Certainly history is often presented as a series of stories about certain individuals cast as “architects of political change” ( Schofield 2006) able to transform beliefs about what is possible and consequently alter behavior of large proportions of a society. The role of leadership in effecting or blocking change is a major emphasis in current research on development, reform, and the solution of common pool resource problems. Observers often lay credit or blame at the feet of organizational leaders for marked shifts in aggregate behavior within polities and organizations. Some social movements succeed while others fail miserably. Political parties and voluntary organizations vary greatly in the level of activism and membership loyalty. Some governments can raise armies and taxes with a minimum of coercion while others require considerable force and policing to gain compliance. Within the same industry, workers in some firms are demonstrably more productive and committed than in others. Some leaders appear able to elicit greater effort or sacrifice from their followers than others.

We also observe substantial variation in the behavior of members and the outputs of organizations. Their tools include coercion, incentives, and persuasion, but in what combination and to what effect leaders rely on these tools are variable. Heads of organizations-be they popes, presidents, generals, CEOs, or general secretaries -must coordinate their followers to produce desired actions and outcomes.

Talker amy lane