What is or should be the role of leaders in modern society?

Please remove if too off-topic

I'll assume most of us here reject authority in most if not all of its forms, at least what we might call earthly authority. And I think that's a good thing. Most forms of institutional authority are corrupt to a greater or lesser degree, and abusive authority causes untold human misery. By assenting to such an authority, we give it more power, and hence become culpable in the misery it spreads.

I would also posit that rejection of authority tends to coincide with a rejection of leaders. This might in some sense seem tautological, because in modern society, the prototypical leader is almost always associated with some authority: a president is a leader by the authority of his government; a priest is a leader by the authority of his church; a CEO is a leader by the authority of her company's charter or board. If we reject all authority, we almost by extension reject those leaders whose role as leader derives from that authority.

Yet I'd also point out that most of these so-called leaders are not leaders in the more fundamental sense of the word; they'd probably better be described as managers or dictators (from the Latin dico, "speak, say" -> dicto, "prescribe, recommend"). The key insight being that these dictator-leaders operate by speaking commands or recommendations which the follower is expected to follow. Contrast this with the Latin dux or "leader", coming from duco meaning "to lead," but also mean "to pull, to draw." This is the type of leader I'd like to discuss.

The dictator-leader can best be visualized sitting on top of a hierarchy or pyramid, barking orders that are transmitted down the chain of command until we get to the grunt level, the foot soldier or line worker who actually performs the work. But the true leader would be seen as out in front of the people, blazing the trail and pulling them along with him. He is not sending others to do his dirty work, but is among them in the trenches. Those who follow him do not do so under obligation to his authority, but out of trust and understanding of his cause. And he inspires those who follow to be leaders in their own right.

So I pose the question: do we need leaders today? I certainly think we can dispense with the former type, but I would maintain the latter is essential if we are to build a world free from the shackles of tyranny and slavery we were born into.

A leaderless movement is often raised as the alternative to the types of institutions which currently dominate the political and economic spheres of modern life. The argument goes that a leader represents a single point of failure: remove or corrupt that leader, and the movement falls. But I think a leaderless movement never even gets the chance to rise. OWS stands as the extreme example of that.

Rather what I think we need is a leaderful movement, one in which every person is encouraged to be a leader, and that requires that one become a leader to oneself. But we must also overcome that impulse to reject others as leaders because of our own egos. We must find those who lead well, and emulate and encourage them. A leaderful movement only grows stronger in this way, because it is not defined by those at the top of pyramid, but by each member actively co-creating their own meaning and direction. We are not restricted in following only one leader or one perspective, but we are strengthened and expanded by incorporating our multiplicity and variety.

What does it mean to be a leader today? Who are your leaders? Are you a leader? If not, why?