There are many leadership styles. Not only those listed in theory (autocratic,charismatic,bureaucratic,laissez-faire, etc.), but also their various combinations. The leadership style comes out of the individual personality and so each leader has a style of his/her own. Effectiveness of a particular style cannot be evaluated for the style itself, but only when considering a specific environment (in which the style si applied) - e.g. a specific company culture.
So far so good. If we go further then we can say that in a company with a very strict processes and strong organisational hierarchy the effective leader shall be autocratic or bureaucratic, while for a creative company with flatter structure and limited definition of processes a charismatic or laissez-faire style would suit best). But is it indeed the case? What if the most valuable contribution of a leader in the first company is caring about people so they can feel as a human and not just as "a brick in the wall"? On the other hand shouldn't the leader in the second company be "the responsible one" (even if not sooo popular), who will ensure, that the goals are met despite of the loose working atmosphere? What is yout opinion?
It is great to have as flexible leadership style as possible, but such flexibility is typically limited (as our personality is not that flexible either). So it is really crucial for a manager to choose a company with a culture matching his/her leadership style - and also for the company to choose a matching manager. However, in reality this is often not a part of selection criteria.