From the animal kingdom to the statehouse, civilization depends on leadership. Whether it’s a wolf pack relying on an alpha to guide the hunt or citizens looking to elected officials to navigate the complexities of governance, leadership is a cornerstone of society. Leaders maintain order, foster unity, and inspire progress, shaping the direction of their communities, organizations, and even nations.

But what makes a leader, and where does leadership come from? Leadership is more than a position of authority; it is the ability to guide, influence, articulate a vision, and rally others toward common goals, often in the face of uncertainty or adversity. At its core, leadership involves more than just holding a position of authority; it is about fostering trust, promoting collaboration, and making decisions that align with the needs and aspirations of the people being led.

With President Donald Trump’s approaching inauguration, the question of what defines effective leadership has come to the forefront of national conversation. While some praise his bold and decisive approach and ability to connect with his base, others believe his leadership style challenges traditional perceptions of what it means to lead. His to power has underscored the deep divisions in the United States and the role of a leader in either bridging or exacerbating such divides.

This moment provides an opportunity for reflection on the concept of leadership and what marks a good leader? To explore these ideas, we asked three faculty members from different fields to share their insights.

James F. A. Traniello, a professor of biology, studies how collective intelligence and division of labor impact the size, structure, and metabolism of the brain in animal societies ranging from ants to humans. His research encompasses the evolutionary neurobiology, social immunology, and behavioral ecology of social insects, including the roles of elitism and leadership in social organization. He is an Elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Animal Behavior Society, and Editor-in-Chief of the journal Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

Virginia Sapiro, a professor emerita in political science and dean emerita of Boston University Arts & Sciences. She has published extensively in the fields of political psychology, political behavior and public opinion, gender politics, and feminist and democratic theory. She is also an elected Supervisor of the Checklist in Gilmanton, N.H., helping to ensure that eligible people can vote.

Diane Mello-Goldner, a senior lecturer in psychological & brain sciences. Her research focuses on positive aspects of the self, including academic goal attainment and self-efficacy, and how they relate to academic persistence and student success. She teaches a class called “Heroes and Heroines: Quest for Self and Identity,” which explores the concept of leadership.

James F. A. Traniello, professor of biology

Leadership is not unique to humans. Leaders and leadership—or the absence thereof—occur in many animal societies. Insect colonies, exemplars of social evolution, are characterized by decentralized organization that lack the hierarchical control common in human social groups. Despite the Hollywood depiction of queens controlling worker behavior in Antz or Antman, these societies have no leaders. The queen is an ovary, not a president or military strategist. Leaderless cooperative and coordinated actions structure global processes through communication and simple behavioral algorithms. Although workers may guide a nestmate in tandem to a new food source or organize the group transport of prey, examples of leadership are uncommon. Nonetheless, honeybees are democratic in their decision-making: they “agree” upon where to establish a new hive or feed at a floral patch after evaluating the “recommendations”—communicative signals—of scout bees. Collective intelligence does not require leaders.

Understanding the meaning of leadership—and thus the state of our political systems—can benefit from knowledge of its roots. An evolutionary perspective provides insight into the origins of human behavior—the why of what we do—and how a trait that evolved in an ancient environment might be maladaptive in our complex, large, technology-driven societies. Studies suggest that the simple answer to “what makes a leader” is facial appearance and height. Perhaps brawn and bluster were important in deep human history, but intelligence, cooperation, consensus building, compromise, and empathy are more significant in the modern world. Such “mismatches” make human actions that appear to defy reason more comprehensible. Political sectarianism, for example, can be explained in part by evolutionary concepts of parochial altruism, within-group cooperation (and political preference), and out-group denigration (“othering”), whether through social media posts or aggression. Believing extreme denials of science, facts, and evidence, including outrageous baseless claims, serves to identify group membership and commitment to a political cause. The ability to be indoctrinated, the counterpart of leadership, likely coevolved in complex social systems.

Virginia Sapiro, professor of political science emerita, dean of Arts & Sciences emerita

“If we know all too much about our leaders, we know far too little about leadership.” This observation is as worthy today as it was when it appeared in 1978 in political scientist James McGregor Burns’ classic and influential book, Leadership.

