Dual strategies theory

Originating in evolutionary psychology, dual strategies theory states two major strategies individuals use to advance in social hierarchies.

• The first and oldest of the two strategies, dominance is exemplified by the use of force, implied force or other forms of coercion to take social power.
• The second of the two strategies, prestige, is defined as an approach in which an individual gains social rank through demonstrating traits valued by other group members such as high levels of skill, generosity or the ability to teach their skills to others.^[1]

It has been suggested that rather than represent two unique strategies, dominance and prestige should be seen as two distinct groups of strategies with different sub-strategies within each of the two major categories.^[2]

History[]

Henrich and Gil-White built on social exchange theory to develop the idea of prestige as conveyed social status and respect in exchange for expertise. This was contrasted with dominance where social status is taken rather than freely conveyed.^[3] The two strategies are distinct pathways from each other but both equally viable routes to gain status in human social hierarchies.^[4]

Dominance[]

The oldest of the two strategies, Dominance is identified with a desire for authority, control, and power. It is associated with tactics that include the use of force, threat, selfish withholding of resources and general intimidation.^[5] Dominance is also associated with negative personality traits such as hubristic pride.^[6] Dominance is a status gaining strategy that has been observed in many species including primates and particularly chimpanzees who are one of the closest primate species genetically to humans.^[7] Dominance is less stable than prestige in human and other primate species as followers can resist and coordinate to reduce or suppress the dominant leader's power.^[8]

Prestige[]

Prestige is identified with a desire for the admiration, respect, and elevated status. It is associated with tactics that include freely sharing desirable traits expertise and collaboration. Prestige is associated with positive traits such as authentic pride.^[6] Prestige appears to be unique to humans and the development of prestige is linked to the development of larger and more intricate social structures.^[5] Prestige based leadership is more stable and long term as it produces mutually beneficial outcomes for followers and the leader.^[8]

Developments and implications[]

Domain specificity[]

Dominance and prestige hierarchies are naturally occurring in human groups. The status gained is domain specific and may not be transferable across different activities.^[9] In particular, there is a marked preference for allocating prestige based on specific domain expertise suggesting that status earned on prestige grounds is specific to the domain in which it was earned and largely not transferable to other domains.^[10]

Punishment[]

Both dominance and prestige interact with punishment and being punished by group members in various ways. High status dominant leaders are punished more severely for transgressions against group and organizational norms than high status prestige types for the same or similar offenses.^[11] Whereas, the ability and willingness to punish others in a group increases perceptions of the punisher's dominance among other group members making punishing others a strategic tool but one which is only open to high status individuals.^[12] The costs associated with punishing others are less for high status individuals who end up with their reputation and dominant status enhanced from being seen by the group to punish others so the motive to punish others can be driven by self interest.^[13]

Group management[]

Dominant leaders are more likely to attempt to stay close to group members that they see as potential threats to their power in order to monitor and control them. This behavior is less likely to occur if the dominant leader does not feel that their position is under threat.^[14] Similarly, leaders high in dominance whose position is under internal threat may prioritize retaining power over the interests of the group through tactics such as withholding information from the group, excluding able subordinates who are potential rivals, and preventing skilled group members from having influence over group tasks. In the face of external or out-group threat high dominance leaders stop prioritizing self interest over group goals and these behaviors cease.^[15] Dominance based leaders do use other social influence tactics rather than exclusively coercive and have a range of complaisant tactics such as building relationships and using reason to convince others.^[16] When feeling threatened, dominance based leaders can generate divisions and work against cooperation among subordinates and undermine efficient group functioning in order to preserve leader status and power. The tactics used to damage own group cohesion include leaders restricting the amount of communication among subordinates, physically isolating skilled subordinates, and preventing subordinates from bonding with one another. This behavior was targeted at highly skilled subordinates who were seen as potential rivals to the leader. This dominant leader tendency to attack own group cohesion was removed when the threat to the leader was removed.^[17]

Prestige based leaders are more likely to prioritize decisions preferred by followers rather than what they feel is the best course of action for group performance, suggesting that prestige leaders can prioritize social approval from the group instead of overall group performance.^[18] As prestige based leaders are more dependent on group support they show signs of hyper-vigilance towards signs of social discontent and disapproval from followers through increased visual attention and face perception which in turn leads to attempts to maintain social relationships with followers.^[19] This is consistent with evidence that prestige based approaches are positively associated with complaisant or people pleasing tactics but negatively associated with coercive tactics.^[16]

Risk taking[]

People endorse risk-takers as leaders in competitive intergroup situations but not in cooperative intergroup settings. Risk takers are perceived as more dominant and risk-taking is associated with leadership. Risk-taking organization members are more likely to be granted leadership positions which in turn explains how some organizations develop a risk taking culture.^[20]

Populism and political discontent[]

Increased societal inequality leads to heightened needs for status and dominance seeking behavior through individual or coalition aggression as dominance for certain groups is a more attainable route to status than prestige.^[21] While both dominance and prestige are viable routes for attaining influential leadership positions, economic uncertainty leads to individual voters feeling a lack of personal control which in turn results in greater preference for more dominant leaders in times of economic uncertainty.^[22] Therefore preferences for dominant leadership styles arise from a context full of intergroup conflict, innate preferences for dominant leaders as well as popular commitment towards pursuing group-based conflict in order to establish societal dominance through aggressive and offensive strategies.^[23]

Physical communication of status[]

High social rank attained either through dominance or prestige is associated with distinct facial expressions, head positions and bodily expansion. An example of this is that prestige based leaders signal their status with an upwards head tilt versus a downward head tilt for dominance based leaders.^[24] Humans use voice changes to signal status relationships with deepening vocal pitch during peer interactions indicating higher social rank.^[25] In times of inter-group conflict or warfare there is often a preference for leaders with dominant, masculine looking faces with the reverse being the case during peacetime.^[26]

Leadership as a possible third evolved strategy[]

There is some evidence that a third distinct evolved motivation pathway explaining the drive towards higher status exists, a leadership motivation. This pathway can be summed up leaders motivated to lead people and organizations out of a sense of wider responsibility^[27] While distinct from dominance and prestige this leadership does share a similar desire for power with the dual strategies.^[28]

Links with other theories[]

Servant leadership[]

There is an overlap between prestige and servant leadership but some important differences as well.

Similarities[]

Prestige-based leaders and servant leaders are more likely to make sacrifices for the welfare of their groups and work hard to benefit other group members.

Differences[]

Servant leadership does not imply the leader demonstrating competence as prestige does. Motivation is also a differentiating factor with servant leaders sacrificing for the group out of compassionate love whereas prestige based leaders may sacrifice in order to gain status from the group. Another key difference is that servant leadership is not linked to narcissism, whereas prestige leadership is linked to narcissism even if the prestige based leader is likely to suppress it in front of group members.^[29]

Research methodologies and tools[]

Dominance and prestige scales[]

Dominance and prestige scales have been developed to research dominance and prestige. The scales are scored out of 7 and cover both a self-report and a peer-report scale.^[30]

General applications[]

Dual strategies theory has been featured in publications aimed at practitioners and applied specifically to leadership and leadership behaviors, examples include applications for leadership^[31] and sub-fields within such as educational leadership.^[32] It has also featured in articles in publications aimed at the more general reader such as the New York Times.^[33]

References[]