Leadership and change in the Tasmanian environment movement

The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 708–724

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l e a q u a

Leadership and change in the Tasmanian environment movement Bruce Tranter ⁎ School of Sociology and Social Work, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 17, Hobart, Tasmania, 7001, Australia

a r t i c l e Keywords: Environment Leaders Charismatic Social movements Tasmania Australia

i n f o

a b s t r a c t Semi-structured interviews with key environmentalists conducted in 2002 suggest strategic decision makers, organisational spokespeople and Green politicians are key leaders of the Tasmanian environmental movement, although charismatic leadership persists following movement routinisation. Routinisation is associated with the rise of non-protest environmental movement organisations addressing mainstream issues such as soil erosion, while protest oriented organisations champion the protection of old growth forests. Disproportionate federal government funding of nonprotest organisations underpins tensions between movement leaders. An environmental council representing the diverse interests of the groups and organisations comprising the movement mitigates tensions and strengthens leader integration. Entrenched leaders from the ‘baby boom’ generation hinder the rise of younger leaders. Leader mentoring schemes adopted by movement organisations offer a potential solution to leadership succession in a mature social movement. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction This is a study of environmental movement leaders on the island of Tasmania, the smallest but ‘greenest’ of the Australian states.1 With a few exceptions (e.g. Barker, Johnson & Lavalette, 2001; Doyle, 2001; Egri & Herman, 2000), environmental leaders have received limited attention from political scientists and sociologists (Klandermans, 1997). While the literature on environmental movement organisations (EMO) and social movements is extensive, leadership in environmental movements has been a contested topic that goes against the grain for some activists (Barker et al., 2001: 2). The notion of leadership does not sit well with the principles of participatory democracy and consensus decision-making, seen as central tenets of new social movements (Dalton, Kuechler & Burklin, 1990; Pakulski, 1991). This case study based upon qualitative interviews identifies the types and sphere of influence of Tasmanian environmental movement leaders and examines how change in the movement impacts upon leadership. The study also reveals that internal tensions between EMO and external factors in the form of government intervention have resulted in leadership tension in this successful environmental social movement. The environmental movement has had an impressive history of successful campaigns in Tasmania. The flooding of the pristine Lake Pedder in 1972 was an early loss for Tasmanian environmentalists, but served as a training ground for leaders of future protest actions (Papadakis, 1998: 86). The most celebrated of these was the campaign to save the wild Franklin River from a Tasmanian government hydro power scheme. This highly publicised campaign exerted political pressure prior to the 1983 Australian federal election causing the newly elected Hawke Labor government to intervene and halt the construction of the dam.2 Tasmania was

⁎ Tel.: +61 3 6226 2362; fax: +61 3 6226 2279. E-mail address: [email protected]. 1 Support for environmental issues in Australia has been relatively strong in the past two decades, as it has in many other advanced industrial nations (Bean 1998, Rootes 2004). National surveys indicate that approximately 6% of Australians were members of environmental groups in 2004, up from 3% in 1990, while public approval for environmental groups was stable at over 70% throughout the 1990's (Tranter, 2004). 2 The Tasmanian government led by Liberal Premier Robin Gray challenged the Hawke Governments legislative intervention in the High Court, although the Court ruled in favour of the federal government and construction of the dam was halted (Thompson, 1984). 1048-9843/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.009

B. Tranter / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 708–724

709

home to the first, if unsuccessful environmental political party, when the United Tasmania Group formed in 1972 (Papadakis, 1998: 172). The Wilderness Society (TWS)3 formed in 1976 ‘played a central role in the campaign against the Franklin Dam’ and has since been ‘a nationwide protest movement for the protection of forests and wilderness areas’ (Papadakis, 1998: 163). In 1989, green groups combined to stop the construction of the proposed Wesley Vale pulp mill in the north of the state. With a ‘quotapreferential’ electoral system that aids the election of minority parties and independents, five green independent candidates were elected to the Tasmanian lower house in 1989 and formed an ‘Accord’ with the Australian Labor Party (1989–1991), where they held the balance of power (Papadakis, 1998: 87). Reduced to one member following the 1998 election after the major parties reduced the size of the lower house from thirty five to twenty five members, the Greens fought back to hold four seats following the 2002 and 2006 elections. In federal politics, Tasmanian Greens hold two of the four Green Senate seats following the election of Bob Brown in 1996 and Christine Milne in 2004. Several major environmental protest campaigns have been fought in Tasmania since the Franklin, centred on wilderness preservation and forest protection. These include Farmhouse Creek and the Lemonthyme (1985–1988), Jackeys Marsh (1986–1987), the Great Western Tiers (1991), the East Picton (1992–1993), the Tarkine ‘road to nowhere’ blockade (1995) and Mother Cummings Peak (1997). The Styx Valley (1999–) campaign against clear felling ‘giant swamp gums or Eucalyptus regnans, which can grow to 90 m…the largest flowering plant in the world’ (Lester, 2005: 249–50) is ongoing. The highest profile environmental issues in Tasmania involve the logging of forests, particularly ‘old growth’ forests and woodchipping. Australia wide organisations such as The Wilderness Society and the Australian Conservation Foundation have been at the forefront of environmental campaigns for over two decades.4 As Papadakis (1998: 177) suggests, ‘[T]he rise in support during the 1980s for groups like The Wilderness Society has contributed to a stronger focus by traditional political organisations on environmental issues’. The Australian Labor Party was victorious in the ‘green’ election of 1990 with support of environmental organizations (Papadakis, 1993: 174), while global warming has been a prominent election issue in 2007, following ominous reports of the economic and social risks associated with global warming (Solomon et al., 2007; Stern, 2006). The current environmental focus in Tasmania is on halting the proposed construction of the largest pulp mill in Australia by the ‘world's biggest hardwood woodchipping company, Gunns Pty Ltd’ (Brown 2004: 93). The Tasmanian government, the federal government and the opposition parties all support the construction of the mill. The pulp mill issue escalated into one of national political significance, threatening the re-election of a senior federal government minister in the lead up to the 2007 federal election.5 In this paper I identify key leadership roles in a mature environmental social movement and examine how these roles have changed as the movement has undergone a process of routinisation. I also consider the implications of disproportionate government funding of non-protest based EMO at the expense of more radical protest oriented EMO, generating tensions between protest and non-protest based EMO leaders. Finally, I examine the issue of leader succession brought about by the ageing leadership cadre of the Tasmanian environmental movement.

2. Social movements and their leaders The structure of social movements has important implications for leadership. In contrast to formal organisations, social movements have been described as networks “of informal interactions, between a plurality of individuals, groups or associations, engaged in a political or cultural conflict, on the basis of a shared identity” (Diani, 1992: 13). For Pakulski (1991:43) movements are “loosely connected groups, social circles and networks…supporters and sympathisers who are not affiliated with any organised bodies”. Individuals, groups and movement organisations are the component parts, although Rootes (2004: 610) claims social movements only exist “when such organisations (and other actors) are networked one with another and engaged in collective action”. A point supported by Diani (2003: 301), who suggests “[W]e get closer to a social movement dynamic the more there is a coupling of informal networks, collective identity, and conflict”. The loose and informal structure of social movements results in less formalised leadership that lacks the strong authority structure of hierarchical organisations.6 The small size of many environmental organisations also contributes to their less formal structure (Bass 1990: 580). In an ideal-typical sense, movements tend toward participatory decision making reached through consensus (Dalton et al., 1990; Pakulski, 1991; Dalton, 1996), with environmental movements exhibiting a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic structure (e.g. see Doyle & McEachern, 2001). Nevertheless, leaders emerge. Morris and Staggenborg (2004: 171) argue “[L]eaders are critical to social movements: they inspire commitment, mobilise resources, create and recognise opportunities, devise strategies, frame demands and influence outcomes’. They identify four ideal types of ‘leadership tiers’ from the social movement literature: “top formal leadership positions” and “the intermediate leadership team of formal leaders” in social movement organisations (SMO); “bridge leaders” who “mediate between top leadership and the vast bulk of followers” and ‘organisers’ (2004: 188). Morris and Staggenborg (2004: 188) emphasise the strategic importance of

3 Formerly the Tasmanian Wilderness Society, renamed in 1983. The largest EMO in Tasmania, the Tasmanian branch has 5 campaigners and 3 office staff listed on its web site (TWS, 2007). Organisational size is not publicly available although anecdotally one leader claimed TWS membership is thriving in recent years and stands at approximately 50,000 members nationally in 2007. 4 High profile campaigns nationally include the wet tropics campaign in Queensland (1983–87), anti uranium mining campaign in Kakadu National Park (1997–2003), wild rivers campaign in Cape York Peninsula (1994–2007). 5 The federal environment minister Malcolm Turnbull holds the seat of Wentworth with a 2.5% margin. Electorate boundary redistributions and high profile environmental protests again the pulp mill in his electorate place this seat in doubt for the 2007 election. 6 Although there are exceptions, such as the hierarchically organised Greenpeace (Diani and Donati 1999: 19).

