The science of leadership

Leadership Tallahassee Class 26 kicks off on Tuesday, so it was timely this week to see a cover story on leadership in the latest issue of New Scientist, a very readable magazine from England that I recommend to anyone.  Evolutionary social psychologist Mark van Vugt explores the evolution of leadership from 2.5 million years ago to today -- from hunter-gatherer bands to Toyota's corporate structure, and everything in between -- but some of his most interesting insights aren't into leadership.

He also asks the question, why be a follower?  Why would you subordinate yourself when it puts you at a clear disadvantage in terms of power, status and resources?

Well, first, by observing good leaders, you prepare yourself for future leadership.  Also, the disadvantages of following can be offset by the benefits of belonging to a well-led group.

On the flip side, distributed leadership -- delegated decision making, and even letting subordinates choose their own executives -- is gaining more currency today.  Shared goals and interdependence can transform alienated and self-interested employees into "committed collectivists," van Vugt suggests.

In the end, the most useful insight may be that leadership strategies must be different based on the situation an organization faces.  It's much more like jazz than conducting a symphony sometimes.  But no matter what kind of music you're making, it is vitally important that the band leader actually listen to the band.  If not, you're just lost in the dissonance.