Anarchism

The fundamental question is not simply what a "leader" is, but also what a "follower" is - both are active roles that require agency.

We can make this a lot easier for ourselves if we identify and reject the authoritarian and hierarchical baggage that the word "leader" has been hamstrung with. Once we do, we can simply redefine, for ourselves, what the terms "leader" and "follower" mean in ways that actually makes sense in a non-hierarchical context.

So a ‘leader’ in this case, and i think what we need, isnt bosses or managers,

Bosses and managers do not lead - you can accuse them of plenty of things, but leading isn't one of them. The corporate world, in fact, absolutely hates leadership ability in every kind of way possible, and the reason is really not that hard to see. Corporations run on the same kind of toadyism you find in the political party world - absolute loyalty to the people above them in the corporate hierarchy, not responsibility to the people below them.

Any concept of "leadership" that emerges from these worlds deserves to be rejected out of hand.