It seems to me that there are a few scenarios in the organizational world with regard to management and leadership (for give me for simplifying):
1. There's a dictatorial soverign keeping an organization together by hook or by crook
2. There's a benevelont leader who inspiries people in the organization and provides what we call "leadership"
3. An organization manages itself, so to speak, by converging on a clear purporse and easy to understand roles and responsibilities
4. An organization is directionless and eventually folds for lack of leadership and management
I think #3 is the ideal because it's moral, sustainable and not nearly as costly as options 1 and 2. Option 4 is prima facie awful.
As I observe more and more organizations, it seems like all organizations are subject to these criteria - families, NGOs, companies, sports teams...every last one.
Option 3 requires a lot of foundational work that humans don't seem to understand yet, namely the definition of a clear purposes, roles & responsibilities, intrinsic motivation and a commitment to the people in the organization which supercedes selfish motivies. In other words, it takes structures and behaviors which humans aren't capable of yet, writ large.
We're going to figure this out though, we have to. Humans can't have organizations which fall into categories 1 and 2 anymore...they won't work (e.g. too much choice, decoupling of power structures and institutions, etc.). Stay tuned. It's time to go on a mission to make organizations focus on mission - everything flows from that.