Leadership in Sustainable Development: A Literature Review

Running Head: LEADERSHIP IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

LEADERSHIP IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: A LITERATURE REVIEW

By

ROBIN LEVESQUE

ROYAL ROADS UNIVERSITY
April 2011

© Robin Levesque, 2011

Leadership in Sustainable Development ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Leadership .................................................................................................................................. 1

What leaders are ................................................................................................................. 1

What leaders do .................................................................................................................. 3

Leadership at Every Level .................................................................................................. 5

Sustainable Development ........................................................................................................... 5

Global perspective .............................................................................................................. 6

Leadership perspective ....................................................................................................... 7

The five stages of sustainable development ........................................................................ 9

Value chain perspective ...................................................................................................... 9

Sustainable development on the ground ........................................................................... 10

Organizational Change ............................................................................................................. 11

Organizational Change Methodologies ............................................................................ 12

What successful organizations look like ........................................................................... 18

Tools for Implementation .................................................................................................. 21

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 24

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 25

Leadership in Sustainable Development 1

This literature review explores leadership in sustainable development. The first topic is

leadership and examines what leaders are, what leaders do, and the need for leadership at every

level. The second topic looks at sustainable development from a global perspective, a leadership

perspective, and all the way to what it looks like on the ground. The third topic deals with

organizational change and explores the drivers for change, some tools and techniques to help

create and sustain that change, and what successful organizations look like. Each topic comprises

a different set of frames or perspectives through which to view the topic.

Sustainable development, also known as global corporate citizenship and eco-efficiency, is

the ultimate leadership challenge in the world today (World Economic Forum, 2006; Engel,

2008). There is nothing more pressing or more urgent. Our world is in trouble with

environmental crisis, social crisis, energy crisis, and economic crisis. Therefore, we need leaders

at every level of our societies and organizations to answer the ultimate call to action: to save the

planet, its people, and their profits. This is the calling of the leader in sustainable development.

After all, business cannot survive in a world and society that fails (d’Humières, 2005, pp. XI-

XVI).

Leadership

What is leadership? In the context of this research, it “is the process of influencing others

to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how to do it, and the process of

facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives” (Yukl, 2006, p. 8).

Leadership deals with what leaders are and what leaders do (Covey, S.M.R., 2006, p. 31).

What leaders are

The foundation of leadership is credibility (Kouzes & Posner, 2003, pp. 21-25), which is

“about developing the integrity, intent, capabilities, and results that make you believable, both to


yourself and to others" (Covey, S.M.R, 2006, p. 45). The four cores of credibility include

integrity, intent, capabilities, and results (pp. 54-55). Kouzes and Posner have a similar list of

four characteristics: honest, forward looking, inspiring and competent (2003, pp. 14-16).

Credible leaders do what they say they will do because “people trust leaders when their deeds

and words match” (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, 41).

Successful leaders are aware of their own emotions and the emotions of others. According

to Primal Leadership, “understanding the powerful role of emotions in the workplace sets the

best leaders apart from the rest” (Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2002, pp. 4-5). The four domains

of emotional intelligence include self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and

relationship management (p. 39). These different ways of knowing give leaders the ability to

learn more about others than brain power alone (Gerzon, 2006, p. 105). Emotional intelligence is

clearly an important part of what leaders are.

Effective leaders care more about a greater cause than their own personal interests. This

concept is exemplified in Jim Collins’ Level 5 leader: individuals who blend “extreme personal

humility with intense professional will . . . . [and] channel their ego needs away from themselves

and into the larger goal of building a great company” (2001, p. 21). As Fisher and Yury would

say: be hard on the problem and soft on the people (1991, pp. 17-39). According to Ann

Coombs, “the corporate leaders who will be most successful in the living workplace of the 21st-

century will have passionate hearts, freedom of spirit, faith and inner peace” (2001, pp. 156-

157).

A related concept is the leader as a servant. In the introduction to The Power of Servant

Leadership, Larry Spears identifies ten characteristics of the servant leader upon consideration of

Robert Greenleaf’s original writings: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion,


conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building

community (1998, pp. 5-8). Servant leadership could prove to be an important framework for

laying out the leadership responsibilities of a leader in sustainable development.

What leaders do

What do leaders do to turn words into deeds? Different authors use different terminology

to identify the practices of leadership. For the purposes of this subject, the five practices of

exemplary leadership have been borrowed directly from Kouzes and Posner’s The Leadership

Challenge: modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others

to act, and encouraging the heart (2007).

Modeling the way. Leaders must have a deep understanding of themselves, their team,

their organization, their communities, and the global context in which they operate. Self-

awareness includes discovering your self [sic], which includes an exploration of the inner

territory: “you must first clarify your own values, the standards by which you choose to live your

life” (Kouzes & Posner, 2003, p. 52). An important part of modeling is personal mastery or the

commitment to personal growth and learning because “people with high levels of personal

mastery are continually expanding their ability to create the results in life they truly seek”

(Senge, 2006, p. 131).

Inspiring a shared vision. “A leader must be able to communicate the vision in ways that

encourage people to sign on for the duration and excite them about the cause” (Kouzes & Posner,

2007, p. 34). It is important to leave the “shared” in shared vision, because “a vision is truly

shared when you and I have a similar picture and are committed to one another having it”

(Senge, 2006, p. 192). Steven Covey calls the concept pathfinding and uses the analogy of being

on the same page or song sheet because “it suggests there is agreement about what matters most


in the organization’s vision, values and strategic value proposition; and when played or sung

together, the music is in harmony” (Covey, S.R., 2004, p. 222).

Challenging the process. According to Kouzes and Posner, “the personal-best leadership

cases continue to be about radical departures from the past, about doing things that have never

been done before, and about going to places not yet discovered” (2007, p. 163) This often

requires a shift in mental models: “new insights fail to get put into practice because they conflict

with deeply held internal images of how the world works, images that limit us to familiar ways

of thinking and acting” (Senge, 2006, p. 163). Aligning with the shared vision is “designing and

executing systems and structures that reinforce the core values and highest strategic priorities of

the organization (selected in the pathfinding process)” (Covey, S.R., 2004, p. 234).

