I can't watch the video because my internet ain't fast enough, but I have seen what I think is the main website for this campaign. Their claim is that in general, boys who are bossy are called leaders, which is an encouraging thing, and girls who are bossy are called bossy, which is a discouraging thing. This then leads to girls being discouraged from a young age from becoming leaders and this is responsible, or partly responsible, for there being so few women in leadership positions. This is certainly a plausible theory, but the website I read about this gave absolutely no justification for any of their claims. It could be true. I don't know what to think.
In my opinion there is a lot of pure rubbish talked about "leadership". Apparently people who are taller than average are great natural leaders. Well, I'm about 6 3" (roughly 1.9m) tall, and I certainly wouldn't say I'm a leader of any kind. I'm probably un-leadable - in the sense that I refuse to accept authority from anyone apart from God. But I'm not at all comfortable with the idea of ordering other people around either.
On the other hand we had a Maths teacher at school who was a little guy - and everyone in the class (myself included) was absolutely freaking terrified of him!
(EDIT: mind you, he was a former RAF officer who had flown with the V-force http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_bomber in the 1960s - so I guess that definitely gave him major kudos with teenage males!)
As I can't watch the video either at the moment, here's "mein Senf", off the cuff.
From what I recall having read about this anti-"bossy" campaign, I gather it is about the way teachers use different ways of describing "leadership" potential in class. Girls are often described as "bossy" instead of being able to lead groups, resulting frequently - apparently - in girls holding back from certain activities/subjects for which they may be particularly suited. So it is the teachers who need to be more careful how they label their pupils, it's not that there are no bossy children, boys and girls alike.
In my opinion, the average marriage is much like the modern British constitution: the man is like the monarch (theoretically the supreme ruler, but actually pretty much powerless), the woman is like the prime minister (theoretically subservient to the monarch, but actually the one who runs the show), and the kids are like the citizens.