Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 92
Aberrations of Power: Leadership in Totalist Groups
Robert S. Baron, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
University of Iowa
Kevin Crawley
Iowa City, Iowa
Diana Paulina
Iowa City, Iowa
Abstract
In this chapter, several theoretical perspectives are used to analyze the
leadership tactics utilized within three manipulative groups the Peoples‘
Temple, Synanon and the Children of God. This case study approach
illustrates a number of common features of such leadership. These features
include the means by which emotional and cognitive fatigue are used to
amplify various categories of leader power, the manner in which assaults on
self confidence and self esteem heighten dependence upon group leaders and
the tendency of such leaders to initiate transformations of group purpose and
group norms. Such transformation provides a means of testing member
loyalty, evoking cognitive dissonance among followers and creating a sense
of mystery and drama that serves to excite and intrigue group members.
Few phenomena provoke more interest in the concept of leadership than the power exerted
by leaders in totalist groups. Whether we consider such cult behavior as mass marriages,
mass suicides, or voluntary castrations, the power of such leaders to induce their members
to ignore logic, self-interest and the entreaties of family members is undeniable. This
chapter offers a number of suggestions regarding the basis of such power using three
groups as highly typical examples of cult indoctrination. In such groups, members exhibit
remarkable levels of obedience to authority following a period of systematic and intense
indoctrination. It is this feature that marks the totalist group in our view (Baron, 2000).
These case study descriptions will provide us with a vehicle for considering the factors that
contribute to the unique nature of leadership in totalist groups.
Relevant Theories of Leadership
French and Raven’s Power Model
One defining aspect of leadership in totalist groups is the unilateral power of the group
leader. Checks and balances of power are rarely present in totalist groups. Indeed, purges
frequently remove anyone who might challenge the leader‘s power (e.g., Davis, 1984
Ofshe, 1980). Thus, French and Raven‘s (1959) model is quite relevant to our discussion
given the multidimensional nature of leader power in such groups (Forsyth, 1999).
Typically such leaders are adept at controlling most dimensions of power identified by this
model. Public humiliation and corporal punishment (i.e., coercive power) is common. These
leaders generally have high reward power, controlling most of the financial, social and
sexual resources of the group (e.g., Reavis, 1998). The expert-informational power of such
leaders is high due to such factors as education, status as seer-guru or media-based
reputation. In the three groups we spotlight, informational and coercive power was
amplified by encouraging mutual spying among group members (e.g. Layton, 1998). Thus,
these leaders could appear omniscient regarding member actions and feelings an ―ability‖

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 93
Jim Jones liked to display by revealing embarrassing facts about unfortunate followers at
group meetings.
Formal acknowledgement of totalist leaders, either by church ordination or media
recognition, helps establish the legitimate power of these individuals. Finally, such leaders
have a great deal of referent power. They are deeply admired by their followers who view
them with profound reverence. One reflection of multidimensional and unilateral power
enjoyed by totalist leaders is their ability to maintain group loyalty despite moving the
group through various transformations. The Peoples Temple, originally a fundamentalist
Christian Church, evolved into a socialist ―movement‖ complete with an armed security
force, a media specialist, etc. (Maaga, 1998). Synanon, initially a drug treatment program,
emerged after several years as a religious movement (Gerstel, 1982).
A Social Identity Model of Leadership
The social identity view of leadership (e.g., Hogg, 2001: Hogg, Haines, &Mason, 1998) also
offers a perspective that seems quite relevant to totalist groups. Hogg (2001) describes
leadership that is conferred upon those individuals who most closely adhere to prototypic
group norms. Such norms tend to be displaced away from outgroup positions in an attempt
to emphasize ingroup similarity while at the same time maximizing how the ingroup differs
from salient outgroups. This form of leadership emergence is thought to occur when group
identification and group salience is high (Hogg, 2001). Totalist groups clearly qualify. In
totalist groups, members draw on their affiliation as a primary source of self-definition (e.g.,
Hoffer, 1951). Moreover, in such groups, the salience of one‘s group membership is kept
extremely high by such means as physical separation, distinctive group dress, jargon, etc.
According to the social identity perspective (Hogg &van Knippenberg, in press), leaders
emerge in such settings because ―prototypic individuals‖ are viewed as models and are
accorded high sociometric status thereby enhancing their persuasive power. These leaders
are imbued by their followers with charismatic traits, due to the fundamental attributional
error of seeing individuals as the causes of action. This last phenomenon is well
represented in totalist groups in which leaders are literally deified by the membership. Hogg
recognizes, however, that leaders who receive such adulation will often be accorded a status
that marks them as ―different.‖ If so, they will increasingly have to maintain control of the
group by relying on coercive or reward power as they will forgo their status as in-group
prototypes. Hogg (2001) suggests that this pattern of leadership is particularly likely to
characterize cults in their later stages.
Transformation Theory
Theories emphasizing the charismatic features of leaders (see House &Shamir, 1993) are
highly relevant to totalist groups. A modern example of this category, Bass‘s theory of
transformational leadership (e.g., Bass, 1998), combines a transactional perspective
(focusing on exchange relationships between leaders and followers) with a charismatic
approach. The transactional aspect of this model is that leaders receive power, and status
in return for facilitating the goal attainment of followers. According to this model, if the
leader also has certain charismatic traits, she/he should be particularly adept at convincing
followers to work for common goals, while ignoring their own vested interests. Bass argues
that such a leader is well suited to evoking change or ―transformation‖ in groups,
particularly change motivated by needs for self-actualization.
Some charismatic elements mentioned by Bass include: (1) intellectual stimulation
(offering creative solutions and encouraging innovation in others), (2) individualized
reaction to member needs and abilities, and (3) the ability to inspire and motivate followers.
Effective transformational leaders should be innovative, should actively reward correct
action (as opposed to punishing incorrect behavior), and most crucially, should offer the