This is the section in the Scrum Guide that defines the Scrum Master as Leader first. Servant later (below.)
The explicit mentioning of accountable and true leaders emphasises the new focus on leadership in a Scrum Master.
Does this support the ongoing discussion between Scrum Masters and Line Managers?
Who’s responsible for coding standards?
Who is holding the team accountable when they do not adhere to the DOD?
What about quality standards? The role of the QA lead?
Yes to all who answer: The Team. They are collectively accountable.
What if team dysfunction that a SM can’t solve on his own disrupt performance and quality?
He has got no disciplinary status/power, and should not, in order to not restrict his coaching attitude?
There is an article on scrum.org that states that servant leadership is still useful.
Further consider the self-managing / self-governing ideas https://www.scrum.org/resources/blog/scrum-team-self-managing
This article enables each organisation to create shared understanding on how much power lies within the team.
Since the Scrum master is accountable for the effectiveness of Scrum, he must facilitate shared understanding and agreement within the team and within the teams organisation.