Great post again Mike! Just one small remark: leading assumes following and what can go wrong with one, can as easily go wrong with the other. Our history books are full with egos and power-craving people who have in fact changed human history, e.g. built entire empires with unmatched prosperity, simply by anticipating on mass behaviour and the inherited need to belong to a group. And preferably to the one that conquers the others. Whether you call it "leadership", these individuals undoubtedly had the ability to attract followers.

Personally I think there are two sides to leadership. Maybe it is best to recognize there is a "negative" version, but even more... that it can lead to great achievements as well. As long as thoughtleaders keep saying that poor leadership brings all but good, egos et al will justify their behaviour with results. Should we accept its co-existence? Definitely not, but be aware that many others do. Despite of the numerous examples of proper, or, as you probably would call, REAL leadership around them...