There's a difference between leadership and authority.

Authority creates leaders. When you will get rid of labels you will see it. Only authority on the very bottom of the ladder can avoid creating leaders (public servants, group organizers, speakers, front line support etc.).

If authority and leadership were reversed in your reply it would make more sense.

While leadership can lead to authority, leadership relationships unlike authoritative ones can arise consensually among piers. I don't think there's anything inherent to the concept of a leader (in the sense of one who guides by going first) that is dependent on hierarchy.

If you want to lead and no one wants to follow then you go alone. If you need the authority to force people to follow you, well.. that's more about desire for power than desire to reach stated goals.

I'm not an expert on the matter but my understanding is that most hunter gatherer tribes operate with something that could be described as a "flat management structure". To the extent that that is true, for the vast majority of human history such a system worked long term. Perhaps hierarchy became necessary as humans organized into large groups post agriculture, although I find the organized plunder theory of leadership quite convincing too.

Not really, in those tribes usually an elder was a leader. There was a study about it few weeks ago I have seen but I dont remember where it was.

The thing to understand is that flat management is step backwards. Every unit in community should utilize their skills. Management IS a skill. So natural leaders should be leaders. Natural organizers should be organizers and so on.

Problems are starting when artificial system is created where people are being valuated based on some idiotic scoring system instead of individual skill review.