It probably doesn’t shock you to learn that throughout history, physically formidable humans (especially males) have been the most likely to hold power.  You can probably envision a large caveman clubbing challengers into submission.  However, certain physical traits continue to predict leadership emergence even in modern societies where the use of brute force alone would be an illegal, or at least frowned upon, tactic of persuasion.

“What is surprising is we still see this dynamic unfolding in a very peaceful, modern, white collar organizational context,” Aaron Lukaszewski, associate professor of psychology at Oklahoma State University, says.

Lukaszewski and colleagues (Dr. Zachary Simmons of the University of Portland, Dr. Cameron Anderson of the University of California, Berkeley, and Dr. James Roney of the University of California, Santa Barbara) explored why physical traits continue to correlate with high social status and recently published their discoveries.  In short, here is what they found:

5 Reasons Physically Formidable Men Rule the World

1. Cooperation in Groups – Conflict within a group reduces its effectiveness and therefore leadership is critical.  

2. Leadership is Risky – When implementing punishment or intervening in others’ private conflicts, the leader must risk coming into conflict with other group members.  

3. Physically formidable men historically paid lower costs for providing effective leadership - others were likely to defer to them, and they were more likely to win out in a physical contest. 

4. Thus, throughout most of human history, physically formidable men have been more effective at bringing about collective action and leading interactions with other groups. 

5. Therefore, the psychology of social status allocation is designed to assume that physically formidable men make good leaders – which results in the willing conferral of high status upon stronger men. 

“This is the first study to show that physically stronger men are not perceived as more intelligent but are perceived as higher on potent leadership and that is why they are perceived as more deserving of higher status,” Lukaszewski says.  

So why are physical traits – those that signify physical formidability – so closely correlated with the more (theoretically) cerebral tasks of management? 

“We’re proposing that there is a reciprocal arrangement whereby formidable males provide these beneficial leadership services and others in turn give them high social status,” Lukaszewski explains.  “If the leader fails to perform those functions effectively, subordinates can easily depose those individuals collectively.”

Essentially, physically formidable males have been willing to take the risks of leadership and produce benefits for the entire group throughout history and therefore we assume they are better equipped to handle social aspects of leadership – those that are dependent upon one’s ability to elicit group-beneficial behavior in others. 

Lukaszewski found these tenets to hold true in small-scale human societies as well, specifically the hunter-horticulturalist Tsimane’ of the Bolivian Amazon.  Collaborating with the University of Richmond’s Christopher von Rueden and the University of California, Santa Barbara’s Michael Gurven on a separate but related study, they confirmed measured physical strength and attainment of education both positively predicted a cluster of traits the researchers dubbed pro-social leadership orientation.  Positive traits such as extroversion and social networking were included under that umbrella.  Physically aggressive traits were not.  

“There is a very engrained aspect of leadership preference that is not based on intimidation because if the individual implemented an aggressive strategy, others would band together and depose a leader of any physical strength level,” Lukaszewski says. “Therefore, physical strength only promotes high status when it is used for the good of the group – and not for evil.”  

 *******