Generally, to be seen as a leader is to be seen in a positive light. After all, you can't be a leader if no-one follows you. And if others follow you they must believe in what you stand for. Dictators, tyrants and bullies are another matter - people cower and give in to them, but not out of respect, out of fear. Some people are put in positions of leadership but are not suited to the role and ultimately fail - they may technically be considered in charge, but no-one considers them a leader. Others don't officially have any title or rank, yet when things go wrong, they naturally step up and take control and lead their team out of trouble. If the people who willingly follow you consider you their leader, then you are.

I would agree with Ms. Metcalf if leaders were always born through empathy, but leadership power often comes via other means, such as a formal hierarchy. So I consider the word to be neutral.

Thanks a lot :)

I think it can be both because there are many leaders in history (as mentioned before like the fascists in the Second World War) who were bad and cruel leaders. So it can be both.If you want to mean good leaders you would have to say "positive leaders" or "role models" to make it clear.