Enabling others to act. “Leaders make it possible for others to do good work” (Kouzes &

Posner, 2007, p. 21). Covey calls this getting out of the way or empowering. It “unleashes human

potential without externally motivating it” (2004, p. 272). This can be done in learning teams,

which is “the process of aligning and developing the capacity of a team to create the results its

members truly desire” (Senge, 2006, p. 218). Lack of enabling or empowering can lead to a lack

of commitment (Lencioni, 2002, p. 207) that will ultimately impact the capacity to execute.

Encouraging the heart. “At the heart of leadership is caring. Without caring leadership has

no purpose” (Kouzes & Posner, 2003, p. xi). The seven essentials for encouraging the heart

include: set clear standards, expect the best, pay attention, personalize recognition, tell the story,

celebrate together, and set the example (p. 18). Also, “recognition is about acknowledging good

results and reinforcing positive performance . . . [and] about shaping an environment in which

everyone's contributions are noticed and appreciated” (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 281). This can

range from a simple thank you all the way up to elaborate celebrations.


Leadership at Every Level

One concept that resonates throughout the literature is that leadership is not a position and

that it belongs at every level of an organization (Kouzes & Posner, 2003, 2005, 2007; Covey,

S.R., 2004; Covey, S.M.R., 2006; Coombs, 2001; Sharma, 2010). What Kouzes and Posner

discovered and rediscovered in their many years of research is that “leadership is not the private

reserve of a few charismatic men and women . . . [but] a process ordinary people use when they

are bringing forth the best from themselves and others” (2007, p. xii). Sharma (2010) says that

“the only way to avoid getting eaten alive is for companies to strengthen the capacities of

employees at every level to lead in everything they do” (p. 14).

The central theme in The 8th Habit which builds on Steven Covey’s hugely successful The

7 Habits of Highly Effective People is that a leader’s primary purpose is to find his or her voice

and to then help others find their voices (2004). This idea requires a shift in thinking for many

leaders. According to Ann Coombs, “the traditional workplace will evolve into one that will defy

rigidity, [and] the balance of power will be permanently altered” (2001, p. 7). Such thinking and

behavior will indeed push leadership down to every level of an organization.

Sustainable Development

What is sustainable development? A common definition that is often cited comes from the

Brundtland Commission: “development that meets the needs of the present without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (The Dictionary of

Sustainable Management, 2011). Another definition is “the long-term, seventh-generation view

of the Iroqois Nation: making decisions based on how they will affect not only our generation

but also seven generations to come” (Carstens, 2010). To be sustainable, development must


balance the integrity between environmental, social and economic interests, also known as the

triple bottom line.

According to Senge et al., two of the most widely accepted of principles for sustainability

have been developed by The Natural Step and by Natural Capitalism (2008, p. 382). The Natural

Step is a nonprofit organization founded with the vision of creating a sustainable society and its

four principles of sustainability include:

1. eliminate our contribution to the progressive buildup of substances extracted from
the Earth's crust (for example, heavy metals and fossil fuels);
2. eliminate our contribution to the progressive buildup of chemicals and compounds
produced by society (for example, dioxins, PCBs, and DDT);
3. eliminate our contribution to the progressive physical degradation and destruction
of nature and natural processes (for example, over harvesting forests and paving
over critical wildlife habitat);
4. and eliminate our contribution to conditions that undermine people’s capacity to
meet their basic human needs (for example, unsafe working conditions and not
enough pay to live on). (The Natural Step, 2011)

The business of land development has historically been driven by economic motives to

meet the social and economic needs of housing people and businesses. According to Whitehead,

“real estate in aggregate represents about 40 percent of the capital assets of the industrialized

first world” (2008, p. 1.6). In response to greater expectations on the part of local government

and the public with respect to higher standards for development infrastructure (p. 1.5), new

attitudes, beliefs and the science of sustainability are quickly evolving and enabling regulators,

developers, and consumers to shift to a new paradigm of social and environmental responsibility.

Global perspective

The Necessary Revolution paints a compelling picture of a world in trouble as it relates to

three interconnected areas: energy and transportation; food and water; and material waste and

toxicity (Senge et al., 2008, p. 10). The authors have compiled a report card on the state of the

environmental, social and economic wellbeing of the planet landing on global warming as a


symptom of a broader set of problems that are signaling the end of the industrial age as we know

it: “accumulating waste byproducts that derive from the take-make-waste industrial system,

diminishing resources . . . deteriorating ecosystems; [and] the intensification of social stresses”

(p. 31).

According to Rubin (2009), “despite the steady barrage of climate-change news and a

growing sense that our affluent lifestyle may have unpleasant consequences for the environment,

you must stop to consider how just about every facet of our lives is built around our energy

consumption” (p. 4). Rubin argues that the supply of oil will dwindle and the demand will rise,

therefore we can expect scarcity that will lead to a triple-digit price for a barrel of oil and two

dollars per liter for gasoline in Canada (p. 21). Consequently, our world is about to get a whole

lot smaller and globalization as we know it today will come to a sudden death. According to the

author:

Get ready for a smaller world. Soon, your food is going to come from a field much closer
to home, and the things you buy will probably come from the factory down the road rather
than one on the other side of the world. You will almost certainly drive less and walk
more, and that means you will be shopping and working closer to home. Your neighbors
and your neighborhood are about to get a lot more important in the smaller world of the
none-too-distant future. (p. 23)

Leadership perspective

How can leadership help in the identification, planning, design, building and marketing of

sustainable land development? Senge et al. say that “those leading their industries today are

doing so because they have recognized the new reality of business and positioned themselves

accordingly” (2008, p. 119). According to The Necessary Revolution, there are thousands,

maybe millions of people “searching for innovative ways to create a more sustainable world” (p.

