In chapter 3 we get the qualifications for Bishops (elders) and Deacons (leaders) in the church. It actually presents a good leadership standard. The interesting debate here is "should we hold our leaders to a higher level of accountability than we hold the general church membership?" Obviously we do. I know I hold myself to a higher standard, I know that when our pastoral leaders fail it is a bigger "scandal" than when a congregant fails: imagine your pastor being caught in adultery or a friend, neighbor, coworker, fellow church member being caught in the same behavior and you'll get the picture. Which one seems worse in our eyes?
I am inclined to agree with Erwin McManus on this point. We should hold all of us to a higher standard of behavior. McManus in his book The Unstoppable Force utilizes the final chapter of the book to discuss a "radical minimum standard". In this discussion he suggests that the biggest problem with the modern American Christian church is not that we have held too high a standard but that our standards have not been high enough. The goal of every ministry should be to raise up Disciples for Jesus Christ. A disciple is a fully committed follower of Jesus Christ who knows their spiritual gifts and is using them in mission and ministry. If we set that as the "radical minimum standard" the church would grow, gain strength and make an increasing difference in our world on both the domestic and international stage.
Yes there should be high standards for leadership and we should hold our leaders accountable to live up to those high standards. BUT, there should be high standards and expectations on all Christ followers.