EVER since the Pied Piper of Hamelin tale and that tainted pipe, I've been suspicious about the whole notion of 'leadership' and preferred non-portable instruments like pianos by far.

The array of weighty tomes written on the topic of leadership in meandering management journals since the 1980s just proves that the controversial concept is bothering others too.

It's always affirming to see one's confusion/ lack of insight shared by lots of other people.

The 'ship' bit I have no problem with . . . like friend-ship, kin-ship, and even owner-ship, it indicates a relatively fixed state of being.

The 'leader' word itself is fine too, if somewhat traumatising as it conjures up childhood memories of adults in Scout gear; badly-made brown clothes are the cause of much residual psychopathology for some of us.

The qualities that make a leader must, then, make for a person who exhibits 'leadership', who stays the course and lasts long enough as a leader for the state of leading to be relatively fixed.

That rules out the pushy seven-year-old who, by elbowing other children out of the way, leads the rush down the slide every time; the 27-yearolds who, by speaking louder and smelling more strongly of Ralph Lauren than the rest of the hopefuls, lead the way past the bouncers into the throbbing mass of funsters on Friday nights; and the 47year-old who leads the lads into the lap dancing club "'cos he knows the routine from Mick's stag last year. . . hic".

While the aforementioned behaviours may be indicative of an emerging quest for power in the seven-year-old, or an urge to display membership of some dominant 'cultural' elite in the 27-yearold and a defensive territorial imperative in the mid-life man, none of the real, lasting leaders amongst us would necessarily grab the attention and want to be first in such transient and non-inclusive ways.

That Pied Piper would have been one lonely busker were it not for all those adoring followers. So bringing committed people with you, voluntarily, all the way, is the cornerstone of the skill set of a good leader.

The composite set of abilities proposed within the social sciences as being particular to leaders is impressive, and includes charisma, energy, decision-making smarts and passion . . . a synergy of relational, situational and nonhierarchical characteristics that makes leaders emotionally and socially more savvy than the rest of us.

Having met quite a few CEOs, MDs, chairmen and general captains of industry to date, I am not sure I ever noted these leadership skills in our exchanges.

I have noted, though, some self-serving desperation for recognition, preposterous vanity and lack of concern with the moral implications of their pursuit of power. But hey, that might just be my bitterness or residual turmoil from the childhood trauma of being force-read Pied Piper tales.

Maybe leaders hide their light under a bushel, although that is not one of the qualities of leaders highlighted in the vast literature on the topic.

Quite the opposite . . . there is an apparent unquestioning self-promotion in there among the solution-tailored executive aptitudes outlined in the learned work of Margaret Chapman, senior fellow (leadership) at the Manchester Business School who will be a key note speaker at a conference on 2 March on Irish Leaders Today being hosted by the division of work & organisational psychology of the Psychological Society of Ireland (PSI).

According to Chapman, we get the leaders we deserve, and leader behaviour reflects the prevailing social mores and cultural context within which they lead.

"The broader society creates the leader, and so the contentious characters from history, the Saddams and Hitlers, in their time, inspired and influenced a swathe of the population they led. Leadership is contextual, of a time and place and hugely social."

What she is going to say about Bertie, Michael, Mary or Pat, I have no idea, but some more sanguine theories about the nature of leadership emphasise the transformational effects of good leaders. Others concentrate more on the satisfaction that good leaders bring to the follower group, but all considered theories agree that there is a transformational effect and that the bond that connects us to our leaders involves the heart more than the head. This may have the damaging effect of cosseting us from their out-of-tune melodies, aka wayward antics.

Leadership cannot really be labelled 'good' or 'bad', although, as we all know, its effects can be. The concept is centred around the ability to transform . . . to bring about change within a group, to develop, to make people feel supported and free to grow and expand their wherewithal, and to motivate, to make people really feel and desire to do more . . . which is crucial to effective leadership behaviour.

Leadership then is really about equipping followers, with not just the will, but the drive and the energy needed to develop or garner the skills to succeed at whatever it is they themselves have . . . consciously or subconsciously . . .decided they want to achieve.

Like friendship, it's a twoway exchange. Like kinship, it involves an 'in' group of follower and leader . . . a connection they share that is not shared by those outside. Like ownership, some of us have it, others not.

But, leadership can be fostered, and emotional intelligence is one of the keys to its acquisition, according to Chapman. Acknowledging the contentiousness that surrounds the very construct of Emotional Intelligence (EI), Chapman is unconcerned with the hot debate about the detail and focuses instead on the practical applications of human 'abilities', regardless of whether they are called intelligences, aptitudes, skill sets or personality traits.

"I carry out research into leadership and apply it. It's all about performance and improving the way things are done. So softer skills which are what I call retro-humanrelations skills have risen up the power chain in organisations and for leaders to get the trust of followers they must be self-aware, socially aware and psychologically aware, with energy and the real desire to be a leader, too, in order to thrive."

The fundamental abilities of great leaders being emotional/relational, she says, means that those we put in leadership roles are those we feel represent us, or represent something we want.

It is an emotional literacy which allows them not only to be alive to every nuanced need, every lurking deceit and hidden purpose within the group, but also to have that rare ability to reach out and relate to different individual needs, acknowledge them and in some unfolding, often silent transition period, set a process in train whereby individuals feel empowered to become who they 'are'.

Dysfunctional leadership, then, may well come about when a society or powerful social order promotes qualities it wishes for but which are, in effect, a wish that should not be met; as Chapman notes, nostalgia, selfdeception and socially constructed myths can lead to the development of dangerous leader-follower bonds which history finds difficult to explain.

There are, however, effective leaders lurking everywhere, not just in the corridors of power, where there may well be a dearth of leaders and plethora of managers . . . who can provide order, systems and methods but not the emotional and socially acute connections leaders exude.

Some leaders are exiled in offices and shops and corporations . . . and even the public sector . . . daily showing leadership in everything they do, but stymied by rank and corporate plans, hierarchies and HR hokum.

Most people reading this will probably think they could lead if they wanted to, but while you may well be the Dalai Lama of Dublin 2, if people aren't traipsing after you and treating you with a reverence your position doesn't deserve, you're probably not leadership material just yet.

And you might be better offf On the thorny topic of those who refuse to follow, the mavericks set to sabotage the status quo, they may be would-be leaders or simply malcontents, more likely running ahead setting traps for the Pied Pipers we think we are; not just putting their hands over their ears to give their head peace, but trying everything to disturb the cosy kinship the leaders and followers have established.

Think US presidential election. Think PD-FF relations.

Think over your own shoulder.

Patricia Murray is a work and organisational psychologist

The conference on 'Challenges Facing Irish Leaders', organised by the Division of Work & Organisation Psychology, takes place on 2 March at the Burlington Hotel, Dublin. Phone 014749160.