Some birds hold greater influence than others when a flock decides where to go next. New research shows that the most persuasive geese in the flock are bold, not aggressive, and that the birds most likely to fall in line are the curious explorers. Together, they steer collective journeys in ways that balance safety and discovery.
The study tackles a classic puzzle in animal behavior: why certain individuals end up shaping group decisions over months and years.
Simple rules of interaction can explain how groups move in sync. But they do not say much about why some animals consistently get others to go with them.
To find out, researchers watched a marked population of greylag geese over four years at the Konrad Lorenz Research Station in Grünau im Almtal, Austria. The flock traces back to birds introduced by Nobel laureate Konrad Lorenz in the 1970s, which makes it unusually well-documented.
Field teams logged hundreds of collective departures. They noted who gave a departure call, who launched first, who followed, and the size of each departing party. In parallel, they measured personality with standardized tests.
Flight initiation distance – a measure of how close an approacher can get before a bird takes off – indexed boldness. A mirror test probed aggressiveness. Interaction with a novel object indexed exploration, or curiosity.
The first finding is simple and important. Individual geese showed stable personality differences – boldness, aggressiveness, and exploration – that persisted across years. Those traits mapped onto daily social roles.
The flock typically moved in subgroups to forage or roost at different sites in the valley. Within those subgroups, bold individuals tended to initiate and be followed. Explorers tended to follow, especially when the leader was bold rather than aggressive.
In other words, a goose’s temperament predicted its influence in real decisions with real stakes. Bolder initiators were more likely to be heeded when they called and took flight.
Followers with a taste for novelty were more likely to go with them, and less likely to trail aggressive or socially dominant birds.
One result surprised the team. Aggressiveness, though linked to higher social rank, did not predict leadership in group departures. The most influential initiators were bold but not aggressive. That points to a protective leadership style rather than a dominant, coercive one.
The ecology helps explain why. Each daily move pits risk against reward. Sticking to familiar feeding grounds offers safety but limits opportunity. Striking out raises the chance of finding better food, but it also raises exposure.
Bold leaders reduce uncertainty in the moment – helping a flock launch and cross risky gaps – while exploratory followers tilt the group toward innovation and help spread new routes through social learning.
The study reframes influence as a two-way negotiation. Yes, some geese initiate more. But followers are not passive.
They choose whom to follow – and whom to ignore – based on the benefits they receive. Leadership, in this view, is not merely a trait of the few. It is a relationship built from many selective acts of following.
“This research helps to explain why individuals with specific traits consistently wield more influence,” said lead author Sonia Kleindorfer. “More importantly, it draws attention to followers – often overlooked in our human fascination with securing resources.”
“What if followers actively choose whom to follow based on the benefits they receive? This shifts focus to the cognitive abilities of followers and challenges traditional ideas about which traits matter most in leaders.”
The mechanics of a departure are simple on the surface: a call, a launch, and a stream of followers. Underneath is a flow of information. Bold birds lower the cost of action and explorers raise the value of new options.
The result is a collective that can both protect itself and learn. Over time, that learning becomes tradition – routes, schedules, and site preferences that shape the flock’s culture.
By documenting these roles across four years and tying them to stable traits, the study moves beyond one-off observations.
It shows that personality can structure the everyday choices that add up to a group’s way of life. It also shows that “dominance” and “leadership” are not synonyms. A bird that wins fights does not necessarily win followers.
The implications reach well beyond a single Austrian valley. Many social species face the same daily trade-off between the familiar and the new. In those systems, protective boldness may attract followers more reliably than brute force, and curiosity may be the glue that keeps groups open to change.
By spotlighting follower choice, the work also nudges theory toward the minds of many, not the charisma of a few. Influence depends on who wants to be influenced – and why.
That shift has consequences for how researchers think about collective decision-making, social learning, and cultural evolution across species – including our own.
Understanding how individual differences scale up to group behavior can inform conservation, animal welfare, and even the design of autonomous swarms.
It can help explain when groups adapt smoothly to changing conditions and when they stall. It can also help predict who will lead a move to safer ground in a warming, human-altered world.
The greylag geese offer a clear lesson. Boldness can protect a flock of geese without aggression. Curiosity can carry new ideas across wings. And influence, far from being the property of the loudest bird, emerges from a conversation between those who initiate – and those who decide to follow.
The study is published in the journal iScience.
—–
Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates.
Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.
—–