct result of the inter-species evolution of our “social brain” Thus, primate-to-hominid evolution consisted in the genetic transition from chimpanzee and/or bonobo species, to hominids from a common ancestor. In contrast, “political cooperation” emerged, 13,000 years ago as the product of cultural evolution; via the hominid-to-modern human evolution. Scientific knowledge of primate-to-human evolution is based on input from many different disciplines; especially primatology and anthropology. The early primatologists identified chimpanzees as “Killer Apes” and argued that political domination evolved via natural selection (and sexual selection) in order to quell “natural,” in-group aggression. Control was exercised via highly centralized “dominance hierarchies” (which are common among many species) ruled by an “alpha male.” Thus, some evolutionary scientists argue that leadership and followership are, essentially, adaptations for dominance and submission. (van Vugt, 2006) For ELT, this raised an obvious question: To what extent can political dominance among humans, today, be attributed to brain modules inherited from chimpanzees? In order to address this comparative question, ELT scholars solicited input from anthropologists who directly and/or indirectly observed the political behavior of hunter-gatherer societies. Direct research on living hunter-gatherer societies is, obviously, limited by the paucity of surviving bands and tribes. Indirect research on hunter-gatherer societies that lived between 2 million to 15,000 years ago is limited by the paucity of remaining artifacts. There is also the question of whether the mere presence of scientific observers of ancestral human (or animal) groups distorts the behavior of their research subjects. And finally, there’s also fact that, the observation of both primates and hunter-gatherer societies often reflect the cultural beliefs of human observers more than the behavior of the bands and tribes. Ryan and Jethra called this widespread anthropomorphic tendency to project contemporary cultural values into the distant past the ‘Flintstonization’ of history. (Ryan and Jethra, 2010). Based on scant evidence, early anthropologists concluded that hominid political behavior closely resembled chimpanzee political behavior; and that both species are ruled by “Demonic Males.” (Wrangham & Peterson, 1996) They also observed that dominant leader-follower political relationships of both chimpanzees and hominids evolved, primarily, in order to control “natural” male, in-group aggression. Political behavior, therefore, was based on leader-follower reciprocity. In exchange for the peacemaking orchestrated by the “Alpha Male” (and his coalition) followers willingly reciprocated by offering leaders increased access to both food and females. Later, with the discovery of the female-dominant bonobo species, primatologists then began to explore the bonobo-hominid connection. The most obvious political characteristic of bonobos is that they form highly-decentralized leader-follower relationships,” and are “ruled” by coalitions of cooperating females and male followers. Moreover, in contrast to chimpanzee communities that exhibit both in-group and out-group aggression, bonobo communities exhibit little (if any) aggression. Therefore, the discovery of that “Peaceful Ape,” that is at least as closely related to Homo sapiens as chimpanzees, raised an intriguing fact-value conflict. If humans are (more or less) equally descended from chimpanzees and bonobos, then why are there still so many centralized patriarchies among humans and so few decentralized matriarchies? ELT argues that, ultimately, the political behavior of chimpanzees, bonobos, and hominids evolved in response to long-term environmental factors, especially the availability of food, which (in turn) affected the presence or absence of male aggression, the relative size of regime, and even the leadership styles that evolved within those species. (Wrangham & Peterson 1996) Recent research suggests that the brain modules that underlie male political dominance are descendent from chimpanzees; and that the modules for political democracy are descendent from bonobos. (Smith 2007, Ryan and Jetha 2010) Therefore, one might argue that under various environmental conditions one set of modules might trump the other. For ELT, this raises the question of whether the environmental factors that shaped hominid human political behavior more closely resembled chimpanzee dominance or bonobo democracy. In sum, ELT initially, took the view that anthropological evidence supported the theory that both chimpanzee and hominid political behavior was based on dominance. However, more recent research now suggests that hunter-gatherers were (in fact) more bonobo-like; that is, less genetically prone to male, in-group and out-group aggression, and more inclined toward peaceful, decentralized, egalitarian democracy. ELT scholars argue that human political behavior on the African savanna was decentralized, contextual, egalitarian, informal, and democratic. Specific leaders naturally “emerged,” primarily, in order to accomplish