Ivy League process is built on looking for "future leaders".

One of the problems with this of course is that the kinds of things that get you into such a school (grades, tests and extracurriculars) really have almost nothing to do with finding a leader. Even tests looking for dominant personality types (Type-A types) tend to find extroverts, not leaders. And even worse, it's been my observation that formal leadership training programs seems to churn out emotionally aloof general managers than "leaders".

One thing that the psychologists watched for was spontaneous leadership.

This is tough too. It ends up selecting for hardship leaders, not daily grind leaders. It's easy to start barking orders and look like you know what you are doing when there's an immediate task to accomplish and nobody else wants to. It's very hard to motivate a workforce for years at a time doing grind work.

An anecdote:

When I was a youngster, I knew a kid who was one of those emergent leader types. In any group activity he instantly tried to take charge and started organizing the other kids, barking orders etc. It didn't really matter what the activity was, kickball, hide and go seek, and when we were a bit older volunteer community work like habitat for humanity type things. And there were usually a few of the kids that would follow him.

The problem was that he was also terribly annoying. When facing a complex activity, one where there was no way he knew anything about the task or how to direct it. He'd still inevitably march up and start pointing and ordering like he had been doing this task for 20 years. The parents thought that he was such a wonderful natural leader. The other kids wanted to punch him in the face. It was only because of the trouble we'd get in that we didn't do exactly that (but oh where there backroom conspiracies about how to deal with him).

Now, decades later, I look back and realize that a great deal of my problem with him was likely due to differences in Keirsey Temperaments. He was obviously a Fieldmarshal [1] (correlate to Myers-Briggs ENTJ) while I'm very strongly a Mastermind [2] (MB:INTJ). According to the theory, my personality type will assume a leadership role IFF they feel the dominant Fieldmarshal personality has fundamentally failed. Basically I'm a coup maker and there was nothing more that I wanted to do with this kid than to undermine him, usurp him and delegitimize his assumption of power. I didn't want to necessarily be his replacement, but boy oh boy did I ever want to humble him. What troubled me the most was that there was inevitably a group of kids that would follow him simply because he was giving the appearance of organizing things.

I've reflected on this interaction deeply in my life to expose my own flaws, but also to learn from. Even though he wasn't qualified to run things, the fact that he simply stepped up and acted like he knew what he was doing was a terribly useful leadership technique. He really didn't seem to care that it was resented by his peer group, and as children I'm sure there was an element of parent pleasing to his behavior.

I've used this simple technique many times in business to organize out of control efforts that have floundered under the "emotionally aloof general manager types" mentioned before. Now that I'm aware of my Mastermind type tendencies, I can also watch out for destructive "coup" traits.

I don't know if I have a point other than to say that "leadership" is a very complex thing and that there are many many kinds of leadership we have to be aware of.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieldmarshal_(role_variant)

[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastermind_(role_variant)