710

B. Tranter / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 708–724

movement organisation leaders, who have ‘connections to elites in other sectors such as political parties, unions, and mass media’. In a useful working definition for this research, they define social movement leaders as ‘strategic decision-makers who inspire and organise others to participate in social movements’ (2004:171). Several leadership roles, similar to the ideal types above were apparent in Tasmania. In a study conducted in 1991 I found Tasmanian leaders became influential and were integrated through participation in semi-formal and informal networks. Leaders emerged as their influence grew through long involvement as activists, gaining issue expertise and movement credibility along the way (Tranter, 1995: 89). Leaders had influence rather than authority over most other environmentalists within the movement (Tranter, 1995: 88),7 with their often overlapping roles including “spokespeople, organisers, experts, green politicians, imagemakers and exemplary figures” (Tranter, 1995: 85). Tasmanian movement leaders employed impression management techniques (Bass, 1985; Gardner & Avolio, 1998) and a variety of strategies to mobilise public opinion in support of environmental issues, from non-violent protests to conventional lobbying. The movement also has a charismatic leader — the 1990 Goldman Environmental prize winner, environmental activist and Greens politician, Senator Bob Brown. Brown's exemplary qualities include ‘risk-taking, goal articulation, high expectations, emphasis on the collective identity, and vision’, characteristics that Ehrhart and Klein (2001: 154) argue distinguish charismatic leaders. Such ‘inspirational’ qualities suggest movement leaders have an affinity with the transformational form of leadership (Bass, 1990, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1990; Yammarino, Spangler & Dubinsky, 1998; Egri & Herman, 2000). The relatively large number of women in leadership roles in the Tasmanian movement, in particular Green politicians and leaders of environmental groups is also indicative of the transformational style (Bass & Riggio 2006: 115).8 Changes in the Tasmanian movement have also resulted in leadership changes. Drawing upon a Weberian concept, Pakulski, Tranter and Crook (1998) claim environmental issues have become ‘routinised’ as formerly new and radical environmental issues and forms of political participation enter mainstream political culture. The process of routinisation ‘marks absorption of social innovations into the established, and typically institutionalised, ways of doing and experiencing things through repetition and habituation’ (Pakulski et al., 1998: 239) and is accompanied by declining levels of environmental group membership and public support for such groups (1998: 241). This ‘shift from new, unusual and unique’ (i.e. the environment as a new political issue) ‘to old, expected and familiar’ (i.e. as environmental issues are absorbed into conventional political policy platforms and come under the control of conventional political institutions) (Pakulski et al., 1998: 239), has important implications for the future of environmental movements and their leaders. In the process of routinisation, unconventional forms of engagement typical of environmental movements such as ‘demonstrations and other value-laden mobilisations’ become less frequent and are replaced by ‘increasingly orderly and organised lobbying’ (Pakulski et al., 1998: 239). Importantly, there is an associated shift away from protest based charismatic activists and mobilisers, to lobbyists, green politicians and bureaucrats (Pakulski et al., 1998: 239–40). Rootes (1999: 155) refers to a similar trend in Europe as the ‘institutionalisation’ of EMO, when they ‘have been accorded at least some measure of institutionalised access to decision-making arena’ that enables ‘new institutional arrangements and opportunities for communication and debate’ with ‘policy-makers and established economic actors and interest groups’. However, he warns that these more constructive interactions can result in tensions between EMOs and activists (1999: 155). Evidence of the routinisation of the broader Tasmanian movement is apparent in the decline of environmental protest actions in recent years. My content analysis of forest protests between 1985 and 2000 suggests that after trending upward through the 1980s and peaking during the Tarkine campaign in 1995, protests appear to have declined (Fig. 1). Analysis of the types of protest actions also suggests a decline in more confrontational forest protests such as blockades, with only two held since 1994. While the frequency of protests will wax and wane depending upon the issues, heavy penalties imposed upon forest protestors by the Tasmanian government in the 1993 (Brown, 2004; Harries, 1999) has curtailed radical protest tactics in recent years.9 While radical young activists may be unperturbed, fines and jail terms discourage confrontational protest activities among many older environmentalists. Quinn's (1988) description of four stages in the development of new organisations and their associated qualities has parallels with the notion of routinisation and relevance for Tasmanian EMOs. These stages are the entrepreneurial (innovation, creativity and marshalling of resources, ‘dreaming’ and entrepreneurship), collectivity (informal communication and structure, sense of family and cooperation, personalised leadership), formalisation (organisational stability, efficiency, rules and procedures, conservativeness, goal setting and attainment) and elaboration of structure (decentralisation, balancing differentiation and integration) (Quinn, 1988: 59). Several, although by no means all of these qualities apply to the not-for-profit and non hierarchical EMO, TWS. Evolving from a protest focussed group of activists under the charismatic leadership of Bob Brown during the early 1980s Franklin campaign, TWS formalised and decentralised, expanding from Tasmania to other Australian mainland states in 1983. With a small group of professional campaigners it employs protest, conventional and increasingly innovative means for achieving its goals.

7 “One person has influence over another within a given scope to the extent that the first, without resorting to either a tacit or an overt threat of severe deprivations, causes the second to change his course or action” (Bachrach and Baratz, 1963: 637). 8 For example, three of the five Green independents elected to the Tasmanian parliament in 1989 were women, as were two of the three leaders of the Tasmanian Greens from 1989 to 2007. 9 The Styx River Forest campaign from 1999 has involved several protest actions, including tree sits and marches, but TWS also led guided tours through parts of the forest and provided maps for self-drive tours and bush walkers (Brown and Bailey, 2005).

B. Tranter / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 708–724

711

Fig. 1. Data source: Gee (2001).

In this research I focus upon changes in the Tasmanian environment movement and their impact upon leaders. As this is an inductive study based mainly upon a sample of qualitative interviews with 13 environmental leaders, I advance a series of expectations rather than state formal hypotheses. I focus particularly upon the impact of routinisation upon leadership roles. Following the routinisation thesis, as charisma is routinised charismatic leaders should be less prominent in 2002 than in 1991. Alternately, routinised EMO leaders should become more prominent as the movement is increasingly ‘institutionalised’. As movements become institutionalised, EMO leaders should have less control over the ‘production and dissemination of knowledge, and in the creation and shaping of the mass ‘conscience constituency’ of the environmental movement’ (Rootes, 1999: 156). Routinisation theorists claim that over time, EMO leaders become less reliant upon protest based tactics and more likely to adopt conventional approaches such as lobbying (Pakulski et al., 1998). During the course of the interviews it also became apparent that tensions existed between some environmental leaders and organisations, while leadership succession was signalled as potentially problematic. These issues are examined following a discussion of the research methodology. 3. Research strategy The main evidence presented in this research is based upon qualitative interviews conducted with Tasmanian environmentalists in 2002. Qualitative interviews and other qualitative approaches are favoured where the study of interaction is important; to ‘describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individual's lives’ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003: 5). Qualitative methods offer distinct advantages in leadership studies, including ‘opportunities to explore leadership phenomena in significant depth and to do so longitudinally…the flexibility to discern and detect unexpected phenomena…an ability to investigate process more effectively…greater chances to explore and to be sensitive to contextual factors…and more effective means to investigate symbolic dimensions’ (Conger, 1998: 111). Conger (1998: 111) also notes the pitfalls for leadership research of relying too heavily upon a single form of data collection.10 In addition to qualitative interviews, the author attended meetings between environmental leaders and other activists as an identified observer during the first phase of this research in 1991, attended several public protests between 1991 and 2002 and employed a range of unobtrusive approaches, including monitoring news bulletins relating to environmental issues, examining newsletters published by environmental organisations and drawing upon publications produced by or citing environmentalists (i.e. Brown & Bailey, 2005; Brown, 2004; Gee, 2001; Lester, 2005; Thompson, 1984). A content analysis of protest actions listed on The Wilderness Society website (Gee, 2001) was also conducted to examine changes in the incidence of protests during the 1980s

10 Conger (1998: 112) advocates a variety of approaches, including participant observation, suggesting that ‘[E]ffective participant observation would include the interviewing of respondents and informants, observation and direct participation, document analysis, and introspection’. Participant observation is potentially a valuable research tool for leadership research, but like any technique has its problems. A complete observer role where the observer does not interact in any way with those studied is difficult to maintain, while the complete participant role, although minimising the influence of researcher effects, is ‘a highly subjective stance’ with dubious validity (Angrosino and Perez, 2000: 677). Clandestine observation raises serious ethical issues as it involves deceiving participants. Even aside from the ethical issues, the time required to successfully ‘infiltrate’ a social situation — in this case to become an environmental leader with sufficient kudos to attend meetings between leaders and interact with them – would be considerable. Intermediate observer roles, where researchers are upfront about their status are perhaps the best compromise. However, observers influence participants when know they are under scrutiny, while the mere presence of observers influences the social situation (Angrosino and Perez, 2000). Participant observation was therefore decided against for this research.

712

B. Tranter / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 708–724

Table 1 Types of leaders interviewed in 2002 (n 13).

Leader in 1991 and 2002 Leader in 2002 only Total

Green politicians

Protest EMO

Non protest EMO

Groups

Advisors/experts

2 – 2

1 1 2

1 1 2

2 3 5

2 – 2

Note: Italics signify paid positions.

