Lessons from Leadership

It would seem that our ancestors universally "had a problem with 'Authority'." Why, do you suppose?

This sort of context and attitude sets the bottom-line constraints on "leadership," at least as it was practiced in our small ancestral face-to-face groups. Clearly there wasn't much room at all for "leadership" in the modern hierarchical sense. In fact our ancestors simply didn't tolerate "leadership" -- and so didn't have any "leaders," at least as we know them -- at all! Nada! Zilch! Zip! PERIOD.

My test readers found this exceedingly difficult to accept, and as we already know, they're not alone. Since "leaderlessness" and societies "without monarchs, without much hierarchy--stunned [even 16th Century] Europeans," why should we hierarchical moderns be less "stunned?" My mother asked me baffled, "How in the world did they get anything done?"

While our ancestors apparently didn't need leaders-as-we-know-them to get things done, it is indeed clear that there are simply some things our ancestors couldn't -- and didn't -- do alone. It's also clear that our ancestors simply didn't tolerate any insistent hierarchical leaders. So the question of the moment becomes, "How do members of small groups get together to do un-solitary things without insistent hierarchical leaders-as-we-know-them?" That is, "How do you get individuals who each 'come and go just as he or she please' to come and go together?" Without insistent hierarchical leaders?

The answers to these questions aren't so simple: Because of what I would call a "linguistic deficit" -- to be addressed later -- we moderns have confused two distinctly different processes and called them both "leadership." This will all become more clear as we develop this continuing "leadership" theme in several later sections. By that time we will have assembled concepts allowing a relatively clear and simple presentation.

While we won't be able to completely illuminate this situation in this Chapter, we can at least get a good start. We'll begin with a closer look at "leadership" as it's perceived by our most experienced observers. Let's see, then, what we can learn from some of the ethnographic descriptions of just how things are actually done in small egalitarian groups.

The real question for us isn't so much, "How was leadership done," though that's the way we moderns are likely to frame it -- and how our "urban literate" observers almost certainly viewed it -- but rather, "When ethnographers, biased towards observing modern style hierarchical 'leadership' thought that's what they were observing in small face-to-face groups, what was really going on instead?"

It's clear if no so-called "leader" can even demand the congregation rise during church, there is indeed no leadership worth mentioning, at least not as we moderns normally understand it, and something else must be happening. But what?

The Yanomamo do not permit any man to gain much political authority in his "village," which translates as "sovereign political unit" or "tribe." Thus they are egalitarian. An effective warrior may have enormous prestige and may be chosen as chief of his village, but he cannot boss another man. This is well illustrated by Chagnon (1983), who tells of one village that was to host another for a feast. Its chief, to ensure that the central area was tidy, went out and began to rake it himself. Others saw him and began to follow his example, at which point he retired to let them finish the job. He was obliged to lead by example. (Boehm 1999:92) [emphasis added]

Service (1975:50-53) was particularly interested in the "self-effacing" behavior of the headman, whose role invariably was that of facilitator as opposed to governor or ruler. While headmen as informal leaders were likely to possess admirable self-assertive skills in hunting or warfare, these qualities were combined with "generosity, kindness, and freedom from bad temper, such that the person becomes highly respected and his opinions [carried] more weight than other, still older men." In effect, these leaders were sharing their ideas with the group in the form of suggestions, without asserting any authority.

...Service (1975) made the point that a respected band leader would go out of his way to avoid prominence, giving away virtually everything he came to possess. He also emphasized the leader's ability to sense public opinion. His conclusion (see also Service 1962) was that the foraging band's leader was a mere primus inter pares, a first among equals. (Boehm 1999:33) [bolding emphasis added]

Strict equality was practiced with respect to political relations among adult males. Leaders were weak and merely assisted a consensus-seeking process when the group needed to make decisions (Knauft 1991). "(Boehm 1999:30;31)

[!Kung] Leaders do exist, but their influence is subtle and indirect. They never order or make demands of others, and their accumulation of material goods is never more, and often much less, than the average accumulation of the other households in their camp. -(Lee 1979:457)[Richard B. Lee, The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a Foraging Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1997) p. 457] (Boehm 1999:61) [emphasis added]

In meaningful ways hunter-gatherers are strikingly similar to chimpanzees. Both species depend on foraging and live in flexible local groupings, with families or individuals moving about at will. In both species a leader cannot force a personally chosen strategy on the entire group, yet the rank and file can be quite responsive to leadership in certain contexts. -(Boehm 1999:40) [emphasis added]

The Ona had no hereditary or elected chiefs, but men of outstanding ability almost always became the unacknowledged leaders of their groups. Yet one man might seem leader today and another man tomorrow, according to whoever was eager to embark upon some enterprise. (Boehm 1999:62) [emphasis added]

And, to put a cap on it, let's take a look at a description of a well-known figure from American folklore:

He was much sought after by his youthful associates, but was noticeably reserved and modest; yet in the moment of danger he at once rose above them all -- a natural leader! ... While he was still under twenty, there was a great winter buffalo hunt, and he came back with ten buffaloes' tongues which he sent to the council lodge for the councilors' feast. He had in one winter day killed ten buffalo cows with his bow and arrows, and the unsuccessful hunters or those who had no swift ponies were made happy by his generosity. - Compiled by: Glenn Welker, Crazy Horse/Tashunkewitko, Oglala, April 6, 1999 [emphasis added]

These passages are intriguing in what they reveal, not only about ancestral organization, but also what they reveal about modern society, both by the language employed by our urban literate observers -- and also by the fact we have to struggle so much to understand the kind of ancestral organization they were attempting to describe.

