Leaders exist — this much is obvious the moment we look at human societies, or even at animal groups. What’s less obvious is whether the groups they lead consider them effective.
It’s tempting to treat leadership as a fixed feature of any group — someone has to be in charge, so someone will be. But the more interesting question isn’t whether a leader exists; it’s whether their presence actually improves the outcome for everyone else in the room.
In my experience, the title does very little of the work. What matters is whether decisions get made faster because of that person, whether trust increases because of that person, and whether the people around them do better work than they would alone. Absent those effects, a ‘leader’ is just an org chart entry.
So the honest answer to ‘do we need a leader’ is: we need someone doing the things good leadership does. Whether that’s one person, a rotating role, or a shared responsibility across a team is a much more open question than most organisations are willing to ask.
The title does very little of the work — what matters is whether the group is genuinely better off because of it.