With the Presidential races heating up the majority of people in the United States have either again become fascinated by the campaigns or have tuned out already knowing they are seeing the same old thing. A group of biologists, anthropologists, mathematicians, and psychologists met at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis to compare leadership characteristics between humans and mammals that are social.
The consensus of opinion from experts in a variety of fields is that animals make better leaders than humans. Only a small part of leadership skill is inherited and only one group of social animals, the hyena, shows any consistent genetic propensity toward great leadership characteristics. The vast majority of species including humans develop good leadership through experience. Experience means failure and success.
The researchers compared humans, elephants, hyenas, capuchins, chimpanzees, and meerkats in five different categories of leadership. The researchers endeavored to eliminate any bias for human superiority based on intelligence. The categories inspected included inherited power versus achieved power and payoff for leadership.
Compared to their animal counterparts, human leaders are not very powerful. Animals were found to be much better at providing means that insure survival of the species than human leaders were. Despite the claims of experience and the all-knowing yet unknown plans that all Presidential candidates from either party have laid on the public thus far, the United States might be better off electing an animal as President. Considering the certainty of gridlock regardless of who is elected to be the next President, an animal could be just as effective a leader as any candidate.