First we'll look at what the above passages reveal about ancestral organization:

Second, the passages are interesting in what they reveal about the observers themselves. To start with, despite our ethnographers describing these small-group folks as "sharing their ideas" as "suggestions without asserting any authority," one observer feels obliged to describe them as "informal leaders," another as "unacknowledged leaders." Unacknowledged by whom? Could it be that those "informal" "self- effacing" small-group "leaders" were just behaving as did all the other "self-effacing" equals and "headmen over themselves" in their band? Could it be they just seemed "self-effacing" in comparison to what we have come to expect as a result of our experiences with modern hierarchical "headmen?" Like U.S. President Bill Clinton when he held up air traffic at LAX waiting in Air Force One for his favorite barber?

Further, since according to Fried (1967:33) ancestral groups lacked "the cultural habit" of establishing "an order of dominance and paramountcy," why did Service find it irresistible to conclude that "the foraging band's leader was a ... primus inter pares, a first among equals," thus creating by his use of language not only just such an order of dominance and paramountcy, but also a primary "leader" as well? What does "first among equals" mean if not that they aren't equal at all? Why did Service choose to write of "the foraging band's leader" at all, despite the fact that in small groups "one man might seem leader today and another man tomorrow" and each man is a "captain" and "is headman over himself?"

It seems to me our "urban literate" observers, because of certain modern cultural biases and expectations -- and a major linguistic deficit as we'll see -- are creating their version of persistent and thus implicitly hierarchical "leaders" where none exist. What these observers would have to argue is that ALL small-group members, universally considered fellow "headmen" or fellow "captains" by themselves and their group-mates, are all knowingly refusing to acknowledge that their more prolific and successful sharers-of-ideas are actually, instead and indeed, their persistent hierarchical "leaders."

To designate these idea-sharing folks as their subliminal and thus implicit version of persistent hierarchical leaders, an "urban literate" observer would, apparently, simply keep track of who seems to share the most ideas or most often leads by example. That person would then, in the mind of the observer, be "promoted" from frequent though temporary situational leader to "permanent (hierarchical) leader" despite the fact that neither the folks so designated -- nor their group-mates -- see it that way. In fact if they did see one of their group mates as becoming a permanent hierarchical leader, that group-mate would be criticized, ridiculed, ignored, shunned, etc. until he straightend his act out.

While our ancestors respected and gave credit to outstanding individuals, if they crossed the line and began acting like persistent leaders, particularly "alpha" hierarchists, the reaction was swift and effective.

Remember among these folks, "Every man in his eyes has the same rights and the same priviliges as every other man in the community. One may be a better hunter, or a more skillful dancer, or have greater control over the spiritual world, but this does not make him more than one member of a group in which all are free and theoretically equal."

It seems obvious that there is a significant difference in the way we urban literates implicitly view leadership behavior and how that same behavior is explicitly viewed by members of small groups. While we seem to see hierarchy and "informational" or "situational" leadership as the same, small-group members definitely make a sharp distinction.

Perhaps we urban literates are so used to people "ruling us," "governing us," making demands of us, asserting authority over us and just plain bossing us around -- not to mention claiming to be "kings" and other labels designating themselves as persistent hierarchical place holders -- and everyone apparently eager to "rule the world," -- we've become completely propagandized into believing this is the natural state of affairs.

This, along with the difficulties we "urban literates" -- including our trained observers -- have in understanding such groups, all imply that we moderns believe, and quite strongly, that not only are hierarchy and the concomitant -- persistent leaders -- universal, but that they're necessary to get anything done. Ergo there just must have been persistent hierarchical leaders in these small ancestral groups, ruling them and telling them what to do. Just like in the movies.

It would be logical that, as a result of such strong beliefs, we, like our ethnographers and anthropologists -- Boehm included -- regularly attempt to assign persistent "leaders" (and overlay hierarchy) where neither exist. Or at least to promote some individual to a hierarchical prominence well above that perceived or permitted by his small-group peers -- a prominent position much more befitting the biases of us hierarchical urban literates than the realities of our small-group egalitarian anti- authoritarian ancestors. Yep, I plead guilty too. But according to the scientific literature, small face-to-face groups severely challenge these modern biases. And of course, we now know better.