and 1990s. This analysis combined frequency counts of forest blockades and pickets, demonstrations, rallies and public meetings from 1985 to 2000.11 The interviews were semi-structured. That is, an interview schedule containing key questions was used as an interview guide (see Appendix A). However, the questions were not asked in the same order, nor was (exactly) the same wording used in each interview. Rather the interview schedule provides a framework of themes around which to base interview questions (Babbie, 2004). In contrast to highly structured quantitative interviews, qualitative interviews proceed in the manner of a ‘guided conversation’ (Babbie, 2004). This approach draws upon the interpretive framework of the sociologist Max Weber. As Travers (2002: 86) puts it, the qualitative interview “is developed from the interpretive perspective that sees that social research needs to address the complex ways in which people understand their lives”. The interviews in this research are drawn from two sources. The first consists of the twenty five qualitative interviews (8 women and 17 men) undertaken by the author in 1991, some of which are drawn upon for comparative purposes.12 However, the main data comprise the thirteen interviews with environmental leaders (4 females and 9 males) conducted on behalf of the author by an experienced qualitative researcher in 2002.13 Extracts from the 2002 interviews, and the themes that emerged from them comprise the major part of the empirical evidence presented in this research. The 2002 sample also contains eight leaders who were interviewed in 1991 and remain influential more than 10 years later (see Table 1). At the time of the 2002 interviews all of the remaining leaders from 1991 were aged in their forties or older.14 Interviews lasted between 1 h and 90 min and were tape recorded and transcribed. The transcribed interviews were thematically analysed. Themes were coded in order to identify key Tasmanian environmental leaders, leader types, their background in the movement, how they become leaders, key environmental issues and change in the movement and their own roles. Some additional themes that emerged (e.g. leader tensions) were also explored. This is an advantage of qualitative interviews, as researchers are able to pursue unanticipated themes and explore them in detail using follow up questions (Conger, 1998: 111). All interview material was treated as highly confidential and presented so that individual participants are not identifiable.15 A primary aim was to examine how leadership roles in the Tasmanian movement had changed since the earlier interviews. As an important aim was to identify environmental leaders, a form of ‘snowball’ sampling was employed. Snowball sampling is an appropriate technique where the aim is not to draw a probability sample, but to select participants for a study where an appropriate sampling frame does not exist, or where access to such a frame is restricted (Berg, 1988). Snowball sampling proceeds through the identification of informants or ‘gatekeepers’ who are asked to provide the names of further potential study participants. Additional names collected during the interviews increase the size of the sample like a snowball rolling down a mountain. In 2002, initial contact was made with five ‘gatekeepers’ — consisting of two position holders in environmental organisations (one from The Wilderness Society, one from the Tasmanian Conservation Trust), one Tasmanian Green politician and two Green politicians' staff.16 This method of selecting an initial group of influential environmentalists is based upon the assumption that those who occupy important positions in organisations have authority derived from their strategic location in an organisation. Authority structures are not always apparent when analysing EMO, as many tend to be non-hierarchical (Dalton et al., 1990). Nevertheless, position holders in

11 The ‘For the Forests’ chronology provides basic descriptions of environmental protests, actions taken by environmental groups and organisations, Green politicians, and other significant events relevant to the Tasmanian movement. Descriptions are considerably more detailed and therefore more reliable for comparative purposes in the years following the Franklin campaign. I therefore use data on protest actions from 1985 to the last fully documented year of protests in 2000. Keywords searched were ‘blockades’ (plus pickets), ‘protests’ (plus demonstrations) and ‘rallies’ (plus public meetings and marches). 12 The author conducted the original interviews in 1991 as a postgraduate student. 13 Fourteen interviews were conducted with thirteen environmentalists, including one follow up interview. A qualitative researcher trained in qualitative interviewing techniques was engaged for the interviews and briefed extensively by the author regarding the project aims. When the interviews were conducted in 2002 she was in the final stages of completing a PhD in sociology. I thank Clarissa Cook for undertaking the interviews for this project and University of Tasmania for providing funding for the project. 14 The specific age of each activist was not asked, however, public records and the author's estimates suggest that of the 2002 interviewees, two were in the twenties, one in the thirties, three in the forties, five in the fifties and two in the sixties age range. 15 Ethical clearance was obtained from the University of Tasmania Ethics committee prior to the commencement of field work. Interviewees were initially contacted by letter to seek their participation, and as per ethical guidelines required to sign a statement of informed consent prior to being interviewed. 16 One Green staffer in 2002 was interviewed as a Green politician in 1991. Separate snowball samples were conducted in 1991 and 2002. Ten informants were approached in 1991. These consisted of six Green politicians, an Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) staff member, two Wilderness Society position holders and a staffer from Tasmanian Environment Centre (TEC). By 2002 the ACF no longer had an office in Tasmania, so was not approached, although the ACF staffer from 1991 was employed by The Wilderness Society in 2002 and used again as an informant. The TEC is primarily a ‘community resource and education centre’ so a gatekeeper from this organisation was not sought in 2002. The smaller number of informants in the recent sample also reflects the fact that only two Tasmanian state and federal Green politicians remained in office in 2002, compared to six in 1991.

B. Tranter / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 708–724

713

key EMO and Green politicians are clearly influential environmentalists within the movement. They are also frequently sought out by journalists and therefore comprise the public faces of the environmental movement (Hutchins & Lester 2006). The five informants were then interviewed and asked to identify other influential Tasmanian environmentalists. Those identified by three or more gatekeepers were subsequently interviewed where practicable. Using several Green politicians and EMO employees as informants minimises a problem sometimes associated with the selection of snowball samples, where the use of only one, or a few gatekeepers may introduce bias into the sampling process. As a cross validation, the names of the initial ‘positional’ leaders also emerged consistently in the interviews. It is possible that the sampling strategy employed here may omit some influential leaders, for example, by over sampling well known, older leaders and under representing less visible but important environmentalists. However, this was unlikely. Tasmania is a geographically small state with a small population (approximately 450,000) and as a result of this environmental organisations and groups tend to be highly visible. The fact that newer groups and younger activists outside of the EMOs were identified in the course of the interviews, also suggests that this sampling approach captured a diversity of environmental leaders. In 2007 two additional telephone interviews of approximately 30 min duration were conducted. The first was with a campaigner from the national office of TWS and the second with a Tasmanian ACF councillor and movement historian. These served to update developments in the Tasmanian movement since 2002, including recent changes in campaign tactics, strategies to facilitate leadership succession and elaborate of the bases of tensions between movement leaders. 3.1. Study limitations This study has several limitations. First, while snowball sampling was judged to be an appropriate approach for this study there are potential problems with the sampling strategy. Interviewing organisational gatekeepers then snowball sampling may have resulted in a narrower focus on organisational based leadership and downplayed the role of other movement leaders. However, the aim here was to examine leaders who have influence both inside and outside of the movement and leaders of small groups rarely have or are able to sustain such influence. In addition, by concentrating solely upon leaders, evidence is lacking on rank and file environmentalists' perceptions of movement leaders and the extent to which they are willing to follow movement leaders. Further, while qualitative interviews provide insights into leadership processes, they lack the reliability and generalisability of larger probability sampling strategies, particularly when these are coupled with multivariate data analytic techniques. For example, the interview data suggest environmental leaders exhibit charismatic and transformational qualities. The administration of validated leadership scales to larger samples of environmental leaders would be a more reliable method of assessing leader types and qualities (e.g. the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Bass & Avolio, 2000). This could prove an informative research topic for future examination, although given the small number of environmental movement leaders in Tasmania it would be better considered as a project at the national or international level. Finally, although the study also draws upon earlier interview material to a limited extent, it is essentially a snap shot of Tasmanian environmental leaders. While some triangulation was attempted, this case study is temporally bounded in terms of the interview data to 2002. 4. Environmental leaders in Tasmania Social movements have both internal and external leaders (Morris & Staggenborg, 2004). In Tasmania, EMO leaders have limited authority over employees, while as high profile spokespeople, strategists, experts and campaigners, they have influence within the broader movement. EMO leaders also have an impact outside of the movement over public opinion, via mass media such as newspapers and television, but increasingly also the internet, while Green politicians couple internal and external influence with legitimate authority in the government bureaucracy. In earlier research, that considered both internal and external movement leaders, a main aim was to identify the diversity of leadership roles (Tranter, 1995). Here I concentrate mainly upon those leaders who have influence (and/or authority) both internally and externally, given in accordance with Morris and Staggenborg's definition, these leaders have the greatest strategic influence over the movement and over public opinion more broadly. The leaders in this study therefore tend to be Green politicians, paid leaders of EMOs and spokespeople for environmental groups, although some of these functional roles tend to overlap.17 Social movements favour participatory democratic decision-making (Gundelach, 1984; Offe, 1985). This was apparent in 1991 when some opposition to the notion of environmental leaders was apparent in the interviews. As one activist claimed, the “movement has a bit of a thing about leaders…preferring a sort of consensus approach” (Int. 6, 1991). Consensus decision-making was important, although leaders were able to “subtly influence the consensus, and sway the decision-making process” (Tranter, 1995: 88). By 2002 however, all of those interviewed acknowledged their own influence and the importance of movement leaders in general, although one elder environmentalist warned in a tone reflecting the participatory democratic roots of the movement, “it is important that no one is regarded as the be all and end all and that their word is the final say” (Int. 10, 2002). The term ‘inspirational’ can be linked to Weber's notion of charismatic leadership based upon the personal qualities of a leader; the “devotion and exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person and of the normative patterns of order revealed or ordained by him” (Weber, 1947: 301). Klein and House (1995: 183) argue charisma ‘resides in the relationship between a leader who has charismatic qualities and those of his or her followers who are open to charisma, within a charisma-conducive environment’. The Tasmanian environmental movement is such an ‘environment’. As a Greens staffer put it: I think you do need leadership — you need inspirational leadership (Int. 2, 2002).

17

The smaller sample of interviewees in 2002 also reflects this somewhat narrower conception of leadership.

