What are leaders for anyway?

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/11/what_are_leaders_really_for.html

"Leaders, in other words, are necessary, but not because they are the source of social change. Rather their real function is to occupy the role that allows the rest of us to make sense of what is happening — just as Tolstoy suspected. For better and worse, telling stories is how we make sense of the world, and it's hard to tell a story without focal actors around which to center the action. But as we witness a succession of popular movements, from the Arab Spring to Occupy Wall Street, we can at least pause to appreciate the real story, which is the remarkable phenomenon of a great many ordinary individuals coming together to change the world."

That last paragraph makes the article. History is a distillation of what actually happened.  So you find some representative characters to explain what went on.  I believe that people in power really do make a difference though. Think, for example, of how the US reaction to 9/11/ would have been under Al Gore instead of George Bush.  So it does matter who is in what position of power.  But I also agree that the collective is more important.  And I am relishing OWS and the media's reaction to its leaderless methods.