43). The leaders in sustainable development demonstrate a mastery of three areas:


First, individually and collectively, they are continually learning how to see the larger
systems—organizations, complex supply chains, industries, cities, or regions—of which
they are a part . . . . Second, they understand that it is crucial to collaborate across
boundaries that previously divided them from others within and outside their organizations
. . . . Finally, as people work together they also come to focus on what truly matters to
them, and their thinking evolves from a reactive problem-solving mode to creating futures
they truly desire. (p. 44)

These areas of mastery are further developed in research conducted by Darek Crews (2010)

of the Texas Women’s University who identified five leadership challenges or strategies for

implementing sustainability. These include, stakeholder engagement, creating the culture,

holistic thinking. organizational learning, and measurement and reporting. Some of these

leadership challenges are also identified in other literature (Dangelico & Pujari, 2010; Carstens,

2010; Stead J. G. & Stead E., 2000; Gladwin, Kennelly & Krause, 1995). All of these authors

speak to the need to balance the triple bottom line: environmental, social, and economic interests

also known as the 3Es of environment, equity, and economy or the 3Ps of planet, people, and

profit. Holistic thinking is also referred to as systems thinking or connectivity in the current

literature (Senge et al., 2008; Gladwin, Kennelly & Krause, 1995).

Leaders in sustainable development are often tasked with incorporating sustainability

principles in their strategic planning. “Eco-Enterprise Strategy: Standing for Sustainability”

provides a roadmap for doing just that (Stead, J.G. & Stead E., 2000). The authors argue that

“when extended to the ecological level of analysis, enterprise strategy provides a sound

theoretical framework for ethically and strategically accounting for the ultimate stakeholder,

planet Earth” (p. 313). Enterprise strategy incorporates stakeholder theory and stakeholder

management, which make it clear that “behavior that is trusting, trustworthy, and cooperative,

not opportunistic, will give the firm a competitive advantage” (Carroll as cited in Stead & Stead,

2000, p. 314). The authors present eight values that they believe can be instrumental in


implementing the core value of sustainability: wholeness, diversity, posterity, communities,

smallness, quality, dialogue, and spiritual fulfillment (pp. 317-319).

In “Growing Green”, Unruh and Ettenson lay out three smart paths to developing

sustainable products. They include accentuate, acquire, and architect. An accentuate strategy

plays up existing or latent green attributes in one's current portfolio (p. 96). Acquiring is

essentially buying someone else's green brand (p. 97). To architect a product is to build it from

scratch (p. 98). The authors argue that “companies that ultimately succeed in growing green will

be distinguished by their commitment to corporatewide sustainability as well as the performance

of their green products” (p. 100).

The five stages of sustainable development

Researchers are beginning to understand that organizations go through distinct stages of

change when adopting sustainability as a core value. According to “Why Sustainability Is Now

the Key Driver of Innovation”, “becoming sustainable is a five stage process, and each stage has

its own challenges” (Nidumolu, Prahlad & Rangaswami, 2009). These include: viewing

compliance as opportunity, making value chains sustainable, designing sustainable products and

services, developing new business models, and creating next-practice platforms (pp. 58-64).

Similarly, Senge et al. have the five stages and emerging drivers. In the reactive mode, they

include noncompliance and compliance; in the proactive mode, they include beyond compliance,

integrated strategy, and purpose/mission. In both models, organizations progress through, and

learn from, each stage to become more aligned with sustainability in everything they do.

Value chain perspective

For most organizations, “assessing the environmental impact of the product in a scientific

and systemic way is a difficult and complex process” (Dangelico & Pujari, 2010, p. 479). One


emerging approach that shows promise is understanding the value chain of a product, product

line, or the entire portfolio. This relates back to Nidumolu et al.’s second stage where

organizations “work with suppliers and retailers to develop eco-friendly raw materials and

components and reduce waste” and by developing “sustainable operations by analyzing each link

in the value chain” (2009, p. 59). For this analysis, life cycle assessment is particularly useful

(Nidumolu et al., 2009; Senge et al., 2008). The technique “captures the environment-related

inputs and outputs of entire value chains, from raw-materials supply through product use to

returns” (Nidumolu et al., 2009, p. 59). Life cycle assessment “can be a powerful tool in tracking

all material and energy flows through the entire system” (Senge et al., 2008, p. 215). According

to these authors, the goal in a regenerative circular economy “is zero waste, renewable energy,

recyclable materials, and accountability for all materials flowing through the system” (p. 215).

Sustainable development on the ground

According to Roseland, “conventional land-use practices spread out our destinations,

increase our need for space and travel, and bring a host of related problems” (2005, p. 133).

Several tools or programs exist to reverse the trend including new urbanism, smart growth,

energy-efficient land-use planning, and residential intensification programs. All share common

practices such as compactness, sustainable transport, density, mixed land use, diversity, passive

solar design, greening, and connectivity (Jabareen, 2006).

The smart growth principles that are consistent with the literature and have been approved

by City of Medicine Hat Council include:

Encourage the design of compact, well-designed mixed-use neighborhoods’ - Residents
can choose to live, work, shop and play in close proximity. People can easily access daily
activities, walkability is encouraged, transit is viable, and local businesses are supported.
Support growth in existing residential communities while fostering unique
neighborhoods identities - Investments in infrastructure (such as roads and schools) are


used more efficiently, and in-fill developments within these areas do not consume new
land.
Foster alternative transportation options and infrastructure systems that are sustainable -
Green buildings, pedestrian and cyclist routes, as well as other ecologically-sensitive
systems can save both money and the environment in the long run. (“City of Medicine Hat,
Smart Growth”, 2007)

One rating system that specifically incorporates smart growth is LEED ND, which stands

for Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design for Neighborhood Development. LEED is a

well-accepted building rating system in the US and Canada for new buildings, renovations and

now neighborhood development.