a few complex social activities associated with food provision, migration, and warfare. If (and when) an acknowledged leader failed to effectively “lead” that particular activity, followers simply replaced him with someone else who possessed the requisite traits, behaviors, skills and/or knowledge. There were no formal rules or elections. Followers simply knew, first-hand, “who ought-to-lead” and “who ought- to-follow” within various contexts. Removal of dysfunctional leaders was easily accomplished via, what van Vugt described as Strategies to Overcome the Powerful (STOPS) such as: gossip, public discussions, satire, disobedience, and assassination. (van Vugt & Ahuja, 2011). But the hallmark of leadership and followership during the Pleistocene Era was that there was no single, all powerful leader or “Big Man” that presided over all of those contextual leaders. Thus, the process of empowering and disempowering leaders was very “bonobo-like;” decentralized, informal, democratic, and apolitical. Here it is important to note that the scientific knowledge of the genetic relationships among primates is in its infancy. In the near future neurologists will (no doubt) be able to localize the various brain modules and neuronal networks; and geneticists will be able to identify the specific genes that underlie the “social brain.” For better or worse, scientists may soon be able to re-engineer that social brain. What are the ethical implications of empowering scientists to reprogram human brains? The Cultural Evolution of Dominance So if hunter-gatherer organizational behavior more closely resembled bonobo behavior, then what happened over the past 2 million years that undermined our natural penchant for democracy? ELT argues that political dominance is not (in fact) the inevitable consequence of biological evolution. Political dominance first appeared among Homo sapiens only about 15,000 years ago as a cultural adaptation to the Agricultural Revolution (AR). The brain modules that underlie present day political behavior evolved over 2 million years to “match” the environmental conditions present on the African savanna during the Pleistocene era. As a survival strategy, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle prevailed well beyond the rise of Homo sapiens about 200,000 years ago. In short, for the vast majority of human existence there was a close “match” between our modular brains and our hunter-gatherer culture. However, 15,000 years ago the Agricultural Revolution launched an ever-growing “mismatch” between our (biologically-evolved) brain modules and our (culturally-evolved) lifestyles. The AR was a cognitive decision by a few bands and tribes to abandon hunting and gathering and grow their own food. This launched the fast-paced, cultural evolution of agriculture and animal husbandry. These cultural innovations were beset by both negative and positive “unanticipated consequences.” Over the long-run, the most salient of those unanticipated consequences was the necessity of defending those ever-expanding, geographical borders from invasion by other individuals and groups. This led directly to the emergence of a military class and a corresponding, fast-paced, technological evolution of increasingly lethal weaponry. Not all of the unanticipated consequences of the AR were negative. Eventually, the revolution spawned an assortment of technologies that increased the efficiency of food production, transportation, and communication; innovations that most us, today, associate with “quality of life.” ELT argues that this revolutionary “idea” was replicated, worldwide, via teaching and learning to the point where only a few hunter-gatherer societies are left alive today; as those small groups of peaceful hunter-gatherers have now been replaced by larger, stationary politically-organized nations (and even empires). Scholars still argue over whether the Agricultural Revolution (in fact) marked an increase or decrease in the quality of human life. Some anthropologists argue that the rise of dominant political organization after the AR qualitatively improved the lives of humans, and that knowledge of that “fact” provided an incentive for other wandering “bands” of humans to abandon the old hunter-gatherer lifestyles. More recent anthropologists argue that the AR (at least initially) led to a long period of decline in the quality of human life, marked by: widespread starvation, theft, political inequality, and a global spike in both in-group and out-group aggression. However, not even the staunchest critics of the AR prescribe returning to hunting and gathering. Therefore, the main political problem we face today is how to lessen the negative social consequences of the AR without losing the advantages provided by large-scale political leadership? In sum, the species Homo sapiens emerged out of the hominid line about 200,000 years ago. But biological evolution is a very gradual process, and, therefore, our modular brains have not evolved much over the past 2 million years. Human culture(s), however, evolves at much faster rate. ELT scholars argue that we can explain much (if not most) maladaptive human behavior in terms of “mismatches” between our “old” brains (and minds) and “new” culture. Some of the most recent applications of the “mismatch hypothesis” include research on the origins of human violence and warfare (Smith, 2007), sexual monogamy (Ryan & Jethra, 2010), and our dietary preferences (Saad, 2007). ELT scholars invoke the “mismatch hypothesis” to explain both the emergence and persistence of political dominance. But how can leaders and followers encumbered with outdated, hunter-gatherer brains cooperate within these newfound political regimes? How can leaders “lead” followers within these enormous communities comprised of strangers? The Post-AR Rise of Cooperation Since the AR, the basic political problem has been: How can political leaders and followers engineer altruistic behavior among large groups of unrelated individuals? There are many different approaches to explaining the evolution of altruism. (Nowalk & Highfield, 2011) ELT scholars agree that cooperation can be engineered in two different ways. First, leaders (and followers) can engineer a “sense of belonging,” (or group identity) among unrelated leaders and followers. Second, leaders can engineer mutually-beneficial reciprocal relationships between leaders and followers. Let’s look at both. The founders of Evolutionary Politics observed that any theory of political cooperation must address the puzzle of group identity. (Masters, 2008; Corning, 2008) Again, prior to the AR, humans “identified” themselves based (primarily) on kinship. They lived in small, face-toface communities with less-than 200 members. Everyone knew each other. After the AR, humans began to live in much larger, stationary communities comprised strangers. Thus the rise of political cooperation required a new basis for “shared identity.” The emergence of shared identity (beyond kinship) involved both biological and cultural evolution. Most scholars agree that the development of human language(s) was essential for the rise of “shared identity,” which enhanced our ability to identify and symbolically “represent” real or imagined similarities and differences between individuals, in-groups, and/or out-groups. Since the AR, group identity expanded based on a growing list of symbolic, culturally-transmitted abstractions, such as: tribe, race, ethnicity, religion, and eventually nationality. Over time, political leaders gradually discovered how to strengthen shared identity via ideology; or the strategic use of “patriotic” symbolism, (such as: heroic story-telling, flags, parades, and national anthems etc.). Post-AR leaders also discovered that “fear” of an uncertain future also provided a powerful incentive for in-group political cooperation. During the Pleistocene era, leaders rarely, if ever, employed “fear” as the basis for cooperation. That’s because hunting and gathering, usually met the “basic needs” of all group members and the future was fairly predictable. However, post-AR, the number of unmet needs increased (at least temporarily), and the ability of leaders to meet those unmet needs declined. Today, political leaders are expected to not only protect followers from out-group invasion, but also: protect everyone from in-group criminal activity, provide food, clothing, shelter, childhood education, healthcare, retirement, and even control the supply of money. As the complexity of the modern state increased, leadership failure became more common, and cooperation between leaders and followers became more difficult to sustain. Today many scholars observe that we are now faced with a “leadership crisis;” a contagion of bad political leaders, many of whom are not only ineffective, but also suffer from various forms of mental illness. (Ludwig, A.M. 2002) Many leaders hold power for no cognitive reason, other than fear. Followers also tolerate “bad leaders” for non-cognitive reasons; often simply because they are “tall dark, and handsome” (Bridgeman, 2013) But in the final analysis, it is important to note that a strong sense of “group identity” may increase follower tolerance for bad leaders (and followers), but that tolerance is not infinite. In the end, cooperation entails that both leaders and followers mutually benefit. The Theory of Service-for-Prestige So, ultimately, “Why do leaders choose to lead?” and “Why do followers choose to follow?” As noted earlier in this essay, there are two basic strategies for engineering in-group cooperation among strangers. Leaders can create a sense of “group identity” and/or create a cultural environment that facilitates “reciprocity.” ELT’s “Theory of Service-for Prestige,” (van Vugt, 2014) focuses on leader-follower reciprocity: “how and why” it evolved; and “how and why” it and thrived during the Pleistocene era; and, “how and why” it declined in the post-AR era. Its proponents argue that it also may offer prescriptive advice on how to restore cooperation in the post-AR era. Although would-be leaders and followers “decide” whether to cooperate based on both cognitive and non-cognitive factors, Service-for Prestige emphasizes the cognitive pursuit of