Leadership is Not about the Leaders

Power - the ability to influence or direct the circumstances, actions, beliefs, choices, and conduct of others - is the essence of leadership. But, power and leadership are not the same. Power is to leadership what fuel is to a vehicle. Fuel provides the energy necessary to propel a vehicle forwards. Similarly, power provides the capacity for groups to galvanize collective meaning, action and resolve. Fuel enables the generation of motion through an intricate mechanical process in an engine. Similarly, power generates a complex and intricate social interplay within a group.

This interplay is key to the functioning of human groups, societies, and organizations - their survival, development, and hopefully thriving. It simultaneously shapes and is reinforced by the way individuals and groups interact, organize, prioritize, decide, and act.

From this perspective, leadership is not about the leaders, their attributes or even “styles”. Rather, it is an inherently social process—an implicit contract and tacit negotiation of influence, responsibility, trust, and collective identity among members of a specific group within a specific historical and cultural context.

Symbolic aspects - ceremonies, rituals, regalia, symbolic acts, and behavioral codes - are central to the exercise and performance of power. Leaders and followers enact and construct them to legitimize authority and foster a sense of unity and cohesion, but also to signal dissent and opposition. Symbolic displays connect leaders to broader cultural and governance frameworks, embedding power within the shared values and beliefs of their society. They are culturally specific tools and strategies to negotiate power and align communities.

Leadership and Power in Human Evolution

We cannot take an anthropological perspective on leadership and power and not trace them to the origins of social life and the evolution of our species. This evolution complex can be sketched briefly as follows:

In hunter-gatherer groups, leadership is presumed to have been largely situational, distributed, and consensual. It emerged situationally based on specific challenges that called for specific skills, such as hunting, navigation, or conflict resolution. Power in such societies was decentralized, and decisions were made collectively or through informal negotiation. Leadership in this context was not imposed but earned, relying on trust and social agreement.

The transition to agriculture and sedentary lifestyles marked a significant shift in power dynamics and therefore leadership. With the accumulation of resources and the emergence of surplus economies, leadership roles became more formalized and institutionalized. Chiefs, kings, and religious leaders often wielded symbolic power, using rituals, myths, and ideologies to legitimize their authority. Anthropologists like Pierre Clastres have examined this evolution, noting that power in these societies often shifted from a relational and situational construct to a more institutionalized and hierarchical one.

As societies stratify, leadership often becomes institutionalized, with power concentrated in the hands of a few. Anthropologists like Marvin Harris argue that such systems arise from material conditions, including resource distribution and environmental pressures, which necessitate centralized decision-making. In these societies, power is formalized through mechanisms like laws, titles, and bureaucracies, often creating a clearer distinction and distance between leaders and followers as well as increasingly coercive ways to protect and maintain power structures.

Patriarchal gender norms, caste, race, class and nationality are social inventions and cultural constructions that fueled the institutional inequalities and power structures that upheld colonialism, imperialism, and the Western-dominated international order. It is of little surprise, given this context, that the archetype of a “leader” has been Western, white and male; and, that this archetype still persists even though significant progress has been made to uproot it.

History, we may argue, is the evolution of institutionalized power and the leadership dynamics of social change. It is characterized by competition for power and control right up to the modern nation state and beyond, i.e., transnational institutions, such as the EU, United Nations, NATO, and others. Within these higher order structures the organization of business mirrors the basic organization of power and leadership of society.

Inclusiveness matters

Today, in a world where power and leadership are organized through nation-states, economists Darin Acemoglu and James A. Robinson provide a highly relevant and instructive analysis. It is a particularly important and instructive reminder given the current social and political developments. [See: Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty (first published in 2012)].

They distinguish between inclusive and extractive institutionalizations of power. Accordingly, inclusive institutions (both political and economic) promote prosperity by encouraging innovation, investment, and participation from a broad segment of society. These institutions protect property rights, enforce laws and standards fairly, and allow political representation.

Extractive institutions, on the other hand, concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a small elite, suppressing broader economic and political participation. These institutions stifle growth and innovation, as seen in many historical and modern autocracies.

This means that economic prosperity depends on a country’s political and civic institutions. Nations with centralized but inclusive political institutions tend to develop sustainable economic growth, whereas those with autocratic or fragmented political structures struggle.

Historical turning points (such as the Industrial Revolution) create opportunities for institutional change. Whether a nation takes an inclusive or extractive path depends, to a significant degree, on its pre-existing institutional structure. But they are no guarantee.

