...
That's an interesting comparison you make with beehives. Do you really think that the "leaders" are highly intelligent? Is that what it takes?
As best I can determine, the closest thing we have to 'actual leaders' at this time are heirs to dynastic fortunes, most of which are built on exploitation of the modern debt-backed monetary systems. Some are intelligent and most are _very_ highly trained, but 'regression to the mean' takes it's toll. Inbreeding is sometimes a factor as well such was clearly evident in the European monarchies. These issues are more easily hidden now.
The obvious solution to the aforementioned problems is to retain promising people who are both highly intelligent AND have other psychological profile features which are useful. Guys like Jacob Schiff, Henry Kissinger, and Zbigniew Brzezinski for instance.
Most of the 'Scientists and Engineers' working on modern projects for the 'leaders' are among the highest in terms of native intellect, but at a third wrung or below on the power structure. Unfortunately for them, when their tasks have been accomplished they turn into a liability in the eyes of the real leaders. In some ways they are analogous to the military leaders of times past.
Yeah, the intelligence part seemed strange to me. Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong people, but sometimes seems like leaders are not all that intelligent at all. When nepotism is at play, it seems intelligence isn't a requirement at all. Even if we look at politicians, intelligence doesn't seem to be a key requirement. The most important thing is that they can talk themselves out of any situation. It's more of a show. I can see though that often the "leaders" we see are more like puppets. Maybe they have a group of intelligent people behind them.