Pundits and lay people alike look in the wrong place to understand leadership: They stare at and analyze leaders as individuals, trying to understand their mindsets and feelings and predict their behavior. They look at leaders’ personal strengths and weaknesses, maybe placing those characteristics into categories to compare them with other individual leaders. All these things are part of what defines leadership in particular cases, but this leader-centered approach to leadership misses the boat.

The scholarly literature on political leadership is huge and resistant to any easy summary, but all of it, except perhaps research framed most narrowly by individual psychological theory, agrees that there is no effective understanding of leadership without understanding not just leaders, but also followers and resistors. There is no leadership without followers. And if everyone is fully in accord, then what or who is being led? Leadership is not merely power over other people. Power by mere coercion—threatening people’s lives or well-being, holding real or psychological guns to their heads—is not leadership. There is always an element of following ineffective leadership. Leadership creates effective consensus sufficient to act.

The leadership literature emphasizes interactions between leaders and followers. Laozi supposedly said, “A leader is best when people barely know he exists. When his work is done, and his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves.” Nelson Mandela agreed that “leading from behind” is the best approach when outcomes are good, but when great challenges and danger are present, an effective leader stands in front, navigates, and accepts responsibility.

Leadership is defined by the context of structures, opportunities, constraints, and cultural expectations as the psychology of the leader. Leadership is different in a democracy—it is far more messy — compared with an autocracy. It is different depending on the institutional context in which it operates.

Finally, although leadership may be transactional—in other words, operating only for its own sake to get things done, including preserving the tenure of the leader—leadership is most inspiring, and sometimes frightening when it is transformational. Transformational leadership creates a new effective consensus, a new alignment of goals and values, for better or worse. If it is embedded in ethical standards and justice values, then likely for the better.

Diane Mello-Goldner, senior lecturer, psychological and brain sciences

Answering the question “What is leadership?” is both simple and complicated. Most simply, a leader is any person perceived by others in a group to have some power or influence over them. Leadership is a process and should focus on helping a group achieve its goal. We all have had experiences in groups and teams led by someone we thought was not a good leader. Borrowing from my favorite movie right now, Wicked, we can ask ourselves, “Are people born leaders, or is leadership thrust upon them?” Again, the answer is not so simple. While it is true that leadership emergence is relatively stable across the lifespan (once a leader, always a leader) and there are certain traits (like intelligence/competence, extraversion, and conscientiousness) often found in leaders, there is no “one-size-fits-all” type of leader.

The groundbreaking Ohio State University Leadership Studies conducted in the late 1940s and 1950s tried to identify the behaviors that distinguished effective leaders from ineffective ones. They came up with two dimensions of leadership: task-oriented leaders (those who are good at setting group goals and defining the structure, roles, and tasks needed to make sure the job gets done) and person-oriented leaders (who also want to get the job done, but focus more on the people in the group and develop mutual trust, respect, and concern for their group members). Both types of leadership can be successful. The kind of leader that is most effective may depend on the type of group and the members of that group.

I have taught several courses related to leadership in the past and read many books that claim to provide you with the “secret sauce” for effective leadership. No one book or leadership style does that. However, from my experiences as a leader and instructor, I think the best way for a leader to guide a team to achieve their results is first to remember that while you are a leader, you are still a member of that team as well—so be a partner with your team members. The people on your team and your relationships with them will help you succeed as a leader. Being a bully and using or threatening force is NOT the recommended leadership strategy in almost all cases. To establish this partnership, leaders need to create a culture of open and reciprocal communication. Be an inclusive leader. Know your team members and their strengths and weaknesses as well as their career and personal goals—get to know them and value them as individuals. It is good to challenge your team members directly, but you should also encourage them to challenge you, too—you are, after all, also a member of that team and should not be granted any “immunity.”

A final thing to remember is that leaders sometimes must do unpleasant tasks like firing people or failing a student. While you may be forced to do things that are not “nice,” you should at least be kind about it. Being kind but firm in your leadership approach will help your team members feel respected and understood, contributing to a positive and productive environment.