714

B. Tranter / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 708–724

The exemplary qualities of one key environmental leader were particularly emphasised. The following descriptions of former Wilderness Society Director and founding member, internationally known environmental activist and later Green Senator, Dr. Bob Brown are indicative of the charismatic leader. Bob Brown is someone who is universally almost admired within the movement and also outside. He is someone who is able to articulate the things that you feel and that person becomes the embodiment of your philosophy — like your public voice (Int. 2, 2002). He is such an admired and respected figure and he puts a lot of work into being out there in front, sort of really producing materials, arguments and helping to publicise the next phase of any campaign (Int. 4, 2002). Bob plays an enormous role — he is a highly visible person but that's the tip of the iceberg. He provides a lot of inspiration to a lot of people and he is very canny and he is not easily intimidated. He sees advantages where other people see peril — he is able to turn adversity to advantage (Int. 3, 2002). Conger, Kanungo and Menon (2000: 748–9) maintain charismatic leaders ‘articulate an inspirational vision’ and produce ‘high levels of a collectivist identity among followers, strong emotional attachment to the leader, and high follower task performance’. Building upon Weber, Burns (1978: 243) refers to such leadership as ‘heroic’. A well publicised example of Brown's heroic leadership occurred in 1986, when as a state parliamentarian he was engaged in a protest action at Farmhouse Creek in Tasmania's south west. While protesting in an attempt to stop a logging operation, he was manhandled and beaten by forest workers as he was dragged from under the blade of a bulldozer while the police stood by watching. 18 As Lester (2005: 2) describes it, ‘[H]is shirt torn open, his arms stretched in a Christ-like pose, the hard-hat wearing loggers seemingly unperturbed that they were fulfilling the role of crucifiers in this particular passion play. The image runs on front pages around the country’. While Bob Brown's leadership qualities motivate supporters inside and outside of the movement, one leader downplayed his strategic role. inevitably you have to identify Bob Brown as one of the leaders of the movement, largely because he has got the religious charismatic capacity to get lots of bunnies running after the Pied Piper which…is leadership in the sense that you can get people to do things. It is not really leadership in terms of which direction you are running in (Int. 6, 2002). Brown's move into state (1983–1993) and later federal politics (1996) has parallels in Weber's routinisation of charisma (Weber, 1978: 251–2). Social movements, particularly small scale movements have limited organisational structures ‘to provide the endurance of the charismatic's effects’ (Bass, 1990: 198), at least internally. However, by moving into representative politics the movement leader gains legitimacy external to the movement. As Bass (1990: 198) suggests, ‘[T]he office may make the leader’ because the ‘demands of the office may greatly elevate the esteem of the officeholder’. Revered as a leader and spokesperson for the movement, Brown also carries the political legitimacy and legal-rational authority associated with elected office (Weber, 1978: 215) and his influence does not appear to have declined with movement routinisation. While environmental protests are sometimes spectacular, colourful and innovative, Hutchins and Lester (2005) found Tasmanian media have become sceptical of what they interpreted as stage managed protests, or ‘media stunts’. Effective environmental spokespeople are therefore particularly important. As one leader noted: “people in the community expect to…be able to talk to somebody who can act as a spokesperson…a leader” (Int. 14, 2002). The representative role of movement spokespeople was emphasised as people “who can get messages across clearly and communicate well and who are empowered to do that by a larger group of people” (Int. 4, 2002). In Europe, Rootes (2003: 3) found that even radical groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth ‘have consolidated their status as unofficial experts in various policy areas’. In Tasmania, EMO spokespeople are typically scientifically credentialed, articulate ‘experts’ with specialised knowledge on particular environmental issues, such as forestry, mining, endangered species or marine habitats. This combination of issue expertise and a high media profile generates influence both inside and outside of the movement. Spokespeople use impression management techniques (Bass, 1985), involving ‘the packaging of information in order to lead target audiences to desired conclusions’ (Gardner & Avolio, 1998: 33). For example, in order to present a non-radical public image, they typically appear as well groomed and conservatively dressed for media interviews (Tranter, 1995: 86). As Lester (2005: 98– 99) points out, as far back as the Franklin Campaign, The Wilderness Society ‘invested in a rack of conservative second-hand clothing known as the “camouflage cupboard”’ for media appearances. A potential danger for spokespeople, as Gitlin (1980) found in his study of the new left in the United States, is that they can become celebrity media targets who do not necessarily speak for ‘the movement’. However, given the loose networked structure of social movements, it is difficult, if not impossible for any spokesperson to speak on behalf of an entire movement, or at least to get away with it. In Tasmania, TWS leaders and Green politicians (particularly Bob Brown, Christine Milne and Peg Putt) have been unofficial spokespeople for the movement since the 1980s.

18

Brown has also been shot at by opponents, and jailed on more than one occasion for participating in environmental protests.

B. Tranter / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 708–724

715

The final highly influential leader role is the movement strategist, whom I distinguish from day to day organisers and those who mobilise networks to generate support for public protests and rallies (Tranter, 1995). 19 Strategists are key planners whose decisions have long term implications for the success of the movement. In the Tasmanian movement, the strategists are EMO leaders, politicians and their advisory staff who frame ‘the ways in which social movement actors define grievances and construct social reality to motivate collective action’ (Morris and Staggenborg, 2004: 183).20 5. Issue priorities and leadership tensions Tensions have emerged within the Tasmanian environmental movement on several fronts, with two important divisions emerging in the 1990s. The first is between what might be termed protest and non-protest oriented groups and organisations.21 The second tension – related to the first – stems from the issues prioritised by different environmental organisations. The combination of these two factors has led to an internal division among leaders, between a) those who employ protest oriented tactics and do not receive government funding (e.g. The Wilderness Society), and b) those who do not mount protests but work behind the scenes to foster links with, and gain funding from the government bureaucracy (e.g. the Tasmanian Conservation Trust). 5.1. Shifting the environmental agenda Since the 1996 federal election, the Australian coalition government has indirectly controlled the environmental agenda by selectively funding non-protest oriented environmental groups. In 1997 the Howard Coalition government instigated the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT), “to help restore and conserve Australia's environment and natural resources” (NHT, 2007). Originally funded with $1.15 billion Australian dollars from the partial sale of the government owned telecommunications carrier, Telstra (Papadakis and Grant, 2003: 30), funding has since increased to 3 billion dollars for the period 1997 to 2007–2008 (NHT, 2007). The trust was instituted to fund ‘biodiversity conservation’, ‘sustainable use of natural resources’ and ‘community capacity building and institutional change’, including groups such as Landcare, Bushcare, Rivercare and Coastcare (NHT, 2007).22 While clearly an important environmental initiative, the manner in which government funding has been directed – some environmental leaders argue – has shifted the environmental agenda away from ‘radical’ issues. Notably, it does not fund causes supported by protest oriented groups such as the protection of old growth forests and wilderness areas, perhaps because these issues conflict with the interests of large corporations (e.g. Gunns Pty Ltd) and government agencies (e.g. Forestry Tasmania). The proliferation of non-protest environmental groups that focus upon issues such as soil salinity, the erosion of coastlines and the replanting of native species is evidence of the routinisation process. The aims of such groups are similar to early ‘conservationists’ (Rootes, 2004: 612) with their emphasis on conserving ‘resources’. Lawrence, Chesire and Richards (2004): 229) criticise “[L]andcare and other self-help approaches” as “ ‘band aid’ remedies to a deep seated malaise [that] work in the interest of capitalist expansion by shifting the blame for environmental degradation firmly onto the shoulders of local people while leaving the structural imperative of productivist agriculture unchallenged”. Some protest orientated environmentalists view this as a government strategy to control environmental discourse and set the issue agenda. …the fundamental principle of all these things is to abrogate the responsibility of government for the environment to the community and the ordinary citizen, so it transfers what should be government policy into local volunteer activism… because it is totally government funded, it sets the parameters for that activity and the parameter is fundamentally that you cannot challenge the activity which causes the damage in the first place…they are clean up processes after the event… they are not preventative (Int. 1, 2002). A further implication of the NHT funding strategy (whether intended or otherwise) is that directing substantial funding to nonprotest groups, renders spokespeople from protest oriented elements of the movement less likely to be portrayed in the public arena as key players interacting with government. This presents a difficulty for protest oriented leaders. Perceived collusion between environmental leaders and conservative governments may alienate environmentally radical supporters. On the other

19

Such as the Tasmanian Environmental Network (TEN), Native Forest Network, or Peninsula Environment Network. Other influential environmentalists include image-makers and activist elders. While their status as ‘leaders’ is contestable, the portrayal of the natural environment by photographers was instrumental in mobilising public support during environmental campaigns, famously Dombrovskis’ photograph of Rock Island Bend during the Franklin Dam campaign (Dombrovskis 1979). http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-an6631500 Elder activists, particularly pioneers of the Lake Pedder and Franklin campaigns also “draw on a wealth of experience and knowledge that provides a steadying influence in times of crisis, and increases group solidarity and morale” (Tranter, 1995: 88). 21 This is not to suggest a simple dichotomy between groups and organisations who engage in protest actions and those that do not, rather a continuum. For example, the Wilderness Society has adopted both protest strategies and more conventional methods in order to achieve its aims, but given its association with a range of protest actions over time it is classified as a protest oriented organisation. 22 Landcare groups were established in 1989 by the Australian federal (Labor) government. There are approximately 4000 community Landcare, Bushcare, Rivercare and Coastcare groups around Australia. http://www.landcareonline.com/page.asp?pID=7. To address, respectively problems of ‘land degradation and promoting sustainable agriculture…unique native flora and fauna…water quality and environmental condition in…river systems and wetlands…coastal catchments, ecosystems and the marine environment’ (NHT, 2007). 20

716

B. Tranter / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 708–724

hand, decreased public visibility may lessen the mainstream appeal of protest based organisations. The following quote illustrates how one Green politician interpreted the federal government's role in dividing the movement. governments have now chosen all their environmental prize winners, everyone who is appointed to a government consultative committee, community representatives, from that parallel environment movement…So, you have all these spokespeople…constrained by government funding, speaking out on issues like salinity…whereas the real environment movement, which is unconstrained, radical and challenges the right of the polluters and the damagers to degrade in the first place is increasingly marginalised (Int. 1, 2002).

