[JesseAldridge]

The linked study is a lot more interesting than this article:

http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/halevy_nice_2011.h...

Some choice excerpts:

"Our findings show that people want respectable and admired group members to lead them at times of peace, but when 'the going gets tough' they want a dominant, power-seeking individual to lead the group,"

"...sharing one's resources with both in-group members and outsiders had the most dire net outcomes on a person's status. The researchers discovered that universal generosity decreased perceptions of both prestige and dominance compared with those who shared resources only with members of their group."

[kstenerud]

"Our findings show that people want respectable and admired group members to lead them at times of peace, but when 'the going gets tough' they want a dominant, power-seeking individual to lead the group,"

They want a stable leader during peacetime and a victorious leader (who will bring back stability by defeating the enemy) during wartime.

"...sharing one's resources with both in-group members and outsiders had the most dire net outcomes on a person's status. The researchers discovered that universal generosity decreased perceptions of both prestige and dominance compared with those who shared resources only with members of their group."

Sharing with outsiders increases the power of outsiders at the cost of the power of the group. Historically, that leads to destabilization as the now-more-powerful outsiders could supplant the group, or the now weakened group could be attacked by an existing enemy.

[TWSS]

This tracks with my anecdotal experiences working in startups for 15+ years. Namely, that companies need audacious, aggressive leaders in the early days of initial fundraising, customer acquisition, etc. But those domineering, borderline-sociopath leaders are rarely adept at maintaining and growing a stable, established company.