[Sorta OT] Why do people follow leaders?

[s/LaSH]

Tiebreaking: Any organisation will need a leader to make the important decisions, or nothing will happen. Thus a leader is sought out, normally one everyone likes.

But why do we need an organisation in the first place?

For self-interest, of course. An organisation can tell people to do things for the greater good - one gathers food, one guards against bears, one sews the tunics - instead of everyone having to do everything for themselves. It's the basis of civilisation and specialisation.

Thus, as organisations are useful, people who can guide organisations to greater success are thought of as 'leaders'. Starting with Throg Who Isn't Scared Of Fire and moving on from there, I expect. As the ages wore on, things like war were discovered. Warleaders were people who could carve a swathe through the enemy with their brains and their muscles, and they were the ones who formed civilisation proper, with their conquests.

These days, many people are sheep. They need someone to make decisions for them, whether because they're scared of choice, scared of what that person will do if they don't give them authority, or scared of wasting time when they should be out doing other things (like their job, ie. source of revenue).

The leader-role is innate to civilisation. People can recognise when someone's got the goods to win in a conflict, and will get behind them (it's better than standing in front of them). Some people will not, because they're not interested or have different allegiances or see something wrong with the leader in question. But most people will follow someone who presents themselves in a good light.

That help?

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Alot of the information is helpful. Thanks in advance to all who answer.

I am building a leader who will eventually rise to be king of a great civilization. The original civilization is a Viking like group of tribes.

I want to build a leader that the people love. The kind of leader that causes people to reminisce about the time when he was leader. Very legendary not only for this abilities as a warrior, but also for the just, compassionate and loving way he led his people.

I definitely don't want a bureaucrat or a despot.

I also wouldn't mind if anyone knows of any interesting Nordic/Viking kings that might be a good model for the king I am building. The Vikings are an amazing culture from what I have read so far. They must have had some great leadership.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Effective leaders all provide some things in common:

Purpose, direction, and motivation.

In other words, they provide a goal/endstate, a means of getting there, and an effective reason that they should be followed or the goal pursued. That motivation can be altruistic, based in self-interest, or motivated by fear (one theory of leadership holds that people only do theings in their own self-interest, so if the possibility of gain from following a particular course isn't high enough, people can be motivated to follow it out of the desire to avoid pain).

 

[Morbidity]

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

I totally agree. Having a strong personality I am continually amazed how whenever I'm in a group situation I almost always seize control, organise and allocate tasks and everyone does them ... regardless of the fact that the methodology I'm proposing may be a long way from optimal. Most people are far more comfortable (particularly in unfamiliar circumstances) being part of a collective rather than an individual. And there ends my cynical rant for today.

 

[schporto]

Manipulation. As early in the thread as it is for this example, well Hitler. He was charismatic. But that wouldn't have gotten him anywhere. But, he gave people a little of what they wanted, allowed them to hate what they already weren't happy with, and just showed them the way. This is not to say that a manipulative leader can only be bad. The manipulative leader though gets people to their side by inches. Its not that everybody suddenly wakes up and agrees with them. Its a slower semingly logical process.

Demonstrative. The demonstrative leader displays something so heroic something so astonishingly good that it sings to our hearts and we must follow them. Joan of Arc. Firemen running out with a baby. Demonstrative leaders can be fleeting without other qualities.

Least Evil. I think this may be the most common type of leader. Well we could have this king who sucks, or anarchy which is worse. Guess we'll stick with the king. Listen to folks voting in the US elections, "Well I voted for him cuz I really didn't like the other guy". You don't have to be the best, you just have to be not as bad as the other guy. Kinda sad really.

Ok those were my thoughts.
-cpd

 

[WayneLigon]

Building the Loveable Leader

The Prince still contains great advice, even for a leader who is loved by his people.

One point I can think of:

-- Have him raise the standard of living. People always remember the leader who slew the great dragon. They remember longer the man who saw to it that everyone had enough to eat. Through his personality or force of arms, he has secured trade lines that bring in wealth to the area.

 

[Gothmog]

Desire to be part of something bigger than the individual, desire to not have responsibility for one's actions, and trust that the authority figure will do the "right" thing.

There was a psychological study in the 60's by Milgram in which the test subject was told he would read a list of paired words to a fake test subject (who the real test subject thought was another participant in the experiment and was in another room connected by intercom). Then, the real subject would read one of the words back, and the fake test subject was supposed to reply with the correct paired word. Failure meant the fake test subject recieved a jolt electricity (in reality the fake test subject was an accomplice, and no one was actually harmed or recieved jolts). As more word pairings were missed, the voltage increased from a few volts up into the "XXX" range (supposedly a very strong shock). At some point during the experiment, the fake subject would say he was feeling badly, that his chest hurt, and that he wanted to stop. The experimenter in the room with the real subject (wearing a labcoat and clipboard) would insist that the experiment continue, and that the real subject keep giving shocks even when the fake subject refused to cooperate. In fact, eventually the fake subject would pound on the wall, and then be silent (fake a heart attack). What did most people (around 80% if I recall correctly) do in this situation? They kept giving the shocks to the fake subject because the experimenter (the authority figure) said to, even though no punishment was threatened if they didn't give the shock. They trusted that the authority figure wouldn't allow something bad to happen, and that he would take responsibility for what happened. A rather chilling account of human behavior, but it does help to explain how the Nazis were able to coerce so many otherwise normal people to commit atrocities.

 

[Henry]

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?

Humans are communal beings (and by extension, most sentients); it follows that there is also a perceived need for authority within the community.

Leaders are needed to accomplish most things beyond that which is in self-interest. "self-interest" can be widely defined, also including things that provoke emotional responses within us, so cases of emergencies or natural disasters can cause immediate calls to action and a low level of communal organization, but things such as long-term security or community maintenance needs leadership. Even in cases of disaster, without organization the amount of help is generally limited.

Leadership in Medieval Europe developed over issues of security and power, above all else. When the breakdown of Rome occurred over a period of centuries, authority defaulted to the regional land owners. When currency became more scarce and worth less, and barter became more powerful, true power fell to barter, and to land ownership, and those who had physical force to ensure safety of their land. Simply put, if you owned land, you had power; hence (in a very simplified nutshell) the beginnings of the feudal system.

Leaders form for the reasons you stated above, but also because in any community of over, say, 10 people, leadership tends to be a default condition. True anarchy is not a very stable state.

 

[Umbran]

Re: Re: [Sorta OT] Why do people follow leaders?

Humans are communal beings (and by extension, most sentients); it follows that there is also a perceived need for authority within the community.
[...snip...]
Leaders form for the reasons you stated above, but also because in any community of over, say, 10 people, leadership tends to be a default condition. True anarchy is not a very stable state.

Henry's right, but it goes a little deeper than a "percieved need". It's rather ingrained in our beings. Look at every other primate in the world - they exist in bands with a heirarchy. That means some "leader" at the top. It's a natural state for us, given the tribal/band structure in which our psyches developed.

As for true anarchy not being stable, that's also true. Put a bunch of people in a room, and in about 20 minutes, the room won't be "anarchy". It may not be a democracy, or a monarchy, but the people in that room will have determined some sense of dominance, even if that was not the topic of conversation. Even if they aren't allowed to speak - body language and eye contact are enough to start setting up such a social structure.

 

[Darklone]

Another point. People follow even a weak personality if they believe in his course of actions... example: The dude does something that's bad for him but good for the community. People help him to do it for their own greater good. Or some help him without understanding what he does, simply because they believe that it must be important.