5.2. The Wilderness Society and the Tasmanian Conservation Trust Divergence over issue priorities is also apparent between the major EMOs in Tasmania, TWS and the partly government funded TCT.23 With limited resources these environmental organisations prioritise certain issues. As one TCT leader put it, “we don't have lots of money… we'll work on those things that we are interested in, that we have got the resources to work on and we have got the time to work on” (Int. 5, 2002), while also stressing the apolitical stance of the TCT: ‘[I]n many ways this is a fairly unique organisation because we have never ever taken sides politically, we have always operated in a politically neutral way’ (Int. 5, 2002).24 In contrast, TWS has been an advocate for more radical issues, supports particular parties at elections (Doyle, 2001), and is located on the postmaterialist, left of the political spectrum (Inglehart,1997). TWS, as its name suggests, concentrates upon wilderness and forest issues in Tasmania. In 2002, lack of resources and/or activists with other issue expertise led the Tasmanian branch of TWS to concentrate upon the preservation of old growth forests as the priority issue, while the TCT was concerned mainly with biodiversity issues, according to the following leader: There is quite a sharp differentiation in terms of what is important between the wilderness inspiration agenda and the science bio-diversity agenda…they are lovely big trees, perfectly legitimate conservation agenda, but there are a whole lot of other things like species going extinct, forest types being destroyed, insects disappearing…It really isn't being addressed by what you ordinarily think of as the movement…The inspirational agenda is a very significant distraction from the conservation issues, that the scientific community see as important (Int. 6, 2002). This divide over the pursuit of different issues by different means was noted by four leaders. A younger TWS campaigner observed that among Tasmanian EMO there was “a resistance to combining as just one force and joining together because of the issues” (Int. 7, 2002). A strategist of long standing pointed out such tensions between leaders of TWS and TCT resulted in a “barrier of non-communication, rather than conflict, there is just non-communication and it can be damaging in itself” (Int. 2, 2002). I can name individuals…they are not involved in political pressuring at all…I don't want to say anything negative about that but what it has meant is that whereas before everyone had different things they dealt with and all interacted — we have now two distinct paths where in some respects you get virtually no communication (Int. 2, 2002). in the late ‘80's and early ‘90's you could have a press conference and have all those groups coming together as the “environment movement collectively says”, now it is really only the Greens and TWS, and then TWS not all that often because they don't have the money to be employing sufficient people to get out there as much as they'd like (Int. 1, 2002). There…was closer collaboration in the early 1990's between the Greens, the Tasmanian Conservation Trust and the Wilderness Society whereas it seems to me that people are working more on their own particular issue or in their particular way. There is still very, very close contact between the Wilderness Society and Bob Brown…but I think with respect to other parts of the movement things are a little bit more sort of separated (Interview 3, 2002). These internal divisions suggest a less tightly integrated leadership compared to 1991, when leaders interacted on a social basis and through regular informal and semi-formal meetings (Tranter, 1995). A decade earlier, regular strategic planning meetings were held between key leaders of TWS, ACF, TCT and Green politicians, so that ‘the movement’ not only presented a united public front, but developed plans as a movement. In 2002 the once tightly integrated movement had fragmented. Why has a division emerged between protest and non-protest based organisations? In addition to government funding bias, the “strong abrasive personalities” (Int. 1, 2002) and “the egos…in play” (Int. 7, 2002) were advanced in the interviews as contributing

23 The TCT was formed in 1968 and has over 400 members. It is a voluntary non-profit organisation working…to ensure that land, water and other resources are used with wisdom and foresight…It aims to foster and assist in the conservation of flora, fauna and important natural, archaeological and cultural features of Tasmania (TCT, 2007). 24 Although TCT members were involved in several protest actions in the 1980s and the Tarkine protests (see Gee, 2001).

B. Tranter / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 708–724

717

to tensions, particularly in relation to TCT leaders speaking on behalf of the Tasmanian movement without consulting other organisations and groups. there can be internal dis-satisfaction — sometimes people can feel that they are not having their view adequately expressed, sometimes they can be feeling that someone has got a bit egotistical and needs reigning in or is going off in the wrong direction because it is their pet hobby horse (Int. 4, 2002). Mention of ‘egos’ and ‘personalities’ could be code for authoritarian leadership in a social movement where authority is weak and consensus decision making valued highly. At least partially as a result of tensions between leaders, a peak body (Environment Tasmania) formed in 2005, comprising 24 environmental organisations (including TWS) and over 5000 Tasmanians, but not including the TCT (Environment Tasmania, 2007). In addition to being a contact point for ‘the public, politicians and industry’, Environment Tasmania aims to ‘build the capacity and cohesion’ of the movement, develop ‘a set of clear consensus positions…on key conservation issues’ and to be ‘a strong force towards the protection of Tasmania's environment’ (Environment Tasmania, 2007). Member groups chose not to seek government funding so their pursuit of issues will remain unconstrained. Councils such as this contribute to leader integration, reduce (public) tensions and enable activist, protest oriented groups and movement organisations to present a united public front. Concentrating upon different issues the two main Tasmanian EMOs employ different strategies to achieve their aims. While leaders from both organisations may use a variety of tactics, until recently TWS has tended to favour high profile protest oriented campaigns to influence public opinion, while the TCT works more discreetly behind the scenes, engaging in dialogue with government bureaucracies. Protest strategies were highly successful in earlier campaigns such as the Franklin River in 1983 and to an extent Farmhouse Creek in 1986, but throughout the 1990s the media became more sceptical of ‘staged’ protests (Hutchins & Lester, 2006: 445), as a political leader observed: the conservation movement is dug in except for the Tarkine Tigers in the middle of the [last] decade and a few other groups that came and went. They are in much more difficult terrain to get public attention compared to the Franklin blockade (Int.12, 2002). This is similar to the Western European situation, where environmental protest is ‘widely publicly approved, but because it is no longer novel, it is no longer assured of coverage’ (Rootes, 2003: 255). In the ‘information age’ where electronic media are an indispensable part of the political process (Castells, 1996), the relative ‘sexiness’ and media marketability of environmental issues are also critically important. Environmental campaigns and protest actions are ‘constructed’ carefully by environmental strategists to attract media coverage and influence public opinion. The dry sclerophyll forests that feature in many recent TWS campaigns do not have the dramatic media appeal of other wilderness areas. Issues with high visual appeal, including wilderness areas such as the wild Franklin River are far easier to frame for mass media, and lend themselves to the expressive appeals of the EMO spokespeople and charismatic leaders. TWS has attempted to influence government policy indirectly through shifting public opinion and bringing political pressure to bear. TCT in contrast, has (at least in recent years) pursued issues that are supported by federal or state government funding. However, while pursuing more conventional strategies of negotiation, a TCT leader acknowledged the important roles performed by protestors in Tasmania. we would much rather be able to put reasoned arguments to the people who can make the decisions rather than doing all the shouting and jumping up and down that often creates the political attention to drive them to make the decisions. You need both for the better…we don't tend to jump up and down and shout a lot but we rely on the political pressure of those that do, creating the opportunities for people to listen to what we have to say (Int. 6, 2002). The federal government appears to have been paying attention to the TCT, or has at least been paying them. The NHT website states that the ‘Australian Government Envirofund’ “helps communities undertake local projects aimed at conserving biodiversity and promoting sustainable resource use” so that “[C]ommunity groups and individuals can apply for grants of up to $50,000 (GST inclusive) to carry out on-ground and other actions to target local problems” (NHT, 2007). In the 2002/2003 financial year the TCT received six grants, totalling $93,865 under the Australian Government Envirofund Projects for Tasmania. The Wilderness Society did not receive any Envirofund Project grants (NHT, 2007). Conservation of old growth forests – the main thrust for TWS – is not the type of ‘conservation’ supported by federal government grants. Championing the lower (public) profile issues favoured by the TCT requires the backroom approach of environmental experts who use the language of science and work with government bureaucracies. While not high profile ‘leaders’, these expert environmentalists communicate effectively with governments by employing the rational, methodical, incremental approach associated with the scientific method. For the more idealistic members of protest based EMOs motivated by strong value positions, compromise is an unattractive option.25 In Tasmania, as in Europe (Rootes, 1999), the institutionalisation of some environmental organisations has resulted in greater interaction with government and industry, although this in turn requires compromise.

25

This is not to deny that members of more instrumental organizations do not hold strong environmental values.

718

B. Tranter / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 708–724

6. Ageing leaders and intergenerational succession The Tasmanian movement has an ageing cadre of leaders, with eight of the leaders interviewed in 1991 still playing influential roles in 2002 (Table 1).26 This not only indicates commitment, it is also related to lifecycle choices and, to an extent, to opportunity structures. Unwilling to ‘sell out’, leaders seeking employment outside of the movement have limited opportunities. As a political advisor argued “the leadership and the environment movement around Australia is ageing and because of the nature of the people involved the only options for them are to go into consultancy, which they don't want to do because they don't want to be Greenwash consultants” (Int. 1, 2002). There are both positive and negative consequences of lengthy incumbency. Long involvement builds operational experience, detailed knowledge of issues and movement history, media prominence and public recognition. These qualities translate into substantial internal and external influence. However, the continuity of older leaders may block or considerably restrict the entry of younger environmentalists into key spokesperson and agenda setting roles. It can also lead to conflict between established and emerging leaders, as one younger EMO leader maintained: when you do have established leaders sometimes the newcomers coming in don't want to follow them so you get conflict and it is really difficult managing the conflict with all the different groups (Int. 7, 2002). This type of conflict occurred during the Tarkine Wilderness campaign, when “[I]n 1994, the state Liberal Government revived plans to build the ‘road to nowhere’ – the road from Smithton to Zeehan – through the heart of the Tarkine Wilderness” (Law, 2001: 21). Tensions emerged between TWS and a group of young protestors known as the ‘Tarkine Tigers’ who employed direct action tactics in an attempt to halt the road. As Lester (2005: 124) explains, the Tigers ‘were able to attract sporadic media attention with their youth, perseverance, wild appearance and equally wild tactics’ which involved ‘bolt(ing) themselves to machinery by their necks, concreting their hands into the ground, constructing tripods to block roads, hiding in the bush and being chased by helicopters’. On this occasion TWS eschewed direct action, instead lobbying to “get the federal government to intervene” (Law, 2001: 21). Being an organiser, it is much better to have control over the message because it is the message that is the most important thing (Geoff Law Interviewed in 2004, cited in Lester, 2005: 123). Late in 1995, the Tarkine Tigers' protests against the road were getting a lot of media coverage…Half the phone calls we were getting were from supporters saying TWS should support the Tarkine Tigers more strongly. The other half were from supporters getting stuck into us for being associated with those ‘feral’ Tarkine Tigers. We knew that most of the broader community shared the latter sentiment, so TWS tried to do things other than direct action to stop the road (Law, 2001: 21). TWS tactics aimed at controlling the issue agenda and capturing mainstream public support in order to prevent the road did not sit well with the Tigers, who favoured confrontational methods. We felt in a lot of ways pretty much abandoned by most of the big groups and felt they could have done more to support us. They were doing the political lobbying and you've got to have that. But we were seeing the machinery moving forwards and so we had to go about trying to stop them as best we could (McDonald, 2001: 31). There was a real division between the Tarkine Tigers and the established green community…In a sense the only reason that our actions went ahead was because they ran out of energy to run them…there was the anti-feral, anti-radical element that blocked things and it seemed there was never any real support from down south — Hobart…Communications were not good and when they happened they often resulted in a stalemate, a general feeling that our kind of direct action wasn't needed (Rea, 2001: 47). Since its formation TWS has employed protest tactics from forest blockades, rallies and marches, to more conventional approaches such as press conferences and direct lobbying of government and industry. The example above where protest actions were deliberately avoided was an attempt by TWS to use impression management (Bass, 1985; Gardner & Avolio, 1998) to control the issue agenda so as to create distance from the radical fringes of the movement. However, such approaches are also symptomatic of the routinisation of an environmental movement organisation. Some resistance to younger, inexperienced environmental activists moving into positions of influence was also apparent. Having served an ‘apprenticeship’, and shaping the Tasmanian movement through long involvement, one TCT leader argued that