self-interest. Leaders and followers cognitively “decide” whether to cooperate based on their beliefs; most notably: Who will benefit? Who will pay the costs? And, whether the costs of cooperation exceed the benefits? The costs of leading include the anticipated time, energy, and resources that leaders must expend in order to “share information” and “socially coordinate” complex activities. During the Pleistocene Era, the primary incentive for “leaders to lead” was the “social prestige” that was freely given by “respectful followers.” On the other hand, wouldbe followers cognitively “decided” whether to provide that “prestige” based on whether they believed that the potential benefits outweighed the costs. During the Pleistocene era, leaders willingly provided followers with “public goods.” (Goetze, 2007) Leaders typically performed two necessary tasks, they: “shared information” and “coordinated group effort.” Information sharing was contextual. Some individuals simply possessed the knowledge necessary to accomplish specific tasks such as: how to find food, where to migrate, or how to win wars. For over 2 million years, leader-follower cooperation probably addressed three main classes of “public goods” (food, migration, and warfare). In exchange for the leader-provided services (“information sharing” and “coordination”) self-interested followers willingly offered leaders “prestige,” usually in the form of greater access to food and mating opportunities. According to the Theory of Service-for-Prestige, the primary impediment to leaderfollower cooperation, today, is the problem of “disrespectful followers,” that is, self-interested followers who benefit from leader-provided “services,” but choose not to contribute to prestige; or perhaps, contribute less-prestige than leaders expect. Before the AR, disrespectful followers were probably rare. Mostly because leaders and followers respected their kin, and because in small communities, “disrespect” was easily monitored and controlled by coalitions of effective leaders and “respectful followers.” Disrespect was punished informally, primarily via social exclusion. However, in the years after the AR, as political organizations became larger and impersonal, it became increasingly more difficult to monitor for “disrespectful followers.” The solution was a cultural innovation. Disrespectful followers would be controlled via the codification of formal rules (laws), “monitored and enforced” by increasingly dominant leaders. And, of course, ancestral forms of prestige (food and sex) were, eventually, replaced by taxation. So during the Pleistocene Era, leaders provided a relatively short list of “services” that addressed public needs, usually associated with food provision, migration, and warfare. Since the AR, the number of services needed increased exponentially, along with the number of laws that required monitoring and enforcement. In short, the Agricultural Revolution launched a global cultural revolution that led, eventually, to the rise of the modern nation states and empires ruled by politically dominant leaders. However, as the ability of leaders to provide these “goods” diminished, so did the willingness of followers to offer “prestige.” Thus, over time the number of disrespectful followers increased, which led to the rise of “political coercion” or “moralistic aggression.” Here much depends on where large-scale societies set the threshold for justified aggression and their tolerance for free-riding followers; the lower the moral threshold, the lower the tolerance for free-riders, and the greater reliance on coercive force. ELT scholars have, so far, focused on free-riding, disrespectful followers. (Price & van Vugt, 2014) But they have done little with the collateral problem of “free-riding leaders:” that is leaders who demand increasing levels of prestige from followers, but perform no (or little) service in exchange. (White, 2014) I argue that in the post AR era, the cognitive decision of whether lead, follow, or free-ride has been undermined by a corresponding contagion of imperfect information. Henceforth, modern leaders could become free-riders, by deliberately concealing what they (in fact) do (as information sharers and coordinators) and by concealing (from followers) the amount of prestige that they receive in exchange for those services. Similarly, modern followers also often conceal the degree to which they (in fact) provide prestige to leaders. This tradition is exemplified by the rise of skills associated tax evasion. Consequently, the ability of leaders and “respectful followers” to detect “disrespectful followers” has become increasingly more costly. Therefore, in order to explain the recent epidemic of freeriding leaders and followers, ELT scholars must ultimately explain the co-evolution of “skills of deception” and “skills for detecting deception” in the provision of BOTH services and prestige. The “Theory of Service-for-Prestige” focuses on this contemporary problem of freeriding, “disrespectful followers,” who benefit from the services provided by “good leaders” but avoid paying the costs of providing