Recent findings suggest political conservatives prefer dominant leaders (Laustsen & Petersen, 2015, 2016). However, the exact sociofunctional nature of the desired dominance is unclear. Evolutionary psychology suggests two possibilities: coordinating action and imposing costs. Study 1 operationalizes these functions using the agency and nurturance axes of the interpersonal circumplex, with respondents characterizing either themselves or their ideal leaders, thereby creating “dominance profiles” for various measures of conservatism. Results show Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), self-reported conservatism, strong-leader authoritarianism, and (to a lesser degree) Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) predict a preference for low-nurturance (i.e., cold/cruel) leaders. Unexpectedly, conservatives show no preference for agentic leadership. SDO and strong-leader authoritarianism show a preference for passive leadership. Study 2 examined whether the cold/cruel preference shown in Study 1 entails a conservative preference for sadistic leaders or leaders with other dark tendencies (e.g., Machiavellianism, psychopathy, ruthless self-advancement, rejection of ethics). Multiple regression analyses reveal SDO, strong-leader authoritarianism, and RWA as the best predictors of sadistic-leader preference. Interestingly, RWA is a negative predictor. Additional analyses find multiple dark-leader preferences for several conservatism measures (but not RWA). Among other implications, the results suggest SDO may reflect a strategy seeking exploitation rather than intergroup hierarchies.