[Sorta OT] Why do people follow leaders?

[Airwolf]

One example is if a 'future' leader does something heroic that the current king (or leader) can't or refuses to do.


Ex. An evil dragon is terrorizing the community. The king, once a fierce warrior, won't go to fight the dragon. He has sent his army to deal with it. The generals instead hide and hope to get lucky.
Enter the hero. For what ever reason the hero shows up (he could be a messenger from the king or something). He is inspired (maybe he is put under a quest from a god who wants to influence the leadership of the kingdom.) Anyway, he sees the dragon tormenting the army sent to kill it and move to place himself as a challenger to the dragon. Perhaps the god gives the hero an arrow of dragon slaying and he uses it to kill the evil creature.
The army sees his courage and carries the story to all parts of the kingdom. Soon the populace comes to believe more in the hero than the current king. The king dies, by whatever means, and instead of his son or daughter taking his place, the hero is vaulted into the position because so many people have come to love and respect his courage.

Well, it’s an idea. Good luck.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

People follow leaders because groups are more effective than individuals, and the most effective groups have strong, competent leaders. Heck, strong incompetent leaders probably fare better than groups of individuals.

Most leaders get to their position because they are a better choice to lead than the other members of the group. I said MOST. Knowing this, people, look to a leader, and sometimes pick the wrong person, or allow the wrong person to take the job.

The tangible benefit that a leader provides is Civilization, and from that comes security and prosperity. If there is no effective leadership, anarchy results. Just look at any number of places where the government has broken down.

 

[Nifft]

Legitimacy, writes Roberto Calasso, is the ability to dispel a certain kind of fear: the fear that one is doing the wrong thing.

We grant our leaders Legitimacy, and they in turn dispel our fear.

The specific mechanics of how we go about granting Legitimacy are not well understood. However, they are subject to change.

In the Renaissance, that which was verifiably older was regarded as more legitimate. Today, that which is newer -- especially in terms of knowlege and technology -- is regarded as more legitimate.

In the Enlightenment, Nature was a savage force which needed to be tamed and harnessed. Today, it is regarded as fragile and worthy of protection.

Religion and political situations are probably better examples of extremes of legitimacy, but they're also much more likely to result in a flame war -- so I'm going to suggest that we avoid real-world religion and politics as examples.

As to fantasy examples:

- (from the movie LoTR:TTT) Legolas thinks it is stupid to remain with the doomed Men at Helm's Deep. He is using a "Common Sense / Self Preservation" mechanism for determining a legitimate action. Aragorn chastises him using a "Heroic / Self Sacrifice" mechanism. Aragorn has a high Charisma (in D&D terms), and infects Legolas with his world-view. Legolas, viewing the same situation through his new world view, decides that fighting is the more Legitimate action.

-- Nifft

 

[Oni]

check out the anime Beserk. The character Griffith, it's very interesting why everyone follows him even though he's really a heartless bastard.


He can achieve his dreams where others would fail, and rather than fail on their own they would rather help him succeed in his. Sort of living vicariously through him and enjoying reflected glory.

 

[Larry Fitz]

It's fascinating really. Not only do people follow leaders, but when told to do something in an authoritative tone they do it, or start to, often without question. I suspect that's because if a certain number of our ancestors didn't do that, then they died. Evolution has weeded out too much independent thinking it seems.

I'm particularly fascinated by things like Pickett's Charge. I've been to Gettysburg, I stood at one end of the field and saw what those men did. I have never seen anything that indicates what Pickett said to them that day. These were veterans, by the time they got to that battle there were no green behind the ears soldiers in that Virginian Company. Many of them had to realize they had been asked to do the not only impossible, but obviously suicidal. They charged anyway.

It's a strange component of human beings, they can believe against all reason that they can be successful in an endeavor. I suppose that's why we have heroes, they dared when reason said not to and they succeeded against the odds. We lionize our heroes, turn them into leaders (Washington, Lenin, Grant, Ghandi, Mandella, Eisenhower), believing that in some way their success in one type of endeavor qulifies them for that role.


I believe that there are among us people with the will to lead, and people with the desire to lead. Those two do not always coincide, there are also those who are good at leading. That third is the rarest of all. People will follow someone with any of these traits if there are no other viable candidates. If there are multiple candidates they will follow those whose beliefs appear to be most in line with their own, and if there are more than one of those they will follow those who are the most convincing.

 

[Blockader7]

The biggest reason is because humans have a need for self identity, a need for a purpose. A leader can give these things to people.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Much good information. Quite a few differing views to think about.

I am leaning towards a leader from a family who led the initial settlers of this tribe to the area they live in now. This initial family cleared out much of the dangerous folk and animals in the area and settled it before the other tribes came. The family by virtue of being first to settle the area and the best tribe at making war is the head of the council of chiefs that lead the Seven Tribes.

The current leader will be a man of particular greatness, not only one of the strongest and most willful to ever lead the strongest tribe, but also one of the wisest and most charismatic. I will have to flesh it out more. This thread has definitely helped to develop a legitimate reason why a certain tribe is considered to have legitimate authority over the other six.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

From my own experience I can tell you that leaders can form out of a variety of circumstances, and that the actual ability to lead can derive from a number of different skills possessed by the leader and/or the followers, and that a leader and someone who can lead are distinct, though not necessarily seperate, individuals.

I do not recommend the Prince as a primer for leadership. The Prince is a fantastic book for someone who holds an office and is assured of followers. It provides no advice for someone who must gain loyal apostles and officers.

I also do not recommend thinking of people as sheep. Herd animals are way more democratic than people are, they follow the sheep who has been proven to act on the best common interests of the herd or vere away from that which frightens them. While these motivations do apply to people under a variety of circumstances, people are generally very resistant to herd behavior in this sense and people who are following a leader do not follow this paradigm at all.

In general, I would identify three dynamics behind the phenomena of leaders.

First, and primary, it's smart to belong to an organized group. There may be circumstances in which other situations have comparitve advantages, but to deny this as a general rule is foolishness.

Second, heirarchy is a fantastic tool for coordinating between groups, not because the person above you will make decisions for your group, necessarily, but because the person above you can make decisions for other groups. Look at highways, most people obey the laws not because it tells them what to do, but because it controls other peoples actions as well. If faith in the laws ability to do that falls away then so does the leadership, compare Italian and American traffic patterns to see this in action.

Third, continuity magnifies the benefits to any hierarchy and group. A system which can promise higher levels of continuity both to the past and the future will benefit extradordinarily from this ability. The appeal of continuity includes appeals which involve information from the ground up. A leader who has to listen to you now and again has great continuity since they can't go crazy and do whatever they want.

Any leader will have to be able to latch onto these three apeals to at least some extent, though they level at which they appeal to each might vary.

A totalitarian dictator for instance probably holds the greatest appeal in how well the dictator can control other groups, but that dictator must offer communal benefits to his police and advisors and demonstrate continuity in a high level of personal security and fitness.

A well organized theocratic republic, such as the Papacy or the Dalai Lama, has a tremendous appeal to continuity.

A president must present an satisfactory appeal to the first or second criteria, but a presidency is most satisfactory for its strong potential appeal to continuity.

I would also point out that a leader is something of a fiction, all leaders must negotiate with at least some group that has a fair amount of control over the leader, though there is a lot of variance in this condition, that group often has more authority and power than the leader does.

Every leader must have some ability to fascinate and hold the attention of others, particularly to be effective to and outside of the group mentioned above, and the means to achieve that fascination are varied, complex, and unstable.