The Many Faces of Leadership

When you think of a leader, you might picture a political figure like Donald Trump or a spiritual one like Pope Francis. In Morocco, I think of King Mohammed VI, who embodies both. Or perhaps innovators like Steve Jobs, thinkers like Jane Goodall, or activists like Malala Yousafzai. Even a boss or parent may come to mind, because at its core, leadership is disproportionate influence over group goals and outcomes.

All leaders share a common trait: a capacity for influence. Of course, the ways they achieve and use that influence can differ greatly.

Gandalf or Saruman?

We often perceive leaders in binaries: a domineering strongman versus a wise philosopher-king. Cultural traditions are filled with these contrasts. In Homer’s Iliad, Agamemnon rules through arrogance and force, while Odysseus relies on cunning and persuasion. In War and Peace, Tolstoy opposes Napoleon’s ego-driven domination to Kutuzov’s patient, collective authority. Tolkien reworks the theme in fantasy, with Sauron and Saruman ruling by fear, and Aragorn and Gandalf by wisdom and respect. Across centuries, our stories have reinforced the tendency to view leadership as a contest between dominance and prestige, force and persuasion, good and evil.

Leadership science has often done the same, contrasting leadership with management, transformational with transactional leadership, dominance with prestige, or masculine with feminine styles. These frameworks have sharpened our thinking, but they come at a cost: they flatten the complexity of leadership into tidy opposites. In stories, binaries make for compelling drama. In science, they offer clear categories for study. But in reality, leadership emergence is rarely so tidy.

What Ethnography Shows Us

The ethnographic record shows that real-world leadership, especially outside Western, industrialized contexts, rarely fits the binaries of our stories or theories. Among the Hokkien in rural Taiwan, wealthy landlords combined their resources, social connections, and mediation skills to become both official and informal leaders. In the North American plains, Blackfoot raiding leaders required not only courage but also horses, weapons, and kinship support to gather followers. Similarly, among the Andaman Islanders, respected leaders were chosen less for their wealth or force and more for their generosity, hunting skills, and even temper—qualities that attracted followers. Across societies, influence emerges not from a single trait or from one of two alternative strategies, but from distinctive mixes of resources and abilities. These cases hint at a broader pattern: leaders attain influence through unique “portfolios” of resources, not through one of two opposing modes.

A Multi-Capital View of Leadership

Leadership emergence can be understood in terms of different forms of “capital.” Social capital comes from relationships and networks that foster trust and cooperation. Intellectual capital rests on knowledge, skills, and insight that solve problems. Material capital refers to resources (money, land, or goods) that leaders can contribute or redistribute. And physical capital derives from strength or health, which can command respect and enforce compliance.

Each of these types of capital can be a source of influence, but in practice, leaders rely on distinctive combinations. For instance, a leader might combine specific expertise with strong social ties to rally followers without being physically formidable. Another might leverage physical strength and resources to maintain hierarchies.

Look again at the figures we often cast in binaries. Agamemnon is remembered for arrogance and force, but he also commanded material resources and networks of obligation that reinforced his authority. Odysseus, by contrast, drew influence from intelligence and persuasive speech, yet also relied on military strength and alliances. Their differences emerge not from mutually exclusive styles but from how their portfolios of resources were weighted and applied. Even Napoleon, remembered as a domineering conqueror, relied not just on armies but also on patronage, propaganda, and networks of supporters. In Tolkien’s world, Gandalf and Saruman are similarly framed as opposites—one benevolent, the other corrupt. Yet both share rare knowledge and supernatural power. What ultimately distinguishes them is their social capital. Gandalf built trust across hobbits, men, elves, and dwarves, forging a broad coalition. Saruman, by contrast, isolated himself, manipulated narrow factions, built an alliance with and grew increasingly dependent on Sauron.

Seen through this lens, leadership isn’t a single style but a portfolio. Influence depends on how leaders combine social, material, intellectual, and physical resources to meet group needs. Portfolios differ—some emphasize relationships, others expertise, wealth, or strength—but all allow leaders to mobilize effort, solve problems, and sometimes impose costs that sustain cooperation. The result is a marketplace of various potential leaders, with followers choosing those whose capacities seem best suited to the challenges at hand.

Beyond Binaries: Leadership as a Portfolio of Capitals

When viewed this way, leadership is not reducible to one of two styles; rather, it is a flexible combination of strategies derived from various forms of capital. No single trait is inherently good or bad. For instance, social networks can either unite or divide, intelligence can lead to reform or corruption, strength can promote fairness or tyranny, and wealth can benefit both the community and the wealthy individual. Context is crucial. Leaders emerge not solely based on their attributes, but also on how they are perceived and how their resources align with the needs of their group.

Leadership Essential Reads

The Importance of Quick Connections at Work

How to Get Better at Anything: Influence, Leadership, and More

Leadership arises from the ability of individuals with diverse capital portfolios to offer benefits or impose necessary costs on their groups, thereby shaping collective outcomes. Our psychology and institutions may be geared to evaluate leaders based not only on the resources they possess but also on how they use these resources. In practical terms, recognizing that your social network, knowledge, material resources, or physical presence could aid your group may motivate you to take the lead. Others may also support you, as we all rely on our groups to function and thrive.

Recently, my colleagues and I introduced the Multi-Capital Leadership theory in Human Nature, which aims to synthesize existing leadership theories and explore new avenues for integrative leadership research.