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.