  The most common assumption in evolutionary game theory is that players should
adopt a strategy that warrants the highest payoff. However, recent studies
indicate that the spatial selection for cooperation is enhanced if an
appropriate fraction of the population chooses the most common rather than the
most profitable strategy within the interaction range. Such conformity might be
due to herding instincts or crowd behavior in humans and social animals. In a
heterogeneous population where individuals differ in their degree, collective
influence, or other traits, an unanswered question remains who should conform.
Selecting conformists randomly is the simplest choice, but it is neither a
realistic nor the optimal one. We show that, regardless of the source of
heterogeneity and game parametrization, socially the most favorable outcomes
emerge if the masses conform. On the other hand, forcing leaders to conform
significantly hinders the constructive interplay between heterogeneity and
coordination, leading to evolutionary outcomes that are worse still than if
conformists were chosen randomly. We conclude that leaders must be able to
create a following for network reciprocity to be optimally augmented by
conformity. In the opposite case, when leaders are castrated and made to
follow, the failure of coordination impairs the evolution of cooperation.
