A captious critic might describe this definition as breathtakingly trivial, but Byrt will have none of it. ‘The statement that leadership is a function of the leader, the led and the situation. has been described variously as a statement of the obvious and as monumentally useless,’ he admits. ‘These are harsh judgements. As a statement of theory, it is just about all we have. It is also a true statement; what is needed is to refine it and make it operational. This has been the purpose of this book.’

            It is not clear just what Byrt means by ‘operational’. He certainly does not mean providing a blueprint for successful leader­ship along the lines of Niccolo Macchiavelli’s classic The Prince:, he specifically denies any such aim. He also apparently does not intend providing a guide to the sort of qualities one should look for in a successful leader; he says, again fairly obviously, that they vary from case to case, and that qualities which work in one situation may not work in a different one. Since none of us ever really believed that Johannes Bjelke­Petersen, in spite of his record term as Queensland Premier, would be a raging success if he ran as president of the United States, this is not terribly helpful. Again, all we are offered is generalities. Most leaders are ambitious; many are slightly neurotic. Successful ones generally have a capacity for hard work, a fair degree of intelligence, and an ability to communicate. It is hard to see how these observations substantially advance the sum of human knowledge.

            What should be the most interesting part of the book comes in the second half, where Byrt examines a number of prominent Australian leaders under the headings: abilities; personality; bases of power and influence; leadership role; tactics of leadership; and assessment as a leader. I say it should be the most interesting, but in fact the book fails here too. The choice of subjects is arbitrary, and the observations about them superficial and mainly second hand. When the author appears to be relying on personal knowledge, as when he is dealing with academic bureaucrats, he has felt the need to preserve their anonymity, thus making it impossible to judge the worth of his statements about them.

In all, it is a disappointing product, and one that leaves a feeling of irritation by the end; the natural reaction is a feeling of either having missed the point altogether, or doubting whether there ever really was one.