26 For example, Geoff Law has been a leader for over 20 years, as the Campaign Coordinator of TWS, a Greens staffer in the early 1990's and an ACF state coordinator. Peg Putt was a TCT Director and has been a state parliamentarian since 1993; Bob Brown was Director of TWS, then in state (1983–1993) and federal politics (1996–). Christine Milne was a leader of the Concerned Residents Opposing Pulpmill Siting and in state parliament (1989–1998) and a federal Senator since 2004.

B. Tranter / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 708–724

719

institutional memory is necessary to engage in effective negotiations with governments and business organisations. In relation to younger activists, this leader claimed: …the way they have come into the movement hasn't been through existing groups, they tended to want to pursue their own passionately…people find their own ways of organising…but by virtue of not knowing the history can often make it rather difficult especially when you are dealing with institutions which are much more adept at knowing the history… (Int. 6, 2002). Although the second extract from a long time political staffer was more supportive of change We actually want to encourage a high level of tolerance to different ways of doing things and to encourage participation in all manner of ways of doing things. Even if they are a bit alien to our own history…(Int. 2, 2002). There is evidence of an emerging cohort of influential environmentalists in the Tasmanian movement. New groups and organisations have emerged, such as Doctors for Forests, Lawyers for Forests, Investors for Forests, and even Liberals for Forests, although as their names indicate, the common theme binding their supporters are forest based issues. Members of Doctors for Forests use their professional status to counter negative forest industry rhetoric, such as anti environmentalist campaigners' claims that environmental activists are unemployed ‘professional protestors’ or ‘ferals’. Doctors for Forests is an information campaign and what we really strongly perceive is that people can't get the sort of information they need about what's happening in Tasmania in forestry from newspapers or from television reports, or from our politicians…We felt that we were in a position where we could try and address that (Int. 11, 2002). We became more of a lobby group, talking about the issue at large and talking about issues of how to make forestry a mainstream community issue. You can't call us unemployed, which is no disrespect to the ones that are, but that is what the industry tried to marginalise, people who speak out (Int. 8, 2002). The loose and informal structure of the environment movement may offer one answer to leadership succession. Even though several EMO leaders have occupied the same or similar key positions in EMOs or as politicians or political advisors for a decade or longer, new organisations and groups form in response to new causes and new leaders are emerging. A mitigating factor here is that new groups such as Doctors for Forests emerge in response to particular issues but tend to dissolve when issues are resolved (Doyle, 2001: 34). Just as TWS leaders tried to distance themselves from the ‘radical’ Tarkine Tigers in the mid 1990s, professional groups may also distance themselves – at least publicly – from close association with left leaning organisations such as TWS. The new groups formed in support of forest issues represent mainstream, ‘respectable’ constituencies and attract highly educated, middle class people who typify environmental sympathisers in Australia (Tranter, 2004). Alternatively, protest oriented organisations such as TWS have traditionally attracted younger, more radical environmentalists. In an earlier study I found that playing key roles in successful campaigns could ‘fast track’ new leaders to central locations within environmental networks (Tranter, 1995). However, replacing the ‘Franklin generation’ of leaders may be a lengthy process as it takes considerable time to accumulate sufficient knowledge and develop the skills necessary to be recognised as a movement leader, a process that is even more difficult outside of existing EMOs. Nevertheless, since the interviews were conducted in 2002, there is evidence of generational change. New campaigners have emerged as TWS has explicitly addressed the problem of succession through a leadership training program to mentor new leaders.27 7. Discussion 7.1. Authority and influence The top tier of leaders in the Tasmanian environment movement consist of Green politicians, paid campaigners and spokespeople for environmental organisations and strategists who set the direction of environmental campaigns. A second tier of influential activists are influential within the movement, although strictly speaking are not ‘leaders’ in the sense that they are not strategic agenda setters. These consist of volunteer campaigners and activists in EMOs, environmental groups and networks, including spokespeople for emerging groups. Organisers of protest actions, environmentalists with issue expertise in academia or in government bureaucracies also fall into this group. The most influential Tasmanian leaders have both informal and formal authority. Informal authority within the movement is based upon leaders' influence, gained through lengthy commitment to environmental causes and involvement in successful campaigns, issue expertise and the ability to make strategic decisions. The influence of some leaders – such as spokespeople for 27 The TCT appointed a younger director in 2005 and three new Green politicians were elected in 2002. On the other hand, the senior Tasmanian campaigner for TWS and three other Green politicians in state and federal parliament remain as veteran environmental leaders who are difficult to replace.

720

B. Tranter / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 708–724

EMOs and politicians – extends beyond the movement to shape public opinion. Formal authority is extant within EMOs, however, it is limited by the small scale of environmental organisations, with their handful of paid activists. Many participants in environmental organisations are volunteers, while the participatory democratic principles of the Tasmanian movement also limits the scope of formal authority. Green politicians have legitimate authority over their staff and their elected office adds legitimacy, although as members of minority parties they can rarely enact legislation. If Tasmanian leaders are strategic decision makers, do they comprise an elite? Doyle (2001) claimed the Australian environmental movement contains an ‘elite’ of core activists who set the agenda and control decision making. He argues “in the wet tropics campaign…a small band of professional, organisational activists banded together to dominate many conservation initiatives. As such elites increase their hold on movement politics, representativeness and equality in decision-making diminish” (Doyle, 2001:11). As it is applied in political science, the term elite refers to leaders who have power over subordinates to make strategic decisions within hierarchically structured organisations, “persons with power to affect organisational outcomes individually, regularly and seriously” (Higley, Deacon and Smart, 1979: 3). Elites are “internally homogeneous, unified and self conscious”, as encapsulated in Miesel's three C's of “group consciousness, coherence, and conspiracy (in the sense of common intentions)” (Putnam, 1976: 4). Environmentalists in EMOs act in a zweckrational manner (i.e. instrumental, means to an end) in order to achieve their aims, however, wertrational action ‘value for its own sake’ is also important (Weber, 1978: 24–25). For example, ‘wilderness’ and endangered species have intrinsic value for environmentalists. This value emphasis raises a problem for movement leaders who attempt to operate in the realm of representative politics or negotiate with other agencies as they have ‘no executive power over participants’ (Pakulski, 1991: 86). Barker et al. (2001: 7) maintain social movement leadership is “above all, an activity of persuasion”. In contrast to bureaucratic or business elites, leaders of Tasmanian EMOs have limited formal authority over their followers as their organisations are structured in a non-bureaucratic and non-hierarchical manner (Pakulski, 1991). EMO leaders exert a subtle form of influence over other movement participants stemming from the respect they have gained through long involvement in successful campaigns. Yet because they have influence rather than authority even if leaders attempt to ‘lead’, other activists and supporters are not compelled to follow (Offe, 1985). A range of views and approaches to environmental problems almost inevitably arise in social movements,28 as with their non-hierarchical structure they lack an over arching form of leadership. In addition, with the possible exception of TWS and Green politicians, Tasmanian movement leaders pursue diverse issues and are not highly unified. The notion of an ‘elite’ therefore has limited utility for the analysis of environmental movement leaders, at least in the Tasmanian case. 7.2. Charismatic leaders and routinisation Tasmanian environmentalists exhibit aspects of the transformational style of leadership, in terms of their charismatic and inspirational qualities. As Bass (1990: 199) explains, charisma ‘is a component – the most general and important component – of the larger concept of transformational leadership’. EMOs also exhibit aspects of transformational culture. Their leaders have a long term commitment to environmental causes, so that ‘interests are shared’, participants share ‘a sense of purpose’, and there is an ‘interdependence of leaders and followers’ (Bass & Riggio, 2006: 103). Senator Bob Brown, in particular, is a ‘socialised’ charismatic leader (Bass & Riggio, 2006: 13), who is altruistic, other focussed, and seeks positive outcomes for ‘the environment’ on a local, national and global basis. Charismatic qualities were also apparent, although to a lesser extent among other EMO leaders. Environmental leaders speak and write passionately, work long hours for low pay, are prepared to place themselves in confrontational situations and be exposed to physical danger for environmental causes. While charisma has been routinised – with several leaders moving into representative politics – charismatic authority is still an important source of inspiration inside the movement. However, the routinisation of environmental issues also underpins the growth of non-protest groups such as Landcare, Bushcare and Coastcare that focus upon ‘brown’ environmental issues such as ‘pollution (especially coastal and water pollution), soil erosion and waste disposal’ (Pakulski & Tranter, 2004:225). Such issues attract broad public concern and therefore can be supported by conservative governments without alienating their constituents. On the other hand, ‘“green” issues of concern to protest based EMO, such as ‘the despoiling “human impact on nature” in the form of logging native forests and the accompanying depletion of native flora and fauna’ (Pakulski & Tranter, 2004: 225) have a more limited support base — unless they can be successfully framed by environmentalists to attract broad based support, as was the case with the Franklin River. It seems that in Tasmania, as in Europe, ‘the environmental movement's virtual monopoly over ‘ecological discourse’ has been lost’ (Rootes, 1999: 156). The problem protest EMOs and groups face in attracting new supporters is therefore partly due to their own success. Environmental issues have been popularised through a series of campaigns, have entered mainstream politics and been incorporated into the policy platforms of the major political parties (Papadakis, 1998). Due to the routinisation process ‘the environment’ is now a mainstream political issue in its own right that receives regular media coverage (Gee, 2001: xiv). Evidence of routinisation is also apparent in the decision by leaders of TWS to abandon forest protests for ‘more than a decade’ following the East Picton protest in 1992 (Lester, 2005: 4). Nevertheless, unconventional protests are still employed selectively, such as the Global Rescue Station in the Styx Valley in 2003/ 2004, a joint venture between TWS and Greenpeace.29

