Up to a point, the idea whether more leaders are needed comes naturally and it doesn't matter whether it is a company or the civil society. It is logical that if the workload in a company increases, new poeple shall be appointed there, all of whom needing management and mentorship. What is more interesting, however, is the situation with leaders in civil societies. Here the realisation that new leaders are needed is a long and challenging process. It is so because the search for a new leader starts only when there is a signifficant change in the way of thinking and accepting the reality. I believe that in such situation it is more accurate to say that the leaders are made not born because his/hers development is defined by these particular events. So, generally speaking, it might be said that the need for a change is what requires more leaders.

At an organisational level, it is usually the board of directors who decide whether the organisation needs more leaders through mutual agreement. However, in any other real life situation, for instance a society which is led by charismatic leaders, the situations and context often matters when it comes to the rise of new leaders. It can be in terms of reforms or conflict resolutions that new leaders rise into dominance in such situation to direct followers to a better place and position by their definition. However, one thing that stays common most often in both these situations is the need for reform at an organisational level or a societal level to address the status quo or to challenge it.

The organization’s owner or top leader decides if they need more leaders or not, sometimes the easiest way to keep everything under control in an organization is to divide everything in small groups and have a leader for each group, that way each leader has less to control and less followers to lead, optimizing the productivity of the group. In case we are referring to a community and not an organization then I think it is the people of the community that decide if they need more leaders or not to represent their interests and voice their opinions and needs.

It depends on the reason of the multiple leaders presence. An organization can have multiple leaders when it needs to diversify its aspects to different departments with a leader controlling it. All leader has their own area of authority. But there's always be an executive leader who make the crucial decisions. More than one executive leaders will lead to conflict of interest and confuse the members about who to follow. When an organization has two leaders, the decision of a crucial matter will usually through a grand meeting, involving every important members. So that the decision will be made from common agreement and not biased.

The society or the organization, depending on the subject, decides if there are more leaders. There cannot be more leaders than there are and there cannot be less than there are.

This means that the amount of leaders will always be proportional to the amount of individual subjects making the quantity of leaders a number of constant per say.

There is noone secifically that decide on the amount of number of leaders that are out there.