There are different types of leaders, who lead in different ways. Finding the version of leadership that accords best with your own temperament will probably be somewhat psychologically easier.
Having said that, I think that both
@Algus and
@thewap have made some excellent points.
Fair-mindedness, and a willingness to seek advice and suggestions from subordinates, are always a good sign in a superior, and are signs of a good leader.
However, seeking advice is one thing, and acting on it another, but it is also important to recognise their contribution (publicly if possible), by saying something along the lines of - "We're thinking of doing 'x' and we/I have John/Joan here to thank for putting us on the right track on this/bringing it to our attention…."
Praise for something well done is important - as it implies recognition, and everybody likes their effort, or input or work to be acknowledged and recognised.
Good leaders are not afraid to delegate - they don't need to be micromanagers. I personally loathe micromanaging managers.
As a leader, you can trust someone qualified & experienced to do their job - they may need pointers, 'this is the task, and this is what I'd like you to focus on in particular' and suggested deadlines 'this is when we need to have it done by'. Likewise, a good leader should not be - or should not feel - threatened by a very talented subordinate. Recognise the experience and expertise that others can bring to their jobs, and leave them to get on with it.
As
@Algus has already said, don't be afraid to admit, apologise for and own your mistakes.
Done promptly, briskly, and clearly, and done in a way which ensures that the mistake won't be repeated tends to win respect from colleagues and subordinates.
I recall a time - just over two decades ago - when I was grading the first year and second year papers of a Full Professor - who was the Head of Dept, an extraordinarily accomplished and internationally respected scholar - for whom/under whom I worked at the time.
The second year grades were deplorable, - the students were all scoring well below - some more than a full grade below - what I expected from them. I concluded that the structure of the paper was unfair - or had been poorly structured - and sought a formal meeting with the prof to discuss the pattern of marks that were emerging.
After discussing it with me - and one other colleague who had come to the same conclusion - and examining the data I presented the prof briskly announced that this was his fault and his mistake, apologised to us, and proceeded to instruct the pair of us to ignore the final question completely (every student had failed it for lack of time) and to instead, grade, or mark, the paper as though it had been set asking that three questions rather than four were to be answered.
And
@thewap makes an excellent point about public humiliation: Don't do it except as a nuclear option. Nobody ever forgets (or forgives) an unfair - or demeaning, or belittling, - public dressing down. Don't bully, or humiliate, or demean, or belittle your staff, in public or in private. However, if they are right - when criticised from outside - be prepared to back them.
As to
@Mousse's point about charisma, I have to say that I am very wary of it, and am wary of the sort of workplace that elevates the importance of 'charisma' at the expense of other less dramatic and more mundane virtues.
While I am perfectly aware that extroversion and charisma are viewed in a very positive light in the US, I still retain a soupçon of reserve towards the the idea of an exceptionally charismatic leader.
Yes, charismatic leaders do 'inspire' followers. However, in my experience, it can be difficult to ensure sufficient oversight of a charismatic leader, and it can be uncomfortable - such is their charisma, confidence, and support - to have to point out that what they are suggesting is tosh. This is because charismatic leaders can often get their way very, very easily, and - often have to work less hard for goals - such as persuading others of the intrinsic merits of their point of view. People wish to be associated with them, and often, what they propose may not have been subjected to sufficient scrutiny. For charismatic leaders can develop large egos, and moreover, can often delude themselves - and persuade others to follow them - unless there are constraints on their influence.
Anyway, a good leader respects themselves - and makes that clear by their conduct and demeanour and respects others.
