Editorial.

Shields, John

Welcome to issue number 104 which contains a thematic on labour women's leadership.

"Leadership" is perhaps the most ubiquitous yet least interrogated concept in the contemporary social sciences. The mainstream management literature is awash with theories and exemplars of leadership effectiveness and with ever-changing prescriptions for the ultimate leadership "style." While a sharp-eyed historian could have a field day with this passing parade of normative leadership styles--charismatic, transformational, inspirational, authentic, democratic, distributed, post-heroic, etc. etc.--management education continues to be defined primarily as the business of "developing" future leaders. This has a parallel of sorts in the field of industrial relations, where paid trade union leaders, their organisational agency and their often uneasy relationship with rank-and-filers, activists and honorary officials, has long been a topic of interest, both descriptively and prescriptively. Likewise, as attested by the files of this journal, the temporal significance and impact of labour movement leaders--both industrial and political--has been, and remains, a subject of considerable interest to labour historians.

However, as the guest editors of this thematic issue suggest, in emulating the approaches to leadership evident in management and industrial relations, historically-informed studies of labour leaders and leadership historians have also generally been held captive to a "great man" view of history. And it is precisely by contesting this view that the ten articles in this special issue of Labour History make such a transformative contribution to our understanding of the changing basis, nature and influence of labour women's leadership in Australia.

In their introductory piece, guest editors Jackie Dickinson, Patricia Grimshaw and Sean Scalmer observe that, just as feminist historians have tended to overlook working-class women, studies of women workers by labour historians have been inclined to accept and celebrate--rather than seek to explain--the modalities of industrial, political, social and cultural leadership embraced by working women. This is to be regretted since, as the guest editors suggest, leadership has been (and is) no less important to working women than to working men. The contributions in this thematic demonstrate just how important leadership by women themselves has been to women's organising and mobilising; to their collective identity, agency and resilience.

Equally, these studies demand that we rethink the notion of "leadership" in relation to class, gender and historical process. The evidence and interpretation offered in these articles challenge the still-fashionable (stereotypical) claim in management circles that a "feminine style" of leadership is inherently preferable/ better/best. Rather, what these studies indicate is that labour women's leadership, whether in unions, party politics or social movements more broadly, has been (and remains) a social rather than an individual activity. These studies also demand that we revisit our assumptions about the nature of the "labour movement" as an historical subject and about the relationship between the "public" and the "private." The guest editors' opening contribution provides a full examination of these headline findings and challenges--and much more--so I'd encourage you to commence your reading there.

As is the custom, this thematic issue also includes non-thematic articles and, as it happens, the two contributions in this category, by Eric Windholz and Melanie Nolan, themselves constitute a mini-thematic of sorts--on the history of occupational health and safety regulation and accident compensation in Australia and New Zealand. As both studies remind us, in relation to the wellbeing of working women, men and their dependants, the state sphere has for long been an arena of flux, contestation, uncertainty and inconsistency.

In addition to the usual complement of eminently readable book reviews, the issue also carries an informative research paper on pioneer Australian industrial relations scholar, Joe Isaac, written by Russell Lansbury and Chris F. Wright. We also include obituaries on two eminent historians: Eric Hobsbawn and Tom Stannage. I am sure that Labour History number 104 will incite you.