Maybe time to take a step back from the Far end of the spectrum ( strategy ) and focus upon day to day experiences ( tactics ) of Good Leadership and how that displays itself or is worked towards
Could do.
It's easier dealing with in extremis examples though because they are clearer and help make a point easier.
On a day-to-day basis it's going to be very variable.
In hierarchical organisations such as the Police and armed forces then leadership is pretty much a given. It's more about do as I say or you're in trouble (the kind of leadership that Van Wild seemed to be nudging toward).
In my day-to-day life (and, again, this is about
my experiences) then leadership is generally by accord. My line manager is only in charge of me nominally - she 'leads' me by my consent. I will only do something if I think it's right, not just because I've been told to do something. If I think I have been given a poor instruction I will refuse to do it. Though I will explain why I think it's poor and why I am refusing. But that may also be because of where I work - in a professional (hopefully) setting in the NHS. As such, any dissent is respected and not treated as insubordination (or told, as in Van Wild's example, to lead, follow, or get out. So in my day-to-day experience, leadership is merely tacit and nominal.
I like it that way, and find myself instinctively dubious about anyone overly enthusiastic about wanting to be a leader or what even makes a leader. That starts stinking of alpha-male quite quickly and I don't get on well with people like that.