The Leader need not be the strongest or the best
I agree that confidence is important, but there's an important question underlying this article: should the leader be the strongest, the best, and the most confident person in the room?
Leadership in most meetings is not and should not be like leadership in a dog pack: the alpha male need not be the leader. One thing that sets human "packs" apart is that we've learned that sometimes apparent weakness conceals valuable strengthes.
Leadership is often rotated by smart management to give those who are weak or inexperienced an opportunity to learn to lead. We've advanced past the point of picking the last man standing as leader. That's inefficient and wastes resources.
Leadership by example is a good technique - but it's not the only one. We've all seen lots of managers who manage like Socrates: they may well know the answer to the question they ask, but by seeming not to, they elicit responses from timid subordinates.
Furthermore, as comedian Chris Rock pointed out, we're all going to be in situations where the leader is not as smart or hip or tuned in as we are. His father's advice to him was that he should learn to do his job in that situation.
I worked for a boss once who thought I was smarter than he was. He asked me "how am I supposed to manage a guy who's smarter than I am." I told him "the same way you manage a guy who's not." It was, after all, my job to follow him. He was a good boss.
Of course there are leaders who are an absolute liability - we've all worked for them (and some of us have been such leaders from time to to time.)
But if you are going to be a competent member of any team, it's your job to act "as if" the leader is a good leader. And the way to do that is to be a good follower.
