Yeah, that's leadership, which is different than project management.
Project management is about getting the project done. It's nice to be a leader, but what happens when key people quit? Who arranges to make sure different parts are done? Leadership is an extremely good skill, but management is a different but also extremely good skill to have.
Most of the discussion of this on slashdot just shows how little people bother to actually read what they are commenting on or how clueless they are about what leading a project actually entails. Managers in my experience very rarely lead projects. They assign teams to projects under a team leader who is responsible for getting the stuff done.
Some people need very little direction given to them and some people refuse to take direction completely, but most technical teams of 5 or so people will have a mix. The job of the technical lead is to help the people who need it when they need it. Either through advice or actually doing the job for them in the rare occasion when someone is totally out of their depth. If you are technical lead of an amazing team the job is easy, if you are a technical team of a bunch of people like me it is hard. (I'm joking, I work as a lead developer)
Generally though being a technical lead is a far more technical role than being a manager. It does involve knowing how to manage people effectively though as it involves far more people skills then just being a member of a technical team.
The reason companies always like people with leadership skills though is simply because as you work for a company you accrue more and more technical skills. Companies want you to have the potential to impart those technical skills into other people through leadership. This is what the interviewer is probably referring to, the linked article the guy posted is just a red herring where he misunderstood what was being asked of him in my opinion.