LEED ND was unveiled early in 2007 as a pilot project . . . is a rating system for
assessment of up to 240 projects. Developed in a close partnership with the Natural
Resources Defense Council and the Congress for the New Urbanism, LEED ND seeks to
provide a national set of standards for neighborhood location and design based on the
combined principles of smart growth, new urbanism and green building [emphasis added].
(Yudelson, 2007, p. 107)

The LEED 2009 for Neighborhood Development Project Checklist assigns points for five

broad categories: smart location and linkage, neighborhood pattern and design, green

infrastructure and buildings, innovation and design process, and regional priority credit (United

States Green Building Council, 2009, pp. vii-viii). Each of the first three categories includes pre-

requisites and additional credits. The prerequisites are mandatory. There are 100 base points in

the first three categories plus six possible points for innovation and design process and four

possible points for regional priority credit. There are four levels of certification: 40 to 49 points

for certified, 50 to 59 points for silver, 60 to 79 points for gold, and 80 points and above for

platinum (p. viii).

Organizational Change

The literature review that focuses on organizational change strongly indicates that the

environment of organizations constantly changes and organizations have to change accordingly


to survive (McShane, 2001, p. 444). Practices in organizational change can help organizations

develop an adaptive corporate culture (Kotter, 1996, p. 3). This sections looks at the drivers of,

and sources of resistance to, change. It is then divided into three subsections. The first looks at

methodologies of change management. The second considers what desirable organizations might

look like. And the third considers three tools to implement change in organizations: teams,

project management, and program management.

According to Wind and Main, the primary drivers for change include the computer’s reign,

the market’s impact, society’s claims, and the customer’s demands (1998, pp. 21-73). The

authors argue that “the markets, the technology, and the demands of employees, of customers,

and of citizens are driving companies to change boldly and bravely” (p. 2).

Common sources of resistance to change include lack of trust, belief that change is

unnecessary, belief that change is not feasible, economic threats, relative high cost, fear of

personal failure, loss of status and power, threat to values and ideals, and resentment of

interference (Yukl, 2006, pp. 158-159).

Organizational Change Methodologies

This subsection compares three different groups of methodologies for organizational

change. The first group is the methodology put forth by two authors that have collaborated on a

common set of steps for organizational change (Kotter, 1996; Kotter & Cohen, 2002; Cohen,

1996). Kotter identified the first list of steps in his book entitled Leading Change: 1) establishing

a sense of urgency, 2) creating the guiding coalition, 3) developing a vision and strategy, 4)

communicating the change vision, 5) empowering broad-based action, 6) generating short-term

wins, 7) consolidating gains and producing more change, and 8) anchoring new approaches in

the culture.


To effect change in organizations, it is important to identify what needs to be changed.

According to Kotter, the first step requires establishing a sense of urgency, which is crucial to

gaining the cooperation required: “With complacency high, transformations usually go nowhere

because few people are even interested in working on the change problem” (Kotter, 1996, p. 36).

What follows is building the guiding team to help “pull together the right group of people with

the right characteristics and sufficient power to drive the change effort” (Kotter & Cohen, 2002,

p. vi). This requires trust which “is now being recognized as one of the foundations of individual

and organizational learning” (Gerzon, 2006, p. 169). More and more this is being done through

bridging, which “is building actual partnerships and alliances across the borders that divide an

organization or a community” (p. 188).

Creating and sustaining change requires a clear vision of what success looks like. If we

don't know where we are going, how can we possibly get there?

In successful large-scale change, a well-functioning guiding team answers the questions
required to produce a clear sense of direction. What change is needed? What is our vision
of the new organization? What should not be altered? What is the best way to make the
vision a reality? What change strategies are unacceptably dangerous? Good answers to
these questions position an organization to leap into a better future. (Kotter & Cohen,
2002, p. 61)

Once the vision is formulated, it is important to communicate the change vision: “During

this phase, change leaders must deliver candid, concise, and heartfelt messages about the change

in order to create the trust, support, and commitment necessary to achieve the vision” (Cohen,

2005, p. 4). Getting from where we are today to where we want to be tomorrow requires a

strategy. Developing such a strategy involves breaking down the elephant into bite-size pieces.

Using tools such as a work breakdown structure, the team can develop and refine the steps

necessary through progressive elaboration (Project Management Institute, 2008, pp. 116-122). It

is important to empower broad-based action. “Empowerment is not about giving people new


authority and new responsibilities and then walking away. It is all about removing barriers”

(Kotter & Cohen, 2002, p. 104), Generating small wins is useful in creating momentum.

According to Kotter this includes “planning for visible improvements in performance, or ‘wins’,

creating those wins, and visibly recognizing and rewarding people who made the wins possible”

(Kotter, 1996, p. 21).

Consolidating gains and producing more change includes:

• using increased credibility to change all systems, structures, and policies that don't fit
together and don't fit the transformation vision
• hiring, promoting, and developing people who can implement the change vision
• reinvigorating the process with new projects, teams, and change agents. (Kotter, 1996, p.
21)

Anchoring new approaches in the culture or making it stick in this final step, “leaders must

recognize, reward, and model the new behavior in order to embed it in the fabric of the

organization and make the change ‘the way we do business around here’” (Cohen, 2005 , p. 5).

The second change management methodology can be found in Influencer: The Power to

Change Anything with some parallels in The Soul in the Computer. The methodology in

Influencer is separated into six steps across two axes. The vertical axis includes three categories:

personal, social, and structural; the horizontal axis contains motivation and then ability

(Patterson, Grenny, Maxfield, McMillan & Switzler, 2008, p. 78). Waugh, on the other hand,

regards change management “as an oxymoron, like ‘jumbo shrimp’ or ‘airplane food’ . . . [and

thinks] you can create the conditions for change to emerge, but if you ‘manage’ it, you kill it”

(Waugh, 2001, p. 78).

Making the undesirable desirable at the intersection of personal and motivation is the first

technique (Patterson et al., 2008, pp. 83-109). It is about getting other people, yourself included,

to do things that they don't want to do or that they find loathsome, boring, insulting, or painful.