Surprisingly, these characteristics of small-group leaders also remain in larger, though still "primitive" groups even today . . .

1. Why are small groups universally so hostile to insistent leaders that they may ostracize and even kill them?

2. On the other hand, why are we "urban literates" so baffled by acephalous (leaderless) groups and so insistent on trying to assign persistent hierarchical leaders to them despite the fact that they get along just fine without such leaders?

3. What is the essential difference between persistent leadership as practiced in large modern super-groups and the leaderless "leadership" reported by our urban literate observers when studying small face-to-face groups?

Earlier in this section we asked, "How do members of small groups get together to do un-solitary things without insistent hierarchical leaders-as-we-know-them?" And, while we don't have all the pieces in place yet to completely answer this question, perhaps we have made progress?

We can sum-up our clues so far. Those individuals in small-groups who seem instrumental in getting people together to do un- solitary things (and are regularly perceived as leaders by our modern observers):

- act as "facilitator(s) as opposed to governor(s) or ruler(s)" (Service 1975:50-53)

- are "noticeably reserved and modest" (Welker 1999)

- are "obliged to lead by example" (Chagnon 1983)

- "never order or make demands of others" (Lee 1979:457)

- "cannot boss another man" (Boehm 1999:92)

- are "sharing their ideas with the group in the form of suggestions, without asserting any authority" (Service 1975:33)

- "were weak and merely assisted a consensus-seeking process when the group needed to make decisions." (Knauft 1991)

Perhaps you already know the answers? Well if so, I suspect you may be in the minority. But stick around. In later sections, we'll compare notes!

In the meantime, you might consider the following as additional clues warranting a bit of special attention:

"One man might seem leader today and another man tomorrow" (Boehm 1999:62)

"A leader cannot force a personally chosen strategy on the entire group, yet the rank and file can be quite responsive to leadership in certain contexts." (Boehm 1999:40)

While Crazy Horse was "noticeably reserved and modest," ... "in the moment of danger he at once rose above them all -- a natural leader!" --Welker 1999

It is, I believe, also notable, but for different reasons, that there is the persistent suggestion that those labeled as "leaders" by our urban literate observers were poorer -- and more generous -- than others of their group. Why do I think these observations notable?

Stay tuned.

Summary

We recalled from Chapter 3 that our ancestors simply wouldn't put up with persistent hierarchical leaders and this implies, in the minds of us "urban literates," a serious question: Without such persistent hierarchical leaders, how did our ancestors get anything done?

We warned that we wouldn't have a complete answer to that question till later, but that we could make progress in this chapter by looking at our urban literate ethnographers' descriptions of the behavior of those they perceived as small-group leaders. We suggested the descriptions were intriguing not only because of what they reveal about ancestral organization, but also what they reveal about modern society, both by the language employed by our urban literate observers -- and also by the fact they -- and we -- have to struggle so much to understand the kind of ancestral organization they were attempting to describe.

Taking exact quotes from the cited ethnographic descriptions, we concluded that those individuals regularly perceived as leaders by our modern observers:

- act as "facilitator(s) as opposed to governor(s) or ruler(s)" (Service 1975:50-53)

- are "noticeably reserved and modest" (Welker 1999)

- are "obliged to lead by example" (Chagnon 1983)

- "never order or make demands of others" (Lee 1979:457)

- "cannot boss another man" (Boehm 1999:92)

- are "sharing their ideas with the group in the form of suggestions, without asserting any authority" (Service 1975:33)

- "were weak and merely assisted a consensus-seeking process when the group needed to make decisions." (Knauft 1991)

As noted, even our urban literate ethnographers had difficulties understanding such "acephalous leadership" and tended, by their descriptions, to create their version of persistent -- and thus implicitly hierarchical -- "leaders" where none exist. This bias is a recurrent problem, first encountered in Chapter 3 and reinforced by the unnaturally hierarchical nature of modern societies -- with "kings," presidents and "tsars" etc. ruling us, governing us, bossing us, asserting Authority, and so on. This bias is further exacerbated by a linguistic deficit we'll address at length in a later chapter. All this causes us to confuse persistent hierarchical leadership with the kind of "leaderless leadership" characterized in this chapter. This confusion is clearly a mistake our small- group ancestors didn't make.

Clearly, small groups do get guidance, but those giving it never order or make demands of others, cannot boss another man, and do not "assert authority." Given these leadership limitations -- and thus lacking leaders-as-we- know-them -- how do small groups get together to do un-solitary things? The answer will come in later chapters, but there were three more clues presented:

"One man might seem leader today and another man tomorrow" (Boehm 1999:62)

"A leader cannot force a personally chosen strategy on the entire group, yet the rank and file can be quite responsive to leadership in certain contexts." (Boehm 1999:40)

While Crazy Horse was "noticeably reserved and modest," ... "in the moment of danger he at once rose above them all -- a natural leader!" --Welker 1999