Leadership is context based. Leadership in a growth market, for example, requires different attributes, strengths and personality compared to leadership in a mature market or one in decline. The point here: there is no generic/universal answer.

Furthermore, not all corporate outcomes are in financial terms. Most commonly, they are couched in the terms of value (what shareholders consider 'value'), benefit (how do shareholders want their benefit), growth (what do shareholders want to see grow), and risk (what do shareholders regard as risk).

If in any particular industry performance is determined by, let's simplistically say the ROI generated; and one particular company achieves the highest ROI, then is that company's leader the best? What if the ROI was secured through high gearing and high risk when shareholders were risk averse? Is the leader still the best?

The board's role is to appoint the most suitable leader in the corporation's context and needs. He/she must 'lead' the corporation to the delivery of its corporate objectives. Whether the leader exhibits 'classic leadership attributes' is virtually irrelevent.

There are many (notorious) leaders of corporations that have led the company down an erroneous path that was not congruent with the needs of its shareholders.

Give me a leader who can deliver shareholder objectives any day over a leader who subjectively pushes his/her own vision.