Leadership is what many aspire to be good at. There are many categories that one can fall into within leadership, and many labels. It goes to show that there is not 'one' style of leadership; some situations call for harsh, and stern guidance - others require nuance and compassion.
Whatever style you observe, whether it be in yourself or in those who assume leadership, it must be understood that if a system has been working, that it reflects the state of the people under that style of leadership.
Perhaps a stern style was needed to unify people to focus on one common mission. Perhaps a more pragmatic, shrewd style was needed to manage different interests and complicated resource allocation. Maybe a nuanced and care-focused approach is needed to give hope to a people that have seen much struggle and pain.
Such approaches, each with their own faults and virtues, must be handled well and with strategy and understanding of those being led in mind. This is important to keep in mind; for people change. The people change, and their leaders can, too.
In a way it is only a matter of time before the reasons that justified one style of leadership began to invalidate themselves due to fairly natural causes. A very common, but cliché statement:
Human nature does not allow for a constant and unwavering approach towards one goal without the existence of resistance or control. Resistance reflects dissatisfaction - and if anything us humans can never be satisfied. In a way, no resistance whatsoever implies complacency; even worse, a society that has lost its fighting spirit, or one that secretly distrusts the establishment. Imagine telling people what to do, and they do it without question or curiosity for the result.
However, this may be ideal in some situations where leadership might be present. For example, in a society that is not educated, that does not know how to mobilise itself towards a common desire for better living conditions. Or a society that does not yet see its own potential, stuck in old traditions and old ways that have little benefit. Maybe even in a society that has resorted to doing things in a specific set of methods, because they have lost the point in trying. In each of these situations, leadership over a group that follows without much resistance, could contribute positively to group dynamics and create a more cohesive society that will develop itself overtime.
But in more developed societies, where worries and ambitions may differ from less developed societies due to better conditions, the concept of 'resistance' becomes even more nuanced. It is possible to view it from an angle of 'societal health' - with better living conditions, access to more resources, and a more tangible vision for the goal that was hard to reach, people might have their own ideas for what is to come next. Then resistance can be seen as a kind of 'status indicator', even an asset that provides some useful information, that should be taken with subtlety.
Control on the other hand, is a tool. There is realistically no way to create a sustainable 'utopia' where everybody works together towards a common goal; unless you manage keep the public in control. There are many ways of doing this, the easiest examples are found in technology and entertainment. The proliferation of these mediums have made it very easy to broadcast any kind of message. An audience of 8 billion people await.