Is our concept of strong leadership wrong?

A good leader knows when to lead from the front, knows how to form a team, look at the team, find the strengths, weaknesses and get the team to work to complete the mission. The Leader knows what words need to be said, knows when to give answers and when to make the members of the team dig for their own answers. The Leader knows how to train his next in line to take his place because everyone is replaceable. The Leader doesn't need to toot his own horn because the team will see, feel and know what a good leader is and how the feeling is to successfully complete a mission, no matter the size. This is the LEADER.

I think the mistake is lumping everyone wearing stripes or shiny rank into the "leader" pile. Most aren't. There are tons of personnel who, by virtue of position, are managers and supervisors. And this is OK. The Army NEEDS managers and supervisors. They are just as important, if not more so, than front line leaders. Leaders get the immediate job done, but managers and supervisors take care of the big picture, and worry about the thousands of other things that have to happen while leaders are slogging away.

All are necessary...

It all depends on the level of leadership. A squad (military) or team (civilian) should usually be led from the front, but as we move to higher levels of command the balance shifts more to the rear, where multiple squads, teams, companies, battalions etc. can be managed.

A sergeant or lieutenant leading the charge is usually doing the right thing. A general leading the charge is usually just plain stupid.