For example, the technique seeks to “find a way to make a healthy behavior intrinsically

satisfying, or an unhealthy behavior inherently undesirable” (p. 84). The steps for this technique

include 1) making pain pleasurable, 2) creating new experiences, 3) and creating new motives

(pp. 83-109). Modeling, or putting a stake in the ground, can be useful including remembering

who you work for, committing, keeping the faith, and being the change you want to see (Waugh,

2001, p. 188).

Surpassing your limits, under personal ability, is about ways to tap into personal interest as

a way of influencing desired behaviors (Patterson et al., 2008, pp. 111-136). Its underlying

principles are that there is hope for everyone, much of will is skill, and much of prowess is

practice.

Harnessing peer pressure, under social motivation, is also important. “Smart influencers

appreciate the amazing power humans hold over one another, and instead of denying it,

lamenting it, or attacking it, influencers embrace and enlist it” (Patterson et al., 2008, p. 138).

According to the authors, “to harness the immense power of social support, sometimes you need

to find only one respected individual who will fly in the face of history and model the new and

healthier vital behaviors” (p. 143). And, “if you want to influence change, it's essential that you

engage the chain of command” (p. 145). Also, “team up with someone who is attempting to

make the same changes you are” (p. 153) or, as Waugh would put it, recruit co-conspirators by

tapping into the strength of your relationships, starting conversations and listening, and building

your cadre (2001, p. 188).

Finding strength in numbers, at the intersection of social and ability, can be used to find

synergies. According to Patterson et al., “with a little help from our friends, we can produce a


force greater than the sum of our individual efforts . . . . [because] groups—made up of people at

all intellectual levels—often perform better than any one individual” (p. 174).

Designing rewards and demanding accountability, at structural ability, is an integral part of

the planning process. The timing of rewards is important.

In a well-balanced change effort, rewards come third. Influence masters first ensure that
vital behaviors connect to intrinsic satisfaction. Next they line up social support. They
double check both of these areas before they finally choose extrinsic rewards to motivate
behavior. If you don't follow this careful order, you're likely to be disappointed. (Patterson
et al., 2008, p. 194)

Changing the environment under structural ability can be another strategy because “the

environment affects much of what we do, and yet we often fail to notice its profound impact”

(Patterson et al., 2008, p. 225). For example, “if you want to guarantee a positive behavior, build

it into a special meeting or hardwire it into the existing meeting agenda” (p. 250).

Waugh has some final tips for dealing with change. First, scale up or scale down. Scaling

up is getting above the problem and getting bigger than the problem: “You have a longer view;

and are automatically living on higher ground” (2001, p. 205). Scaling down, on the other hand,

is getting beneath the problem and flying too low to even be on the radar screen (p. 206). In the

author's opinion, the most important tactical tool in her book is amplifying positive deviance.

People that she calls positive deviants are those certain individuals who find better solutions to

problems than their neighbors despite having access to the very same resources (p. 207). There

are two steps to this tool. First, identify and “find the people who are doing something different

and better than the mainstream” (p. 209). Once you know who they are, you then begin to work

on amplifying them: “you shine the light on them, get articles about them published in the

company newsletter, talk them up to everyone you meet, [and] get them together for a

conference” (p. 210).


The third change methodology can be found in Presence: Human Purpose and the Field of

the Future and Theory U: Leading from the Future as It Emerges. The first of the two books,

Presence, was released in 2004 as a collaboration between Senge, Sharmer, Jaworski, and

Flowers. Released in 2009, Theory U was written by Scharmer, and further elaborates the

theories presented in Presence. The first book speaks to the Seven Capacities of the U

movement: suspending, redirecting, letting go, letting come, crystallizing, prototyping, and

institutionalizing (Senge et al., 2004, p. 219). In Theory U, Sharmer tweaks the model to include

these seven steps: downloading, seeing, sensing, presencing, crystallizing, prototyping, and

performing and embodying (2009, p. 39). According to Senge et al., “the entire U movement

arises from seven core capacities and the activities they enable” (2004, p. 219). Furthermore,

“each capacity is a gateway to the next activity—the capacity for suspending enables seeing our

seeing, and the capacity for prototyping enables enacting living microcosms—but only as all

seven capacities are developed is the movement through the entire process possible” (p. 219).

There are three movements on the U. The downward slope to the left is the process of observing.

The bottom of the U is retreating and reflecting to allow the inner knowing to emerge. And the

upward slope on the right-hand side of the U is acting in an instant (Sharmer, 2009, p. 33). At the

core of both approaches is the concept of presencing, which is “seeing from the deepest source

and becoming a vehicle for that source” (Senge et al., 2004, p. 89). According to Sharmer,

presencing:

involves a particular way of being aware of and experience in the present moment.
Presencing denotes the ability of individuals and collective entities to link directly with
their highest future potential. When they are able to do this, they begin to operate from a
more generative and more authentic presence in the moment—in the now. (2009, p. 52)


The theory of the U and Presencing are difficult concepts to explain. It took Sharmer 462 pages

to do it effectively. However, they seem to offer a glimpse into the future of change

management, not just for organizations, but for entire social systems.

What successful organizations look like

This subsection examines what successful organizations look like using four different

resources, namely, Weisbord’s Productive Workplaces Revisited, Collins’ Good to Great,

Collins and Porras’ Built to Last, and Coombs’ Living Workplace.

Weisbord’s work is important for two reasons. First, it spans over several decades

observing organizations as they were, as they are, and as they will be. Second, it has been said

that those who can’t do teach, and those that can't teach consult. Weisbord has done all three

successfully. The major theme in Productive Workplaces Revisited is that “we hunger for

community in the workplace and are a great deal more productive when we find it” (2004, p.

xxii). The second theme is “the world is changing too fast for experts, and old-fashioned

‘problem-solving’ no longer works” (p. xxii). Organizations of the future get the whole system in

the room and solve a whole lot of problems as a system and move “away from getting experts to

fix systems toward having experts join everybody else in learning how to make improvements”

(p. xxiii).

