Before one can argue for or against qualitatively differing types of leadership, a hierarchy of leaders needs to be defined. Stanford professor and author Jim Collins suggest in his book Good to Great that there are five levels of leaders.

The level one leader is “highly capable individuals that make productive contributions through talent, knowledge, skills and good work habits” (Collins, 2001, p20).

The level two leaders encompass the level one leader attributes plus, they are a contributing team member and they work effectively with others.

The level three leader is a competent manager who is capable of organizing resources and teams in the achievement of a set goal.

The level four leaders according to Collins (2001), “is an effective leader that catalyzes commitment to and vigorous pursuit of a clear and compelling vision, stimulating higher performance standards.

Level five leaders are the executives who build enduring greatness through a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will” (p. 20).

Therefore it stands to reason that yes there are some qualitative traits that are exemplified by leaders of various strata. Working with the definition of the above five levels of leadership, a shared quality may be that of a transformational leader who is passionate. “Transformational leaders are passionately committed to their work” (Hackman & Johnson, 2004, p. 109).

As the authors note their passion for producing at a high level can be seen in the individual and the level one leader is “able to encourage others” (Hackman & Johnson, 2004, p.109).  Jim Collins identified a key finding about successful companies. That key finding is companies that were passionate about what they made or offered were led by a person who instilled that passion among the followers.

A second leadership trait that is part of the leaders core is the ability to empower. “Transformational leaders know how to give power away and how to make others feel powerful” (Hackman & Johnson, 2004, p 106).  One could argue that a transactional leader does not behave this way, which is true.

However, when using the Good to Great model, transactional behavior is not a leadership quality but a managerial quality.

There are however, unique qualities to the level five leader that they are either born with or through role modeling come to possess. And all leaders regardless of situation or genetics do not possess this important duality of leadership attributes.

That duality as Collins (2001) notes, is “modest and willful, humble and fearless” (p. 22). Harry Truman said, “You can accomplish anything in life if you don’t care who gets the credit”. This is an instilled quality of self-awareness that all leaders are not born with or capable of developing. The very nature of our individual uniqueness is reason enough to support the fact that all human are not pre-ordained to possess this duality of personality.

Secondly, life experience is the great teacher. Failed attempts mold leaders in different ways. If the leader “fails forward” (Hackman, 2004, p. 349) then they are laying the foundation for becoming a level five leader. Not all leaders fail forward and thus they do not reap the full benefit of their mistakes.

The number of failures and the depth to which they failed can be qualitatively measured and serve as a distinction between level five leaders.

There are core qualitative attributes that leaders share. However, as one climbs the leadership hierarchy there are a number of leadership attributes that better defines the quality level of the leader regardless of situations or contexts.