It’s tempting to think of leaders as the most dominant, often the most aggressive member, of a group, but new research from the University of Konstanz highlights how this is seldom the case, at least in the animal world.
The study suggests that while dominant individuals can elicit certain behaviors and outcomes through force, passive leaders are better at deriving consensus within the group. It’s an outcome the researchers believe casts doubt on the notion that leaders have to be the most dominant individuals in the group.
“The same traits that make you powerful in one context can actively reduce your influence in others, especially contexts in which individuals are free to choose who to follow,” the researchers say. “Dominant individuals can force their will on the group by being pushy, but that also makes them socially aversive. When it comes to bringing peers to consensus during more sophisticated tasks, it is the least aggressive individuals that exert the greatest influence.”
Dominance and influence
The researchers tested the boundaries of dominance and influence in a social species of fish, called cichlid, which has strict social hierarchies in which the dominant males control most of the resources and territory.
“We ask if the colourful dominant males, which are aggressive, central in their social networks, and control resources, are most influential?,” the researchers say. “Or if drab subordinate males wield the greatest influence, despite being passive, non-territorial, and having little or no control over resources.”
The researchers attempted to distinguish social influence from social dominance by observing how information flowed between either subordinate males and their groups, or dominant males and their groups. This flow was observed during both routine social interactions and more complex tasks.
The analysis revealed that in the routine social tasks, the dominant males would generally act pretty aggressively, and exert their influence by force. When the tasks were more complex, however, such influence was far less effective, and therefore subordinate males were found to have the most influence on the group behaviors. Such a scenario resulted in the group coalescing around the consensus much faster and generally acting as a more coherent unit on the task at hand. By contrast, with a dominant leader, often the task would not be achieved.
Behavioral differences
The researchers then used machine learning to track the behavior of the animals to understand the differences between dominant and subordinate males. The analysis revealed that dominant males were often central to their behavioral social networks, and would interact frequently with others. However, they would often occupy a peripheral place in spatial networks, which would see them avoided by others.
“By capturing behavioural data that are impossible to be measured with the naked eye, our automated tracking methods revealed that it was not the difference in social position between dominant and subordinate per se, but rather in the way they moved and interacted with others,” the researchers say. “These behavioural differences lead directly to differences in social influence.”
The researchers believe their findings have clear implications for human leadership structures. They argue that individuals in any sort of position of power can often display very similar traits, such as aggression and intimidation. Effective communication and team work often requires a diversity of voices, however, and not simply the loudest dominating proceedings.
“Our results from a natural system show that allowing alternative pathways to positions of power may be useful in creating stronger advisory, governmental, and educational structures,” the researchers conclude.
