Actually, it depends on the organization’s SIZE, and method of adapting.
– For very large organizations, it’s that no one wills change of leader sufficiently, because of the cost of change.
– For medium organizations, people choose the leader possible for the group to preserve its power.
– For small organizations, it’s absolutely true that people choose leaders.
Choice of leadership is a game: it’s the best one we can get among those that enough people want, not the leader we want.
Leadership is necessary if for no other reason than to maintain group solidarity while providing decidability, although consensus building is why we prefer to use them. leaders prevent defection.
I could go on about this, but leaders exist because we need them to. We choose the ones we CAN choose, and we change or resist change dependent upon the cost of doing so.
In markets we need only negative leaders (judges), but it is very hard to defect and survive.
In the production of commons we need positive leaders (deciders), but it is very hard to defect and survive.
In commercial organizations we need both judges and deciders, but we have the opportunity to defect, and we are constantly aware of the choices.
This is then, the same reason we are compensated, not for production, but for our value in the ORGANIZATION of production.
As far as I know, this well researched, well understood, and effectively a law of organization.
Economics in everything.
The Propertarian Institute
(ps: any moral argument is suspect. if the argument is not reduced to costs, someone is likely trying to fool you.)