Good to Great by Collins (2001) is a book about Level 5 leadership, which is what leaders

are. The rest of the book is about what leaders do (p. 38). One of the core concepts is getting the

right people on the bus then figuring out where to drive it (p. 41). Furthermore, “good-to-great

companies continually refined the path to greatness with brutal facts of reality” (p. 71). The

author offers some advice for creating a climate where the truth is heard:

1. Lead with questions, not answers.
2. Engage in dialogue and debate, not coercion.


3. Conduct autopsies, without blame.
4. Build ‘red-flag’ mechanisms. (pp. 74-80)

Another key theme in Good to Great is the hedgehog concept, which includes three intersecting

circles to answer the questions:

1. What you can be the best in the world at.
2. What drives your economic engine.
3. What you are deeply passionate about. (pp. 90-119)

Waugh (2001) cautions that “if you focus on becoming the best in the world, you really just end

up in an improvement process at best—and behind, in any case” (p. 100). One alternative is

being best for the world (p. 111). Even Collins recognized the need to tweak the hedgehog

concept in his follow-up monograph Good to Great and the Social Sectors (2005). The third

circle, what drives your economic engine became what drives your resource engine. (2005, p.

19).

Built to Last by Collins and Porras (1994) is a book about visionary companies. In many

respects, this is what most organizations aspire to be. It builds on the concepts of core values,

alignment, and experimentation. Also, it introduces the idea of big hairy audacious goals or

BHAGs (p. 9) as a means to inspire organizations and teams to succeed in the long-term. The

authors write about “getting the right actors on the stage” (p. 139). Furthermore, “you do not

‘create’ or ‘set’ core ideology, you discover core ideology” (p. 228). And, “whereas identifying

core ideology is a discovery process, setting the envisioned future is a creative process” (p. 234).

One of the fundamental concepts in Built to Last is the power of AND: “a visionary company

doesn't simply balance between idealism and profitability; it seeks to be highly idealistic and

highly profitable” (p. 44). Patterson et al. call this avoiding the sucker’s choice and searching for

the elusive and (2002, pp. 37-41). For example, “one can care about the fragility of the planet

and benefit the business” (Waugh, 2001, p. 130). One tool that is useful in upholding the power


of and is the polarity matrix introduced by Johnson (1992) in Polarity Management: Identifying

and Managing Unsolvable Problems. The tool consists of four quadrants to deal with two

extremes. It seeks to engage participants in identifying the pros and cons of each extreme, or

polarity. The management part of the tool is how to stay in the pros side of the quadrant, or the

top half.

In The Living Workplace: Soul, Spirit and Success in the 21st Century, Ann Coombs (2001)

describes the workplace of the future, one that will embrace these characteristics: respect,

dignity, honor, honesty, acceptance, appreciation, truth, love, and integrity (p. 134). Coombs

speaks to the need for more collaboration in the workplace:

Corporations have used teamwork and project management for a long time. In the 20th
century, however, project management or team approach usually implied someone in
charge to direct and shape the outcome.
As attitudes toward work change, definitions and interpretations of teamwork and
project management are changing as well. The nature of collaboration is evolving. As a
result, it is becoming just as important for entrepreneurial success as energy, initiative,
independence and creativity have always been. The value of the collaboration is now being
seen not just as a result of a team’s work but also in the creation of the collaboration itself.
It is an entity with value of its own. (p. 160)

The workplace of the future might look more like a matrix then the top down hierarchy. In The

New Matrix Management, Martin (2005) compares the old vertical management, and the old

matrix management to the new matrix management (pp. 4-9): “the new matrix management is

the management of an organization in more than one dimension . . . . [and] in order to manage

effectively into more dimensions, we must learn a different approach to managing” (p. 4). This

new matrix management is one that focuses on collaborative leadership and developing teams

(pp. 29-30).


Tools for Implementation

According to Buckingham, “there are no great companies, only great teams” (2007, p. 2).

This statement challenges the conventional wisdom that leadership starts at the top of an

organization and moves partway down the hierarchal structure to around the mid-manager’s

level. Instead, it suggests that great teams contribute to organizational success from the bottom

up. The result is leadership at every level, an idea that several prominent leadership authors have

been promoting in the past three decades (Kouzes & Posner, 2003, 2007; Covey, S.R., 2004;

Covey, S.M.R., 2006; Coombs, 2001; Sharma, 2010).

The definition of a team according to McIntosh-Fletcher (1996) is “a group of individuals

who share work activities and the responsibility for specific outcomes” (pp. 1-2). She shares

three important thoughts to build upon that definition.

1. Interdependence, in which each team member makes individual contributions.
Other members depend on those contributions and share work information with one
another. Members are also accepted by and able to influence one another.
2. Shared responsibility. Responsibility for the team's purpose and goals is shared
and understood by all members (rather then held solely by the manager or team
leader).
3. Outcome, accountability for team outcomes is shared by all members, which
identifies the focus for the team's activities and can include both services and
products. (p. 2)

Psychologists have observed that people working in teams evolve through five stages of

development. A popular model to explain this is the forming-storming approach of Tuchman and

Jensen (1977). The model suggests that there are four stages of team development:

• Forming—getting started as a group and looking to the designated leader for
guidance.
• Storming—competition and conflict at the interpersonal level over goals and
procedures.
• Norming—acceptance of other members, cooperation, and building cohesion.
• Performing—high morale based on pride of task accomplishment and richness of
interpersonal relations. (Dimock & Kass, 2007, pp. 28-29)


Later, Tuchman added a fifth stage:

• Adjourning—movement toward closure; disengagement from relationships and
termination of tasks. (p. 29)

The fifth stage, adjourning, is especially relevant to project teams. Because projects have a

defined beginning and an end, the project team must eventually adjourn.