Many countries today have been experiencing democratic backsliding, with leaders consolidating power and weakening institutions: In Russia, for example, Putin’s centralization of power and suppression of political opposition have created an extractive system that stifles innovation and economic dynamism. The leaders of Turkey and Hungary have eroded judicial independence and media freedom, limiting inclusive political participation and weakening long-term economic prospects. Notably, the current authoritarian developments in the United States and other democracies put the resilience of inclusive institutions to the test.

We also experience the tension between inclusive and extractive systems of power in changing relation to international organizations and institutions (e.g., the EU, the United Nations, NATO, etc.). Nationalism and isolationism are threatening inclusive political discourse and social development in many countries.

Of course, multinational corporations as well as social media platforms and the emergence of AI greatly influence, shape and change the dynamics of leadership and power in new ways and at all levels of human social organization. This, no doubt, is a critical edge in the evolution of leadership and power, together with the existential threat of climate change.

Implications for Leadership and Power in Organizations

The anthropological understanding of leadership as a social process and a negotiation of power offers valuable lessons for global business organizations. In today’s interconnected and culturally diverse corporate worlds, leaders must navigate complex dynamics of authority, influence, and cultural expectations.

1. Leadership as Contextual and Adaptive

Anthropology teaches us that leadership is deeply contextual and institutionally embedded, as well as shaped by cultural, social, and historical factors. In global business, this means leaders must develop intercultural intelligence to adapt their approach to diverse teams and stakeholders. For example, hierarchical leadership styles effective in centralized organizations in East Asia may not resonate in more egalitarian contexts like Scandinavian companies.

Successful leaders recognize these differences and tailor their strategies accordingly. While this may sound simple, it is in fact a difficult and personally challenging task. Minimally, it involves an appraisal and examination of one’s own cultural conditioning and the ability to draw from a broad and flexible behavioral repertoire in order to choose an appropriate leadership approach with confidence.

2. The Power of Symbolic Leadership

The symbolic dimensions of leadership are as relevant in business as they are in traditional societies. Corporate rituals—such as vision-setting exercises, award ceremonies, and town hall meetings—function as symbolic performances that reinforce a leader’s legitimacy and align teams with organizational goals. Leaders who effectively use storytelling, branding, ritual and symbolism can inspire trust and create a shared sense of purpose and identity across cultural and organizational boundaries.

3. Balancing Power and Accountability

In global business organizations, leaders who exercise power in an unreflected and ethnocentric way risk alienating employees and fostering resistance.

To mitigate this, companies can implement systems that promote transparency, feedback, and collaboration. They may draw inspiration from egalitarian practices in societies where leaders foster a culture of mutual respect and shared responsibility, ensuring that power serves the collective good.

4. Navigating Resistance and Building Consensus

Resistance is an inevitable part of leadership, but it can also be a source of growth and innovation when harnessed inclusively. By engaging with dissent constructively, leaders can identify underlying issues and improve organizational processes. Consensus-building techniques and forums (perhaps also inspired by more traditional, egalitarian ways of sharing power and practicing leadership) can help leaders navigate diverse perspectives and build stronger organizational cohesion.

5. Recognizing Informal Leadership

Anthropological studies highlight the significance of informal leadership—individuals who influence others through expertise, relationships, or charisma without formal authority and outside institutionalized power structures. In global organizations, recognizing and empowering these informal leaders can enhance collaboration and drive innovation, complementing formal leadership structures.

In essence, the relationship between leadership and power, as understood through an anthropological lens, offers critical insights for both traditional societies and modern organizations. Leadership is not a static or universal concept but a dynamic social process—a negotiation of influence, trust, and responsibility within specific cultural contexts. By understanding and framing leadership as a culturally embedded and relational practice, business leaders can navigate the complexities of global environments and most importantly build inclusive organizations and institutions because inclusiveness is a necessary precondition for human thriving.

 
This article was originally published in February 2025. 

About the Author

Joerg Schmitz is a business anthropologist passionate about exploring human behavior through the lens of anthropology and organizational culture. He is the founder and Managing Director of The Inclusive Leadership Institute (@TheInclusiveLeadershipInstitute). After 35 years living in the US and working with organizations and institutions globally, he currently resides in Bremen, Germany. Connect with him at [email protected] to continue the conversation.