Good points
Leadership is the antithesis of control. Leadership is inspirational...control is imperative. Leaders get people to perform in a certain way because the people themselves want to, while controllers get people to perform through imposition of will. It's the basic difference between positive and negative reinforcement, and it explains why controllers ultimately fail...when the basic human need to act freely exceeds the compulsion to bend to another's bidding, the controller's power is gone. The leader draws power from within, the controller from without, which makes it artificial.
No, leadership is not a learned behavior. Anyone can learn the techniques of leadership but it requires natural ability to practice those skills effectively. A person who lacks that natural ability is merely acting, and the absolute essence of great leadership is honesty. I would never put my faith and trust in a leader who is merely working on the basis of what he/she has learned how to do. Certainly there are shades of grey in that there are those who are reasonably good leaders whose only qualification is their educationally acquired knowledge. However, we're talking about great leadership here, not merely good.
Your description of cultural adaptation is accurate but at the same time a prescription for leadership mediocrity. True greatness comes from creative differences. How great a leader do you have to be in order to simply fit in with the existing culture? That's not leadership, that's exactly the opposite. What you describe is more consistent with Becky Roberts' comment about brainwashing. You talk about lightning rods getting burned but in another post you said one of your most satisfying jobs was that of change agent. Which way do you want it?
I like your cause/effect analysis of great leadership and sustained growth. I think you're on to something there.
