There's a real trend in leadership writing to label "types of leadership" when at best all it describes is the impact of that leadership. At worst it's just a marketing ploy or meaningless jargon.
What we see talked about less are the inputs and behaviours that are used in combination to create someone's leadership. Instead we see the famous or the celebrated used to illustrate leadership... without knowing the depths of their leadership, or their brilliant flaws.
We see examples of "what you need to do next" without any sense of context, appropriateness of effectiveness. Have you ever read a leadership article that says "...but don't use this in this setting/context/situation because it won't be as effective as ..." ? I'd guess not, ever.
You've possibly seen little substance about what really drives leadership effectiveness either.
There's important work to be done and some different thinking needed. I think this piece prompts something different. Usefully.
Leadership is similar; it isn’t something that can be understood by breaking it down into qualities or styles – the whole is more than the sum of its parts. If it were not so, leadership would have been a much better understood subject after 96,000+ books. Moreover, by trying to explain leadership through qualities or styles, we dodge the main question, and bring in more confusion to the topic on hand. If you notice, in many corporate trainings – for lack of a better understanding of leadership – they discuss instead the differences between a manager and leader.