To maneuver through the five stages, Martin (2005) recommends six critical elements that

are needed for leaders to develop high performing teams:

• Team sizes of no more than 12 people
• Structured, collaborative methodologies for getting the work done
• A team leader skilled in facilitation, negotiation, selling, people management,
communications, etc.
• Clear direction for the work and the resources required to get the job done
• Team members who have the skills to do the work
• Team members who have been trained in how to work together as a team. (p. 30)

According to Gerzon, “groups, movements, or organizations that want to endure and prevail over

time often invest leadership responsibility in diverse teams rather than one person” (2006, p.

222). For teams to be effective, they must have the right tools:

Standardization of methods and processes allows teams at all levels to make decisions and
then implement those decisions; solve problems and then implement those solutions; avoid
problems altogether and capture new opportunities.
Standardization is not a dirty word. In the old vertical management, most work was
done by individuals, so each person had his own methods for making decisions for solving
problems or planning a project. But when work shifts to teams, as in the new matrix,
methods must become team-based; where everyone on the team has a common
methodology to follow, not half a dozen conflicting ones. (Martin, 2005, p. 21)

Such a common methodology, or a common language, can be developed through project

management, program management, and portfolio management. According to Martin, “one of

the key elements of making a matrix work effectively is to deploy an enterprise-wide project

management methodology that promotes cross functional collaboration and proactive

accountability” (Martin, 2005, p. 36).


Project Management is a consistent and repeatable methodology to complete projects on

time, on budget and within scope to meet or exceed the expectations of your key stakeholders

(Project Management Institute, 2008, p. 6). The methodology comprises 42 logically grouped

project management processes mapped across two axes: process groups and knowledge areas.

Process groups include initiating, planning, executing, monitoring and controlling, and closing

(p. 6). The nine knowledge areas include the management of project integration, scope, time,

cost, quality, human resources, communications, risk, and procurement (p. 43). According to

Project Management Best Practices: Achieving Global Excellence:

Project management has evolved from a set of processes that were once considered ‘nice’
to have to a structured methodology that is considered mandatory for the survival of the
firm. Companies are now realizing that their entire business, including most of the routine
activities, can be regarded as a series of projects. Simply stated, we are managing our
business by projects. (Kerzner, 2006, p. 1)

Kerzner, who has studied best practices in project management for almost four decades,

identifies four steps for understanding best practices: continuous improvements (efficiencies,

accuracy of estimates, waste reduction, etc.), enhanced reputation, winning new business, and

survival of the firm (p. 11). Project management has become the new language of business.

Program Management and Portfolio management have evolved from the theory and

application of project management to address how we manage several projects and programs that

may, or may not, have linkages across the organization. According to The Standard for Program

Management, “program management is the centralized coordinated management of a program to

achieve the program’s strategic objectives and benefits . . . [and] involves aligning multiple

projects to achieve the program goals and allows for optimized and integrated cost, schedule, and

effort” (Project Management Institute, 2008, p. 6). A program is made up of multiple related

projects. The Project Management Institute views a portfolio, on the other hand, as “a collection


of components (i.e., projects, programs, portfolios, and other work such as maintenance and

ongoing operations) that are grouped together to facilitate the effective management of that work

in order to meet strategic business objectives” (p. 9). The main difference between a portfolio

and a program is that “the projects or programs within a portfolio may not necessarily be

interdependent or directly related and in fact are normally unrelated, although they may share a

common resource pool or compete for funding” (p. 9). Program and portfolio management have

become an important means of coordinating projects and programs across an organization.

Conclusion

“If we want to create a society worth fighting for, we had better fight for the integration of

social, technical, and economic change” (Weisbord, 2004, p. 189). In addition to The Necessary

Revolution, there are other resources that compile stories of individuals, teams and organizations

who have taken leadership roles in sustainable development (Roseland, 2005; Turner, 2007;

McKibben, 2007; James & Lahti, 2004; d’Humiere, 2005). The comparison of their stories with

the leadership practices of Kouzes and Posner strongly suggests these leaders in sustainable

development have also modeled the way, inspired a shared vision, challenged the process,

enabled others to act and encouraged the heart and positive change.

In addition, the power of AND (Collins & Porras, 1994; Patterson et al., 2002) is a

powerful concept in leadership and sustainable development. Leaders in sustainable development

need to balance the triple bottom line by being:

• true to their values AND make money;
• hard on the problem AND soft on the people;
• dedicated AND humble;
• good for the planet AND good for the people AND good for profits.

It is a tall order. But no one said the ultimate leadership challenge in the world today was going

to be easy.


REFERENCES

Buckingham, M. (2007). The strengths engagement trackTM: A benchmark study of sixty-

five high performing teams. The Markus Buckingham Company®.

Carstens, L. (2010). Defining, inspiring, and implementing sustainability. National Civic

Review, 99(3), 11-16. doi:10.1002/ncr.20024

City of Medicine Hat (2007). Smart growth strategy. Medicine Hat, Canada. Downloaded from

http://www.medicinehat.ca/City%20Government/Departments/Planning,%20Building%2

0and%20Development/Smart%20Growth%20Strategy.asp

Cohen, D.S. (2005). The heart of change field guide: Tools and tactics for leading change in

your organization. MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Collins, J. & Porras, J. I. (1994). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies.

NY, HarperCollins.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap . . . and others don’t.

NY: HarperCollins.

Collins, J. (2005). Good to great and the social sectors. A monograph to accompany Good

to Great.

Coombs, Ann (2001). The living workplace: Soul, spirit and success in the 21st century.

Toronto, Canada: HarperCollins.

Covey, S.M.R. (2006). The speed of trust: The one thing that changes everything. NY: Free

Press.

Covey, S.R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people. NY: Fireside.

Covey, S.R. (2004). The 8th habit: From effectiveness to greatness. NY: Simon &

Schuster.


Crews, D. E. (2010). Strategies for Implementing Sustainability: Five Leadership Challenges.

SAM Advanced Management Journal (07497075), 75(2), 15-21. Retrieved from

EBSCOhost.

