Final answer:
Chiefly societies have formal, hereditary leadership roles with power centralized in the chief, while tribal societies have situational, consensus-based leadership with no formal coercive power.
Step-by-step explanation:
One of the main differences between the leaders of chiefly societies and those of tribal societies is the structure and formalization of leadership roles. In chiefly societies, leadership is typically a formal, hereditary position with a single individual, the chief, at the head. This person wields various forms of power, including economic, political, religious, and military authority. These leaders have the ability to collect taxes, enforce commands, and provide benefits such as social order and conflict resolution through a system known as redistribution. In contrast, tribal societies often operate on less formal, situational leadership, where decision-making is by consensus and authority can shift depending on the task at hand, such as hunting or ritual activities. Leaders in these societies have persuasive power but lack formal coercive tools. Chiefs in tribal societies, like the Plains groups, may have different roles such as war and peace chiefs, with the position often gained through experience and communal influence.
In chiefly societies, leadership often becomes stratified and inherited. Over time, a single lineage may emerge as a royal class, further centralizing authority. Social structure and political systems become more complex, with councils of elders, several levels of sub-chiefs, and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few. This is juxtaposed with the more egalitarian approach of tribal societies, where gender roles are less fixed and decision-making may involve a wider range of community members.