I grew up watching movies where the plot revolved around a fearless leader willing to overcome any obstacle (even his own shortcomings) to achieve things for the common good. Somehow, in watching all those movies, I had come to expect that there were people out there who would fit this profile. I even expected myself to become one of them but apparently I wasn't really cutout for leadership position.
Most of my assessment comes from me looking at church leaders. Granted, I do have an over inflated and unreasonable expectation for those who serve in the church but that's to be expected. You can't grow up listening to stories about the people in the Bible and expect that you will be unbiased in your evaluation.
At the end of the day, you find that most people at the top have lost some of their ability to sympathize and relate to the people they lead and instead have become efficient, "get things done" machines.
There is a good reason as to why they have become efficient. Its because on a certain level, all humans when looking for a leader, are more impressed by accomplishments than their ability to relate. Sure, everybody likes the guy who cares for them, but they would much rather look at the guy who would do 1 or 2 things that they care about, even if he screws them over down the road.
I think the kind of people that I would want to lead are the kind of people who either are not aggressive enough to become leaders, or are so honest about their opinions that they could never get elected.
Gee, what a conundrum!