but most of those are about management and not actually about leadership.

The three core skills of leadership are simple. The rest are a huge bonus.

1. know your [synonyms for "team"]'s skills, capabilities, infrastructure, and available resources, apply and connect them where needed.

2. practice the tone where you are firm and clear, but your voice is not raised. "Yelling without yelling". 2a. repeat important things twice, and before important things, say a phrase that tells them it's important, so they have time to shift to listening.

3. when the situation deteriorates, or an engagement starts: you give the illusion of being calm. If everyone is panicking, talk in a firm, calm tone. Fake it if you have to by making it look like you are thinking before you say every word.

Your team will follow, and then the rest. Not everyone, sure. But I've been in plenty of high stress, high risk situations, and I've also done a lot of EVE, Planetside, and politics. The most important thing you can do is be calm and drag everyone else with you.

And then once you're no longer panicking, you've got an advantage, because their goal is to have you on the back foot, not able to think.

Where it counts outside of business, leadership isn't about micromanagement. Even in business it shouldn't be. You're giving people the impetus, tools, information, context, and networking required to accomplish a task; under stress, duress, or time pressure.

That's all there is to it. There's more but it's largely in service of being better at those things.

This is not management advice. But it'd probably help there too.

The most effective teams I have ever seen, worked with, or played with, were teams of leaders. There does not need to be one leader, just ones who understand you've got a shared goal and splitting hairs over how we do that in the short term isn't important. Not the best solution for your area, but brings the project forward? Great, on board. Ethical concerns? Maybe hold off a bit. But not dictating -- labor can't always be directed in ways you feel are productive, but in general people will allocate it in ways they're most productive. Just let it happen.

The way the leader-teams work that I've been a part of, (that I feel comfortable sharing the work of, the rest is politics or... lets call it computer investigative journalism, but these were the same vein) have been in games, where all of us know each other and the flow of the game enough that, when we're ALL together, it's like telepathy, our comms are near silent outside of calling out threats. When we have people who aren't, hearing all of the leaders rapidly decide on target priorities based on their own read of the map is not only interesting, but fast -- Usually its a 10 second staccato and we're moving on. If one of us disconnects or is taken off the field of battle, nothing happens -- the squad/platoon seamlessly self-heals and starts going -- we weren't following anyone in the first place, everyone is calling out what a leader would already be doing, well before it could.

Building trust and letting people do what they're strong in, and not treat everyone as a replacable part, tends to foster this on it's own, especially with someone facilitating the team. you need to assign people to the things they want to do, not the things that need doing -- eventually they'll be able to do the thing you want, and more. But the most effective way to build a team? is lift them to the leader role. It takes time, but like... open-leadership of this sort makes most people easily able to catch on, especially if you teach skills instead of seeing them setting back your team.

for things so styled after the military, it's weird that the military shifted away from the old way and towards what I'm describing over the last 30 years. They don't even yell at recruits for 16 hours like they used to anymore. Why? effectiveness goes up when you let people use their strengths, and use those experiences to build out their weaknesses almost accidentally.