leaders with prestige. However, I have argued that the more serious problem facing evolutionary leadership today is freeriding leaders, who collect “prestige” from followers, but do not (in fact) share much information or do much coordination. Freeriding leadership is accomplished by skillfully manipulating the beliefs of followers by manipulating the flow of information within the organization. It usually involves deliberately under-selling the costs and over-selling the benefits for followers; and overselling their own contribution and underselling the benefits that they receive. In short, Evolutionary Leadership must take into account the evolution of deception in the relationships between leaders and followers, including self-deception. Thus, the Theory of Service-for-Prestige must also address two other questions: “how” and “why” do freeriding leaders deceive followers? And, “how and “why” do freeriding followers deceive leaders and other followers? The failure to acknowledge the explanatory significance of human deception by both Political Science and Leadership Science can be attributed largely to their anthropocentric roots. David Livingstone Smith was among the first scholars to explore the biosocial roots of human deception. “Deceptive creatures,” Smith observed, “have an edge over their competitors in the relentless struggle to survive and reproduce that drives the engine of evolution. As well-honed survival machines, human beings are naturally deceptive.” (Smith, 2004) Thus, any theory of leader-follower relationships must take into account both our natural propensity to deceive others and the skills necessary to detect deception by others. I propose that the ability to deceive others and detect deception by others correlate directly with the size and complexity of the human social environment. During the Pleistocene Era, ancestral communities lived together in small groups of migrating hunters and gatherers where leaders and followers knew each other personally and could easily (and informally) monitor and enforce truth-telling. However, as the size and complexity of human communities increased, so did the opportunity for deception. After the AR, as more communities became stationary, larger, and much more complex; the political power of leaders was directly correlated to skills that enable leaders to control the flow of information within and between their borders. Similarly, the ability of followers to control information was similarly affected; most notably information concerning the degree to which they offer leaders prestige. Over time, this “flow” of information has also been indelibly reshaped by cultural evolution; most notably, the cultural evolution of languages (written and spoken) and communication technologies (telegraph, radio, telephone, television, and the Internet). Thus, the ability of political leaders and followers to deceive each other and their ability to decode each other’s deceptions has become much more difficult than it was 2 million years ago. As deception by leaders and followers become more prevalent, followers have less “trust” in political leaders; and leaders have less “trust” in followers. Today, trust between political leaders and followers, is contingent upon decoding deceptive information; and voluntary cooperation has been replaced by the cultural evolution of monitoring and enforcement skills exercised by dominant political leaders. In sum, the most serious impediment to leader-follower cooperation, today, is the widespread contagion of misinformation and disinformation spread by both leaders and followers. As trust between leaders and followers continues to decline, “information sharing” and “social coordination” will continue to be replaced by political dominance. Conclusions At the beginning of this essay, I suggested that any scientific theory of political behavior must enable scientists to explain, predict, and control (hopefully for the better) the relationships between leaders and followers. The fact that most political organizations today are authoritarian rather than democratic requires theoretical explanation. Evolutionary scholars argue that ELT provides the most credible explanation (proximate and ultimate), the most accurate predictions (short-term and long-term), and the most promising means of controlling leader-follower relationships. So, if it is true that, today, dominant regimes outnumber democratic regimes, then how and why are dominant political regimes more common, and more sustainable than democratic regimes? ELT convincingly suggests that ancestral humans “survived” for over 2 million of years as the result of a “match” between their modular brains and their democratic, hunter-gatherer lifestyle. However, 15,000 years ago the Agricultural Revolution launched an ever-widening “mismatch” between our brains and our new, post-AR urban lifestyle. That mismatch produced increasingly larger political entities, a growing necessity of defending geographical borders, and a confluence of political and military leadership. Given that our social brains still “match” that hunter-gather lifestyle, the most