28

As was apparent in the reluctance of the young ‘Tarkine Tigers’ to follow the lead of the Wilderness Society and avoid protest actions in 1995. Activists perched 65 m high on a platform attached to an ancient tree sent images around the globe via the internet (see http://weblog.greenpeace.org/ tasmania/). 29

B. Tranter / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 708–724

721

Carmin (1999: 101) has shown that in the United States professional environmental organisations “tend to focus on shaping the policy agenda and affecting policy outcomes” while voluntary groups “often identify and respond to emerging issues”. To an extent this is also the case in Tasmania. While the largely volunteer based TWS is an influential EMO, by largely limiting its focus to forest based issues it may also be limiting its public appeal. A fraction has also appeared in the formerly highly integrated Tasmanian leadership, as tensions emerged between leaders of the conservative TCT and other protest oriented organisations and groups, as the former adopted the pragmatic approach of working closely with government and speaking on behalf of ‘the movement’. Under the present political scenario with a conservative federal government and a pro-logging Tasmanian government closing ranks, leaders of protest organisations such as The Wilderness Society have limited direct impact upon political decision-making, but retain a high public profile. Commenting upon Australia more broadly, Pakulski and Tranter (2004: 223) found a “decline in public concerns followed a change in the way environmental issues were covered by the popular media”…as…“coverage of ‘the environment’ changed from sensational to regular”. In Tasmania, media have increasingly resisted attempts by environmentalists to set the agenda, particularly in relation to protest actions. In the early days of organised protest actions, such as the Franklin protests, environmentalists attempted and often succeeded in setting the issue agenda (Hutchins & Lester, 2006). However, leaders of protest based EMO now have to use a diversity of approaches to influence public opinion than the mainly protest based strategies they employed in the 1980s and 1990s. Castells (1997) has portrayed this interplay between environmentalists and media organisations as a tap dance requiring a high level of improvisation. Using the Franklin campaign as a case study, Hutchins and Lester (2006) found that while environmentalists initially set the media agenda, journalists and media organisations soon wrested back control. Journalists became highly sceptical of the tactics employed by environmentalists and less likely to cover protest actions over time (Hutchins & Lester 2006: 444–5). Opponents of the movement in the forest industry have also responded by adopting impression management techniques of their own. There is huge corporate power coming through Liberal and Labor parties to prevent the conservation movement from expressing itself in the way it traditionally did…it has been thought out by industry and implemented by the parties (Int. 14 2002). For example, prior to its name change in 1999, the anti-environmental group Timber Communities Australia was known as ‘The Forest Protection Society’. Such ‘backlash’ groups (Rowell, 1996) have assimilated some environmental movement tactics. With their own media savvy and articulate spokespeople, they present a more sophisticated response than their early attempts, often highlighting the politically sensitive issue of alleged job losses as a counter to appeals for environmental protection.

7.3. Political intervention Contemporary Australian environmentalists are not merely tap dancing with the media — the federal government has also ‘cut in’ on the dance by selectively funding certain environmental groups in an attempt to control the issue agenda. The Howard government has been very successful in influencing mainstream environmental agenda, and placating less radical environmentalists by directing funding to non-protest oriented groups via the Natural Heritage Trust. Such groups address environmental outcomes but largely ignore their causes. As a consequence of government funding, non-protest oriented environmental groups are flourishing financially. The more radical groups choose to rely on membership subscriptions, donations and fund raising to ensure their autonomy to pursue environmental issues unencumbered by governments. Borrowing from Castells' terminology, in order to be effective one must be located in the ‘space of flows’, although with mass media disillusioned by stage managed protests, radical environmental groups risked marginalisation. TWS uses respectable expert spokespeople and has shifted to more conventional campaign strategies, with environmental leaders employing internet based political lobbying (e.g. emailing politicians) and informative websites in addition to public protests, while they are less reliant on the direct actions that mainstream media are unlikely to cover. In 1993 the Tasmanian government imposed harsh penalties for trespass in state forests in an attempt to stop anti logging protestors from impeding logging operations (Harries, 1999: 80). While recently reduced in severity, these included jail terms of up to one year, $20,000 fines ‘plus the costs incurred by woodchip companies due to delays’ (Brown, 2004: 184). Tasmanian environmentalists have also been checked on another front as big business resorts to litigation against private citizens in order to stifle protest actions (Beder, 1995; Sproule, 2005). These so called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation aimed at reducing the incidence of protests against and challenges to industry may deter less adventurous activists, or direct them toward less confrontational forms of participation and engagement. Green politicians provide a platform for environmental issues to enter the public arena and publicise ‘radical’ issues, but in doing so they may also attenuate support for environmental groups. Supporters may see less need to become active themselves with Green politicians in parliament to represent them. However, the Greens have only a limited ability to influence policy in Tasmania, with the major parties careful to distance themselves from any hint of collaboration, following the failure of previous liaisons such as the Labor-Green Accord (1989–1991) and the Liberal-Green alliance of 1996 to 1998 (Crowley, 2000). Under the stewardship of conservative Prime Minister John Howard, the coalition government has responded to the political challenge issued by environmental organisations not by ignoring them, nor by resisting them (at least directly), but by funding them — well, some of them.

722

B. Tranter / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 708–724

7.4. Ageing leaders and succession Environmental groups are no longer new, and in the Tasmanian case, many leaders are no longer young. Although protest based issues continue to attract young, highly educated activists, new activists may experience difficulty in rising to positions of influence in the Tasmanian movement. Of the thirteen leaders interviewed, eight were involved in the movement in influential roles for more than a decade, with six of these for over two decades, although such movement ‘elders’ are not necessarily entrenched by choice. In order to become a leader one must gain extensive and often specialised knowledge of environmental issues, develop organisational skills, and be centrally located in environmental networks. As leadership skills and experience take time to accumulate, effective leaders are difficult to replace. In 2002, few new leaders were emerging to replace the ageing cadre of baby boomers in Tasmania. The current generation of leaders underwent long ‘apprenticeships’ before gaining influence in their own right (Tranter, 1995). Yet the incumbency of some of these pioneer leaders could be contributing to attrition among activists and potential leadership aspirants, a process likely to occur as movements mature. The basic organisational and administrative tasks aspirational leaders are often asked to perform may be less attractive to younger participants in comparison to the excitement of the protest actions of the 1980s and 1990s. With a move away from direct action campaigns and protest tactics, environmental activism may be losing its radical appeal. As environmental issues are increasingly routinised, younger, highly educated potential leaders may seek other (related) avenues of engagement, such as the looming local issue of nuclear power, the (re)emerging national issue of uranium exports, or the fight against global warming. The findings suggest the intergenerational regeneration of leadership in environmental organisations will benefit from adopting procedures to mentor potential leaders, although such formal processes may be difficult to institute in very small organisations. This research has shown that the Weberian concept of routinisation has considerable application to the study of social movement organisations and leaders in social movements. Further research is needed to explore the extent that charismatic, inspirational, leadership associated with the early stages of social movement development becomes routinised. Inspirational environmental causes such as ‘wilderness’ protection may provide the initial attraction for charismatics who later become leaders. Charismatic leaders in turn attract passionate followers, some of whom become leaders. Yet without such compelling issues and favourable media coverage leaders with charismatic qualities are less likely to emerge in mature social movements. Movement maturity may also lead to the disintegration of unified movement leadership. Further exploration of movement leadership as movements mature and institutionalise is required. In Tasmania, tensions between leaders of EMOs have resulted from prioritising different environmental issues, political intervention and a lack of communication and integration among leaders. Over arching umbrella structures are a possible means of mitigating such problems. Councils that represent the diversity of groups and organisations may benefit social movements by ensuring effective communication between participants and providing coherence and direction. With smaller scale social movements (as in the Tasmanian case), this is a viable approach that fits the participatory democratic roots of ‘new’ social movements. The environmental movement in Tasmania has been shaped by a leadership cadre with expertise and experience accumulated through long involvement in environmental campaigns and interactions with government and industry. Yet leader longevity has its downsides, even beyond the barriers it places in front of leadership aspirants. Raising a topic for future research one younger leader observed “the conservation movement is littered with a number of bodies from being burnt out — there is caution that we can take there” (Int. 8, 2002). On the other hand, the advice of an ageing rocker is appropriate for a generation of ageing leaders — perhaps it's “better to burnout, than it is to rust” (Young, 1979). Acknowledgements I am grateful to the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions and thank Andrew Harwood and Terry Moore for their critical comments on the paper. Appendix A. Environmental leaders interview schedule 1. How long have you been involved with the environmental movement? 2. How would you describe your role or roles within the environment movement? (Probe further on the types of roles if necessary) 3. Does your role in the movement change if there is a crisis? 4. Would you describe yourself as influential within the environmental movement? (Probe in what way? Influence over whom? Inside/outside of the movement? Basis of influence?) 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Some people say that movements have leaders, what is your view on this issue? Do you believe that leadership is important in the environment movement? Whom do you consider to be the most important people in the Tasmanian Environment movement? In what way are these people important? What are the main environmental issues that you are concerned with?

