> You see this in juries for example. They select the smart or authoritative person among them to be the foreperson and look to that person for direction. This

> You see this in juries for example. They select the smart or authoritative person among them to be the foreperson and look to that person for direction. This is how humans naturally form hierarchies. This is a mischaracterization of juries. It's not a hierarchy. Every juror has an equal vote. And each juror gets paid the same, including the foreperson (not much, but they usually get paid something for their service). The foreperson has two special roles: (1) to announce the verdict in court and (2) to guide the deliberations. Neither of those roles has any personal benefit to the foreperson. The second role exists merely to keep deliberations orderly, prevent them from devolving into cacophony and chaos. And in fact the foreperson is charged with making sure that every juror is allowed their input, otherwise one or a small number of jurors might dominate the discussion. Some kind of order is needed in group discussions. This is why Robert's Rules of Order exists, for example. Democracy itself always requires some form of order: people entrusted with scheduling, administering, and counting the votes. But that doesn't make these people our leaders.