important question of post-AR politics is how can modern political leaders and followers engineer large-scale, cooperation among strangers? In this essay I suggested that ELT predicts that, over-the long run, modern leaders will have to persuade followers that they deserve the level of prestige that leaders demand; and that disrespectful followers will increasingly engage in tax evasion. That’s why, today, political leaders no longer rely on prestige voluntarily offered by followers, but rely almost entirely on the exercise of coercive force to extract prestige from a growing number of disrespectful followers. ELT also suggests that the most effective strategy for minimizing the amount of coercive force necessary for collecting prestige from disrespectful followers is to engineer and maintain a sense “shared identity” via the use of symbolic language, or ideology. Worldwide, most nations forge shared identity based on shared national origin, religious beliefs, and racial and/or ethnic identity. But even more troubling is that political leaders, today, increasingly, bolster our sense of shared identity by manipulating our fear of an increasingly uncertain future. As our tolerance for uncertainty decreases, the power of the state increases. In a Post AR world of rapid cultural change, uncertainty has become epidemic. As for the social utility of ELT the jury is still out. Leadership scholars have diagnosed a global epidemic of ineffective, unaccountable, powerful political leaders (and business leaders) and a corresponding increase in the imbalance between the services provided by leaders and the level of compensatory prestige followers are willing to provide. Given the rise of post AR political domination, it is essential that scholars continue to develop both proximate and ultimate theories of leadership. But in the final analysis we’re still faced with a bit of a conundrum. Are our hunter-gatherer brains capable of engineering large-scale cooperation among strangers? And, are effective leaders and respectful followers capable of monitoring and controlling freeridership? While ELT can explain and predict the emergence of free-riding leaders and followers in both business and political contexts, it is not at all clear whether ELT can be as useful in politics as it is in business. Unfortunately, knowledge is NOT identical to power, especially in the world of contemporary politics. However, ELT at least offers a glimmer of hope in an, otherwise, dismal context. Please Note: This research for this essay was supported by a Leadership Research Grant awarded by Tim Bryant at the Center for Ethical Leadership at the Mount St. Joseph University. Special thanks to Mark van Vugt and Aaron Burgess for providing critical feedback of the early drafts. References Auletta, Gennaro, Ivan Colage, and Paulo D’ Ambrosio. 2003. The game of life implies both teleonomy and teleology. (in) Sloan et.al. 144-163 Bridgeman, Bruce. 2003. Psychology and Evolution: The Origins of Mind. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Corning, P. A. 2008. Holistic Darwinism: the new evolutionary paradigm and some implications for political science. Politics and the Life Sciences, 27, 22-54. Ciulla, J. B. 2012. Ethics and leadership effectiveness: the nature of good leadership’ (in) Day, D. V. and Antonakis, A.T. (eds) The nature of leadership, (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dawkins, R. 1976. The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Day, D.V.& Antonakis, J. 2012. Leadership: past, present, and future (in) The nature of leadership, 3-25. Day, D.V. & Antonakis, J. 2012. The nature of leadership (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. De Waal, F. 2001. Tree of origin: what primate behavior can tell us about human evolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. De Waal, F. 2005. Our inner ape: a leading primatologist explains why we are who we are. New York: Riverhead Books . Depew, David J. 2015. “Accident, Adaptation, and Teleology in Aristotle and Darwinism” (in) Sloan et.al 116-143. Evolutionary Leadership Theory. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_leadership_theory Fetzer, James H. 2005. The Evolution of Intelligence: Are Humans the Only Animals with Minds? Open Court: Chicago. Frodeman, R. Klein, J.T., Mitcham, Carl. 2012. The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goethals, G. R. & Sorenson, G. 2006. The quest for a general theory of leadership. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Goetze, D. 2007. Public goods, sharing genes, and the formation of large groups. Politics and the Life Sciences 26, 2-25. Hogg, M.A. 2008. Social identity theory of leadership (in) Hoyt C.L., Goethals, G.R., and Forsyth, D.R. eds. (2008) Leadership at the crossroads: leadership and psychology. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Perspectives. James, S.M. 2011. An introduction to evolutionary ethics. United Kingdom: Wiley Blackwell Judge, T.A. & Long, D.M. 2012. Individual differences in leadership (in) The Nature of Leadership (2nd ed.) 179-217. Kellerman, B. 2004. Bad leadership: what it is, how it happens, why it matters, Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press. Kellerman, B. 2008. Followership: how followers are creating change and changing leaders. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press. King, A.J., D.D.P. Johnson, & M. van Vugt. 2009. The origins and evolution of leadership. Current Biology 19, R11-R16. Lee, N.; Senior, C.; Butler, M. &, M. Butler. 2012. Leadership Research and Cognitive Neuroscience: The State of this Union. The Leadership Quarterly 23. 213-218. Lord, R. G. and J.E. Dinh. 2012. Aggregation processes and levels of analysis as organizing structures for leadership theory” (in) The Nature of Leadership, (2nd ed) 29-65. Ludwig, A.M. 2002. King of the Mountain: the Nature of Political Leadership. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Masters, R. D. 2007. Historical change and evolutionary theory: from hunter-gatherer bands to states and empires. Politics and the Life Sciences 26, 46-74. Maturano, A. & Gosling, J. 2008. Leadership: the key concepts, London and New York: Routledge, Taylor, and Francis Group. Price, M.E. & van Vugt, M. 2014. The evolution of leader-follower reciprocity: the theory of service-for-prestige” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8, 1-17. Nowak, M. A & R. Highfield (2011) Super Cooperators: altruism, evolution, and why we need each other to succeed. New York: Free Press. Ryan, C. & Jethra, C. 2010. Sex at dawn: why we mate, why we stray, and what it means for modernrRelationships. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Saad, Gad (2007) The Evolutionary Bases of Consumption. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Scott-Phillips, T. C.; Dickins T.E. & West, S.A. 2011. Evolutionary theory and the ultimateproximate distinction. Perspectives on Psychological Science 6, 38-47. Sloan, Phillip R, Geral McKenny, and Kathleen Eggleston (eds). 2015. Darwin in the twenty-first century: nature, humanity, and god. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Smith, D.L. 2007. The most dangerous animal: human nature and the origins of war. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Smith, D.L. 2004. Why we lie: the evolutionary roots of deception and the unconscious mind. New York: St. Martin Press. Somit, A & Peterson, S.A. 1997. Darwinism, dominance, and democracy: the biological bases of authoritarianism. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers Sontag, M., Jenkins, P. & White, R.F. 2011. Leadership ethics: an emerging academic discipline Choice 49, 239-249. Spisak, B. R.; Blaker, N.M.; Lefevre, C.E.; Moore, F.R.; & Krebbers, K.F.B. 2014. A face for all seasons: searching for context-specific leadership traits and discovering a general preference for perceived health, Human Neuroscience 8, 1-9. Spisak, B.R, O’Brien, M., Nicholson, N., & Van Vugt, M. (2015). Leadership in organizations: A niche-construction perspective. Academy of Management Review 40, 291-306. Van Knippenberg, D. 2012. Leadership and identity (in) The Nature of Leadership (2nd ed.) 477505. van Vugt, M; & Ahuja, A. 2011. Naturally selected: the evolutionary science of leadership. New York: Harper Collins. van Vugt, M.; Johnson, D.; Kaiser, R.B.; & O’Gorman, R. 2008 Evolution and the social psychology of leadership: the mismatch hypothesis.’ (in) Leadership at the Crossroads. (V.1) Leadership and Psychology. ed. Hoyt, C. et.al. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers:. pp. 266-282. Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., Kaiser, R. (April, 2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution: some lessons from the past. American Psychologist 63 182-96. van Vugt, M. 2006. Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership. Personality and Social Psychology Review 10, 354-371. van Vugt, M. 2012. The nature in leadership: evolutionary, biological, and social neuroscience perspectives’ (in) Day, D.D & Antonakis J. (eds), The Nature of Leadership, ( 2nd ed.) Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: Sage Publications, 141-178. Waldman, D. A. :Balthazard, P.A.; & Peterson, S.J. 2011. Social Cognitive Neuroscience and Leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 22, 1092-1106. White, R.F. 2011. Toward an integrated theory of leadership: a review of Mark van Vugt and Anjana Ahuja, Naturally Selected: The Evolutionary Science of Leadership. Politics and the Life Sciences 30, 116-121. White, R.F. 2014. The inevitable tension between “information sharing” and “social coordination” in evolutionary leadership theory” paper presented at the 2014 Association for Politics and the Life Sciences Annual Meeting, Emory University, 17 October. Wilson, E.O. 1998. Consilience: the Unity of Knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Wrangham, R. & Peterson, D. 1996. Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Yammarino, F.J. & Dansereau, F. (2011) “Multi-Level Issues in Evolutionary Theory, Organizational Science, and Leadership. Leadership Quarterly 22, 1042-1057 Wikipedia (2015) “Evolutionary Psychology” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_leadership_theory