B. Tranter / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 708–724

723

(Probe importance of issues?) 10. With whom do you discuss these issues? (Probe Names of people? Members of organisations or groups?) 11. How frequently do you discuss issues with each of these people? 12. Does this vary with the level of activity occurring within the movement? (Probe increase during periods of crisis, examples?) 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

To organise an event such as a rally or protest march, who would you contact? Do you mix socially with these people? Are you a member of any environmental group offices or organisations? Do you work in the movement on a part-time or full-time basis? Are you paid by this (group/organisation) or are you a volunteer? In the 2002 interviews, participants were also asked about change in the movement. How has the environment movement changed since you have been involved? How has it changed in the last decade or so? How have your roles in the movement changed over that time?

References Angrosino, M., & Perez, K. (2000). Rethinking observation. In: N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, (Second edition). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Babbie, E. (2004). The practice of social research, (Tenth edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. (1963). Decisions and nondecisions: An analytical framework. American Political Science Review, 57(2), 632–642. Barker, C., Johnson, A., & Lavalette, M. (Eds.). (2001). Leadership and social movements: Manchester University Press. Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications, (Third Edition). New York: Free Press. Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1990). Training and development of transformational leadership: Looking to 1992 and beyond. European Journal of Industrial Training, 14, 21–27. Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (2000). MLQ: Multifactor leadership questionnaire, (2nd edition). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden. Bass, B., & Riggio, R. (2006). Transformational leadership, (Second Edition). Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bean, C. (1998). Australian attitudes towards the environment in cross national perspective. In: J. Pakulski & S. Crook (Eds.), Ebbing of the green tide? Environmentalism, public opinion and the media in Australia Hobart: University of Tasmania, School of Sociology & Social Work. Beder, S. (1995). Strategic lawsuits against public participation, SLAPPs: Coming to a controversy near you. Current Affairs Bulletin, 72(3), 22–29. Berg, S. (1988). In S. Kotz & N. Johnson (Eds.), Snowball samplingEncyclopaedia of Statistical Sciences, Vol. 8. Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Roe. Brown, B. (2004). Memo for a saner world. Camberwell, Victoria: Penguin. Brown, B., & Bailey, V. (2005). The valley of the giants: A guide to Tasmania's Styx River forests. Hobart: The Wilderness Society. Carmin, J. (1999). Voluntary associations, professional organisations and the environmental movement in the United States. Environmental Politics, 8(1), 101–121. Castells, M. (1996). The information age: Economy, society and culture, volume I the rise of the network society Massachusetts: Blackwell. Castells, M. (1997). The information age: Economy, society and culture, Volume II the power of identity Massachusetts: Blackwell. Conger, J. (1998). Qualitative research as the cornerstone methodology for understanding leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 9(1), 107–121. Conger, J., Kanungo, R., & Menon, S. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 21, 747–767. Crowley, K. (2000). ‘ Disenfranchising the Greens: Labor's electoral ‘reform’ strategy in Tasmania’ Paper delivered to the Australasian Political Studies Association Conference, 3–6th October, Political Science Program, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University. Dalton, R. (1996). Citizen politics in Western democracies: public opinion and political parties in the United States, Great Britain, West Germany, and France. Chatham House: Chatham N.J. Dalton, R., Kuechler, M., & Burklin, W. (1990). The challenge of new movements. In: R. Dalton & M. Kuechler (Eds.), Challenging the political order: New social and political movements in western democracies New York: Oxford University Press. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2003). Strategies of qualitative enquiry Thousand Oakes, California: Sage. Diani, M. (1992). The concept of social movement. Sociological Review, 40(1), 1–25. Diani, M. (2003). Networks and social movements: A research program. In: M. Diani & D. McAdam (Eds.), Social movements and networks: Relational approaches to collective action (pp. 299–319). Oxford University Press. Diani, M., & Donati, M. (1999). Organisational change in Western European environmental groups: A framework for analysis. Environmental Politics, 8(1), 13–34. Dombrovskis, P. (1979) ‘Rock Island Bend, Franklin River, South West Tasmania’ [photograph], National Library of Australia Website, accessed 09/01/2007, http:// nla.gov.au/nla.pic-an6631500 Doyle, T. (2001). Green power: The environment movement in Australia. Sydney: UNSW Press. Doyle, T., & McEachern, D. (2001). Environment and politics. London: Routledge. Egri, C., & Herman, S. (2000). Leadership in the North American environmental sector: Values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and their organisations. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 571–604. Ehrhart, M., & Klein, K. (2001). Predicting followers' preferences for charismatic leadership: The influence of follower values and personality. Leadership Quarterly, 12(2), 153–179. Environment Tasmania (2007) http://www.et.org.au/ (accessed 10/09/2007). Gardner, W., & Avolio, B. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 32–58. Gee, H. (2001). For the forests Hobart: The Wilderness Society http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/forests/tasmania/ftfchron/ (accessed 24/08/2007. Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the new left: University of California Press. Gundelach, P. (1984). Social transformation and new forms of voluntary associations. Social Science Information, 23(6), 1049–1081. Harries, C. (1999). The environmental law handbook. Environmental Defenders Office (Tasmania) Incorporated: Hobart. Higley, J., Deacon, J., & Smart, D. (1979). Elites in Australia. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Hutchins, B., & Lester, L. (2006). Environmental protest and tap-dancing with the media in the information age. Media Culture and Society, 28, 433–451. Inglehart, Ronald (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic and political change in 43 societies : Princeton University Press. Klandermans, B. (1997). The Social Psychology of Protest Oxford: Blackwell. Klein, K., & House, R. (1995). On fire: Charismatic leadership and levels of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 183–198.

724

B. Tranter / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 708–724

Law, G. (2001). Eight years of campaigning by TWS. In: H. Gee (Ed.), For the forests Hobart: The Wilderness Society. Lawrence, G., Chesire, L., & Richards, C. (2004). Agricultural production and the ecological question. In: R. White (Ed.), Controversies in environmental sociology: Cambridge University Press. Lester, E. (2005). Contesting wilderness: Media, movement and environmental conflict in Tasmania, PhD Thesis, Hobart: University of Tasmania. McDonald, W. (2001). Wazza and the Tarkine tigers. In: H. Gee (Ed.), For the forests Hobart: The Wilderness Society. Morris, A., & Staggenborg, S. (2004). Leadership in social movements. In: D. Snow, S. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 171–196). Oxford: Blackwell. NHT (2007). Natural Heritage Trust, Australian Government (accessed 20/08/2007). http://www.nht.gov.au/nht/index.html Offe, C. (1985). New social movements: Challenging the boundaries of institutional politics. Social Research, 52(4), 817–868. Pakulski, J. (1991). Social movements: The politics of moral protest. Melbourne: Longman Chesire. Pakulski, J., & Tranter, B. (2004). Environmentalism and social differentiation: A paper in memory of Steve Crook. Journal of Sociology, 40(3), 220–259. Pakulski, J., Tranter, B., & Crook, S. (1998). The dynamics of environmental issues on Australia: Concerns, clusters and carriers. Australian Journal of Political Science, 33(2), 235–252. Papadakis, E., & Grant, R. (2003). The politics of ‘light-handed regulation’: ‘New environmental policy instruments in Australia’. Environmental Politics, 12(1), 27–50. Papadakis, E. (1998). Historical dictionary of the Green movement. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press. Papadakis, E. (1993). Politics and the environment: The Australian experience. St Leonards, NSW: Allen and Unwin. Putnam, R. (1976). The comparative study of political elites Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Prentice Hall. Quinn, R. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing demands of high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rea, B. (2001). A tiger reflects. In: H. Gee (Ed.), For the forests Hobart: The Wilderness Society. Rootes, C. (2004). Environmental movements. In: D. Snow, S. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 608–638). Oxford: Blackwell. Rootes, C. (2003). Environmental protests in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rootes, C. (1999). ‘The transformation of environmental activism: Activists, organisations and policy-making’ innovation. The European Journal of Social Sciences, 12(2), 155–173. Rowell, A. (1996). Green backlash: Global subversion of the environmental movement. London: Routledge. Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K. B., Tignor, M., & Miller, H. L. (Eds.). (2007). IPCC 2007 summary for policymakers’ in climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change Cambridge: Cambridge University Press United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Sproule, W. (2005). Brian Walters, slapping on the writs: Deformation developers and community activism. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 16(3), 370–371. Stern, N. (2006). Stern review on the economics of climate change http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_ change/stern_review_report.cfm (accessed 11/06/2007). TCT (2007) Tasmanian Conservation Trust website http://www.tct.org.au/tct.htm#Tasmanian (accessed 20/8/2007). Thompson, P. (1984). Bob Brown of the Franklin River Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Tranter, B. (1995). Leadership in the Tasmanian environmental movement. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 31(3), 83–93. Tranter, B. (2004). The environment movement: Where to from here? In: R. White (Ed.), Controversies in environmental sociology: Cambridge University Press. Travers, M. (2002). Qualitative research through case studies London: Sage. TWS (2007). The Wilderness Society, Tasmania http://www.wilderness.org.au/regions/tas/ (accessed 25/08/2007. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organisation. London: William Hodge and Co. Weber, M. (1978). In: G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds.), Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology Berkley: University of California Press. Yammarino, F., Spangler, W., & Dubinsky, F. (1998). Transformational and contingent reward leadership: Individual, dyad and group levels of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 4, 81–102. Young, N. (1979). Hey hey, my my, (out of the blue) live rust, Catalogue number 2296, Reprise / Wea.