[Sorta OT] Why do people follow leaders?

[Celtavian]

I am creating a story about the rise of a king. I have been brainstorming reasons why people would follow a king.

It has always seemed strange to me that people would follow a king or any great leader with no tangible benefit. They follow for personal reasons often uncomprehensible to outsiders.


Some of the reasons I came up with were the following:

1. Love and Hope: The people love the leader and the leader brings hope to the people that follow him. I would think that people followed Jesus, MLK, and Gahndi for this reason.

2. Charisma and Credibility: Some people might follow a leader who is charismatic and credible. Say a war leader who himself has proven his merits in battle and has the charisma to make them believe in causes like conquering.

3. Fear and Power: People might fear to stand against the leader. The leader holds absolute power in society and has certain loyal groups who control the military might of the society backing him.


I would love to hear some opinions on why a group of people might follow a leader for no real tangible benefit. Any writers on this board ever have trouble coming up with a reason why people would follow a leader into a war if they had the choice to do otherwise? Any readers of fantasy literature ever ask themselves why people followed certain leaders in the books they read? What kind of answers came to mind for why people follow leaders if they do not have to?

 

[Mark]

People in books who follow leaders do so because they have to do so. Sometimes it is rationalized, sometimes it is explained, sometimes it is just left as it is. I think the best way to approach leaders in writing is inversely. There's an old saying on the stage that a king is not a king because he says so, he is king because of the way that people treat him. I think that the books that deal with a leader by showing the social trappings at least as often as they show the faults of that leader tend to stave off incredulity better than those that only show the atrocities and tantrums.

 

[Snoweel]

You'll find that the vast majority of human beings feel safer being led than being totally independent. People actually seek leaders out.

And seeing somebody else being followed increases the likelihood that most people will want to follow them. It's like popularity - it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And as for why some leaders and not others - people want leaders who either embody virtues they hold dear or who also believe strongly in such virtues.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Do you think that a leader can be truly loved by the people? Say in the way you hear some older folks speak about Kennedy. Many seemed to have great respect for Kennedy and trusted him greatly. You could almost say they loved Kennedy.

Or say Aragorn for fantasy novels. Aragorn by his nature was loved by many. He seemed to have a kingly presence and inspired trust in others through action and speech.

I think that an important trait for a leader that the people love is trust. They must trust the leader without question. That means he must be a trustworthy person, one they know does not put two faces on. He must also give them hope, hope through action and speech.

When you read fantasy novels about kings or other leaders who people seem to love, do you see them as people who inspire hope and trust? Say Aragorn or King Arthur for example.

 

[Maldur]

Because everybody else is doing it!

Because its easier to do what your told instead of thinking for yourself.

Because some situations are faster and safer resolved if only one person makes the decisions.

 

[Snoweel]

Very true Maldur.

 

[Al]

4. Utility and Interest. Let's be fair- that's how democracy works (aren't I the cynic?) People generally follow leaders if they perceive it that it is in their interest. Why do the rich tend to vote for parties of lower taxes? In medieval times, the people might depose a bad monarch because he is ruining the economy and support one who promises peace and prosperity.

Incidentally, there is a huge tangible benefit to have a leader-figure. Countries with no leadership whatsoever, in a state of anarchy, are dangerous, impoverished and unstable.

5. Dogma. Especially amongst religious leaders, following a leader may have a spiritual, religious or other ideological dimension. This can be particularly prevalent amongst cults, and also religions strongly based upon prophesy.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Trust -

Believe -

Fear - This is not fear of the leader but of what they are against, hard times, monsters, going hungry, etc. They offer you a way out.

Loyal - They are from your town, your city, you worked with them, fought with them.

Charisma - the ability to be liked by the people

 

[Number47]

Sex, marriage, children. Those are the benefits from a real-world, historical kind of perspective. If you didn't follow the leader like everybody else around you did, you would be a risky choice for a mate. Following even a bad leader is better than having no leadership at all when you need a relatively stable place to raise children.

The other half is, what would you do if you didn't follow the leader? Are there any options at all, short of outright revolt? Not generally. Peasants may have to work brutally hard, but if they are good they will have food, shelter and a chance to have family. They can never expect any better, but they have no expectations of better things. Their parents were peasants, their grandparents were peasants, their children will be peasants. It just simply was how it was. Similar for soldiers.

Well, just had to get a few words in before this thread winds up locked!

 

[Left-handed Hummingbird]

Max Weber made three idealtypes of legitimations of authority and leadership:

- Tradition (monarchy) where allegiance is given to the one who governs through the traditional positions of authority and within the boundaries of tradition.
- Charisma (despotism) where allegiance is given to a charismatic leader, because of the trust in this leaders personal abilities (heroism, for instance)
- Rationality / legality (bureaucracy) where allegiance is given to the legal officials, ruling within and under the law.