Drinking the Kool-Aid: Jim Jones, the Peoples Temple, and “bad” Leadership

Drinking the Kool-Aid: Jim Jones, the Peoples Temple, and “Bad” Leadership

        On November 18, 1978, self-appointed Peoples Temple leader Jim Jones convinced more than 900 passionate followers to commit mass suicide at the “sanctuary” community they had built in the forest of Guyana.  Women, men and children of all ages perished after voluntarily ingesting cyanide-laced liquid on that fateful day in “Jonestown.”  These shocking events gave rise to the American expression “drinking the Kool-Aid” – which refers to someone who demonstrates unquestioning beliefs or loyalty without critical examination.  How could one man persuade so many people to take their own lives at his mere command?  The answer lies in the concept of “bad leadership.”  Barbara Kellerman, a leadership professor at Harvard University, explains that “Bad Leadership falls into two categories: bad as in ineffective and bad as in unethical” (Kellerman 32).  As this paper explains, Jim Jones was far from ineffective.  But he was still a “bad leader”—in the sense of being unethical.  Through coercion, manipulation, and cult of personality, Jones appealed to his followers’ fundamental human needs and desires in a way that kept them loyal to the Peoples Temple until the bitter end.  

        The rise and fall of the Peoples Temple must be viewed against the historical context in which it occurred.  Jones founded the Peoples Temple—a unique blend of Christian revivalism and socialism—in 1956 in Indiana, a time of civil unrest in a place where progressive thinking was still years away.  Seizing on the difficulties that African-Americans faced and the failure of established churches to truly help them, Jones was motivated to start his own church, one that focused on inclusion and non-discrimination.  Because Indiana was not the best place to advance the civil rights of African-Americans, Jones moved his church, and its members, to northern California in 1966, where the political and social atmosphere was much more accepting.  In California, the Temple grew and blossomed as people of all races and ages joined, most of them interested in the communal living ideals that Jones was offering.  

Against the backdrop of social upheaval in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Jones appealed to his followers’ fundamental desire for security and stability.  As Kellerman explains, “Even bad leaders can often satisfy our most basic human needs, in particular safety, simplicity and certainty” (Kellerman 22).  Jones’ personal charisma, combined with the strict, orderly way he managed the Peoples Temple, provided the proverbial “port in a storm” that promised followers safety from the tumultuous outside world.  In Jonestown Massacre: Tragic End of a Cult, Gine de Angelis describes how Jones had a manner of speaking and a personality that enthralled the people who attended his daily sermons: “Their [temple members] unquestioning devotion to their religious leader is the definition of cult behavior.  This kind of behavior is the result of the effect a powerful personality, like that of Jim Jones.  Such a personality can sometimes convince other people to do almost anything” (De Angelis 19).  According to Kellerman, humans have a natural tendency to obey authority and leaders “simply because it’s often easiest to assume that they know what they’re doing” (Kellerman 23).  

But Jones satisfied a lot more than the basic necessities to his followers.  He provided a sense of purpose and a vision for the future at a time when the country was disordered and confusing.  In essence, Jones was able to create a façade of social harmony that kept church members loyal.  He was the first white man to adopt an African-American child in Indiana and ultimately created a multiracial “rainbow family,” characterizing the move to California as necessary to build a new interracial Eden on Earth.  “Another way Jones proved his commitment to racial equity was in the communal houses for Peoples Temple members.  At a time when segregation was all many Americans had known, African Americans and whites lived there together happily.  This arrangement and Jones’s own multi-racial family were two of the most exceptional things about Peoples Temple” (De Angelis 19).  Laura Johnston Kohl, one of the few members of the Peoples Temple who survived the Jonestown tragedy, has written that “One of the reasons I was happy in the temple was because of the variety of jobs I could do.  My life rushed by and I had a ball.  I was happy, invigorated and challenged.  It was never dull, and each day brought new unexpected experiences” (Kohl 51).  By creating this sense of contentment among his followers, Jones was able to keep them oblivious to how he actually manipulated and coerced them into doing what he wanted.

        The contemporary literature on leadership sheds some light on Jones’ hold over his followers.  The Encyclopedia of Leadership, a comprehensive guide developed by over 300 leadership scholars that outlines much of what is currently known about the human experience of leadership, outlines six different types of power, one of which is “coercive power.”  Jones’ ability to persuade 909 followers—including 276 children—to commit the final act of mass suicide is the most obvious example of his successful use of coercive power.  But it is not the only one.  Jones routinely used coercion to achieve his objectives.  Another startling example is the Peoples Temple’s wholesale move from San Francisco to South America.  Jones had been quietly arranging for resettlement as scrutiny of his cult-like tactics increased, but many temple members were unaware of these plans.  Yet, upon learning that the San Francisco Chronicle was going to publish a damaging piece about him and the Peoples Temple, Jones was able to convince the majority of temple members to abruptly uproot their lives and move to the rainforest of Guyana, virtually overnight.