Dangelico, R., & Pujari, D. (2010). Mainstreaming Green Product Innovation: Why and How

Companies Integrate Environmental Sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3),

471-486. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0434-0

Dimock, H. & Kass, R. (2007), How to observe your group. Concord, Canada: Captus Press.

d’Humières, P. (2005). Le dévelopment durable: Le Management de l’entreprise responsible

[Sustainable development: The management of the responsible organization]. Paris,

France: Edition d’Organisation.

Engel, M., (2008). Eco-efficiency: The business of sustainable development. Retrieved from

Sustainable Development Solutions for Asia and the Pacific website:

http://www.sdsap.org/data/eco-sd.pdf

Fisher, R. & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. NY:

Penguin Books.

Gerzon, M. (2006). Leading through conflict: How successful leaders transform differences into

opportunities. MA: Harvard Business Press.

Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable

development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of

Management Review, 20(4), 874-907. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. & McKee, A. (2002). Primal Leadership: Learning to lead with

emotional intelligence. MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Greenleaf, R. (1998). The Power of servant leadership. CA: Berrett-Koehler.


Jabareen, Y.R. (2006) Sustainable urban forms: Their typologies, models, and concepts. Journal

of Planning Education and Research, 26: 38-52, doi:10.1177/0739456X05285119

James, S. & Lahti, T. (2004). The natural step for communities: How cities and towns can

change to sustainable practices. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.

Johnson, B. (1992), Polarity management : Identifying and managing unsolvable problems. MA:

HRD Press.

Kerzner, H. (2006). Project management best practices: Achieving global excellence. NJ: John

Wiley & Sons.

Kotter, J. P. & Cohen, D.S. (2002). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people change

their organizations. MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B. Z. (2003). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people

demand it. CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B. Z. (2003). Encouraging the heart: A leader’s guide to rewarding

and recognizing others. CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. (2007). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. CA: Jossey-Bass.

Martin, P.K. (2005). The new management matrix. OH: Martin Training Associates.

McIntosh-Fletcher, D. (1996). Teaming by design: Real teams for real people. NY:

McGraw-Hill.

McKibben, B. (2007). Deep economy: The wealth of communities and the durable future.

NY: Holt Paperbacks.


McShane, S.L. (2001). Canadian organizational behaviour. Toronto, Canada: McGraw-Hill

Ryerson.

Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K., & Rangaswami, M. R. (2009). Why sustainability is now the

key driver of innovation. (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 87(9), 56-64.

Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Patterson, K., Grenny, J., Maxfield, D., McMillan, R. & Switzler, A. (2002). Crucial

Conversations: Tools for talking when stakes are high. NY: McGraw-Hill.

Patterson, K., Grenny, J., Maxfield, D., McMillan, R. & Switzler, A. (2008). Influencer: The

power to change anything. NY: McGraw-Hill.

Project management Institute (2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledge

PMBOK guide (4th ed.). PA: Project Management Institute.

Project management Institute (2008). The standard for program management (2nd ed.). PA:

Project Management Institute.

Roseland, M. (2005). Toward sustainable communities: Resources for citizens and their

governments. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.

Rubin, J. (2009). Why your world is about to get a whole lot smaller. Toronto, Canada:

Random House Canada.

Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization

(Rev. ed.). NY: Doubleday.

Senge, P., Scharmer, C. O., Jaworski, J. & Flowers, B. S. (2004). Presence: Exploring

profound change in people, organizations and society. NY: Doubleday.


Senge, P., Smith, B., Kruschwitz, N., Laur, J. & Schley, S. (2008). The necessary

revolution: How individuals and organizations are working together to create a

sustainable world. NY: Doubleday.

Sharma, R. (2010). The leader who had no title. NY: Free Press.

Scharmer, C. O. (2009). Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges. CA: Berrett-

Koehler.

Stead, J.G. & Stead, E (2000). Eco-Enterprise Strategy: Standing for Sustainability. Journal of

Business Ethics Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 313-329. Retrieved from Springer Stable URL:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25074288

The dictionary of sustainable management (2011). Downloaded from

http://www.sustainabilitydictionary.com/index.php?s=sustainable+development

The natural step, (2011). The four system conditions. Downloaded from

http://www.naturalstep.org/en/the-system-conditions

Tuchman, B.W. & Jensen, M.A.C. (1977). “Stages of small group development revisited,”

Group and organizational studies 2 (4), pp. 419-427.

Turner, C. (2007). The geography of hope: A tour of the world we need. Toronto, Canada:

Vintage Canada.

United States Green Building Council (2009). LEED 2009 for neighborhood development

rating system. Washington, DC. Downloaded from

http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=6824

Unruh, G., & Ettenson, R. (2010). Growing green. Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 94-100.

Retrieved from EBSCOhost.


Waugh, M.S. (2001). The soul in the computer: The story of a corporate revolutionary. HI:

Inner Ocean Publishing.

Weisbord, M. R. (2004). Productive workplaces revisited: Dignity, meaning and community

in the 21st century (2nd ed.). CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wind, J.Y. & Main, J. (1998). Driving change: How the best companies are preparing for

the 21st century. NY: The Free Press.

Whitehead, J. (2008). Real estate development. Vancouver, Canada: Sauder School of

Business, Real Estate Division.

World Economic Forum (2006). Global corporate citizenship: The leardership challenge

for CEOs and Boards. Retrieved from

https://members.weforum.org/pdf/GCCI/GCC_CEOstatement.pdf

Yudelson, J. (2007). Green building A to Z: Understanding the language of green building.

Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.

Yukl, G. (2006 ). Leadership in organizations. RRU Custom Edition (Selection from the

full text 6th edition). NJ: Pearson Custom Publishing.

Leadership in Sustainable Development: A Literature Review

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Leadership in Sustainable Development: A Literature Review

Similaire à Leadership in Sustainable Development: A Literature Review (20)

Plus de Robin Levesque, MA, PMP, RI

Plus de Robin Levesque, MA, PMP, RI (12)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Leadership in Sustainable Development: A Literature Review