It's telling that bad leaders I've worked with exhibit opposite traits from OP's list. Off the cuff, they've had tendencies to:

   - stubbornly devote majority of their time to coding, despite negative feedback of their leadership
   - be consistently unaware of their calendar, to the point of developing a reputation for forgetting commitments
   - insisting on being involved in every meeting, or being noticeably insecure when they weren't
   - lack ability to execute on medium or long-term goals or visions
   - being noticeably insecure when they were no longer the most experienced on the team

There's a time frame of forgiveness for some of that, but ultimately some degree of transition must occur for a leader to become effective. Their role, priority, and especially leverage, all change, and require corresponding changes in mindset and execution.

Good leaders I've worked for didn't just understand that, they embraced it. They also had enough supporting experience, intuition, and team respect to execute well on it. They showed not just acceptance, but perhaps later even a level of mastery, in their new role.

Which is all to say, one adapts and grows into an effective leader. And their leadership, in turn, grows into a distinguishing signal for team effectiveness, maybe even team happiness too. B/c of the teams I've worked for, I stuck w/good ones for longer than I would have expected largely due to positive environments fostered by the leaders at the time. I also left bad leaders earlier than I would have liked, despite having good relations w/teammates in general.