Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Department of ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Physical Resource Theory CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Gothenburg, Sweden 2016 Report No. 2016:10
Probing Organizational Consciousness: How do personal and organizational perspectives of sustainability align? Master’s thesis in Industrial Ecology
LINDSAY BERG
DepartmentofENERGYANDENVRIONMENT
PhysicalResourceTheory
CHALMERSUNIVERSITYOFTECHNOLOGY
Gothenburg,Sweden2016
MASTER’S THESIS NO. 2016:10
Probing Organizational Consciousness:
How do personal and organizational perspectives of sustainability align?
Challenge Lab 2016: Sustainability Transitions
LINDSAY BERG
Supervisor: CHRISTINE RÄISÄNEN
ProbingOrganizationalConsciousness:Howdopersonalandorganizationalperspectivesofsustainabilityalign?ChallengeLab2016:SustainabilityTransitionsLINDSAYBERGSupervisor:ChristineRäisänenExaminer:JohnHolmberg©LINDSAYBERG,2016.Master’sThesisNo.2016:10DepartmentofEnergyandEnvironmentPhysicalResourceTheoryChalmersUniversityofTechnologySE-41296GothenburgSwedenTelephone+46(0)31-7721000Cover:[Adopted,BarrettValuesCentre]
i
PPrroobbiinnggOOrrggaanniizzaattiioonnaallCCoonnsscciioouussnneessss::HHoowwddooppeerrssoonnaallaannddoorrggaanniizzaattiioonnaallppeerrssppeeccttiivveessooffssuussttaaiinnaabbiilliittyyaalliiggnn??ChallengeLab2016:SustainabilityTransitions
AbstractOrganizationshavethepotentialtoincreasetheiroutputbyincreasingtheengagementoftheiremployees.However,inordertodosotheremustbealignmentbetweenpersonalvalues,currentorganizationalvaluesanddesiredvaluesforwheretheorganizationintendstogo.Unfortunately,thislackofalignmentiscommonlyoverlooked,and,inthecontextofsustainabilitytherehavebeennosystemicattemptstoexplorethisalignmentwithinanorganization.Therefore,thisstudyaddresses:(i)howpersonalandorganizationalperspectivesonsustainabilityalignwithinanorganization;and,(ii)whatmayamanagementgroupdotoincreaseemployeeengagementandperformanceintheimplementationofsustainabilitygoals.Toaddressthesequestionsinterviewswereconductedwithamanagementteamofalocalorganization,consistingof30-35employees,followedbyafocusgroupwithinterviewparticipants.Amulti-methodapproachwasadoptedtoallowfordatatriangulation,flexibilityandreflexivity.DatawasanalyzedusingtheBarrettValuesCentremodelforOrganizationalConsciousness.Theresultsillustratedalimitedperceptionofsustainability,differentperspectivesofsustainabilitybetweentheparticipants’personallivesandorganizationallives,and,thatlittletimeifanyhasbeenspentenvisioningadesirablestateofsustainabilityfortheorganization.Toovercomethesebarriers,itisrecommendedtheorganizationtakestimeforindividualandcommunalreflection,incorporatesanactiveapproachtowardsleadershiptrainingforallstaff,and,appliesaBackcastingthroughprinciplesapproachinordertonurtureasharedmentalframework.Itmayproveworthytoapplytheseresearchmethodologiestootherorganizationstoenhancetheirperformanceintheimplementationofsustainabilitygoals.Thisthesishasbeenconductedinaninnovativeeducationalsetting,thatoftheChallengeLab,atChalmersUniversityofTechnology,wherebystudentsareequippedwithself-leadershiptraining,dialogueandfacilitationtools,systemsthinkinganddesignthinkingmethodstoovercomesocietalbarriersinthetransitiontoasustainablefuture.
KeyWords:organizationalbehavior,organizationallearning,socialcollaboration,sustainabilitytransitions,leadershipforsustainability,mentalmodels
ii
AcknowledgementsThisthesishasbeenanimmensepersonaljourney,letaloneacademicendeavour.ItiswithmymostsincereandutmostgratitudethatIgivethankstothefollowingpeoplewhohavebeengenuinesupporters,motivatorsandinspirationforme.Firstandforemost,thefacilitatorsoftheChallengeLab:JohnHolmberg,DavidAnderson,ÖrjanSöderberg,JohanLarsson,DanielleMendoza;tomysupervisor,ChristineRäisänen,foryourpatienceandconstantencouragementtostayfocused;Dialoguesfacilitatorandmentor,MartinSande;tosomeofthefirstpeoplethatshowedmewhatitwastoreallybelistenedto:KarenOskMagnusdotter,MatejKadunc,GlenBryan,YvonneWerkmann,SusiHately;tomyspiritualguide,RubyBedi,whodidn’treallygivemeanychoicebuttoreturntoschool(andthankgoodnessforthat!);totheincredibleunwaveringpowerofmyfemaleChallengeLabsisters,Caroline,Elisabeth,Maria,Amanda;totheChallengeLabmenwhokeptmebalanced,Spyros,Fernando,Ivo,Malte,Otto-Max,David,Magnus,Philipp,Aako.Thesepeoplehaveaffordedmeasafe,compassionate,neutralandnon-judgmentalspace,enablingmetodiscoverthatmythoughtsandideasarebothlegitimateandrelevant.Thecreationofsuchaspacegavemeroomforintellectualfreedomandcreativity,andalsoaspacetobechallenged.Iamforevergratefulforsucharich,rewarding,fulfillingandtransformationalexperience.
Specialthankstomyparents,andmygrandparents,fortheirconstantencouragementforqualityeducation,perseveranceandforconstantlyinstillinginmeasenseofoptimismandthemotivationtocarryon.Thankyouforalwaysbelievinginme,andshowingmewhatunconditionalloveisallabout.Thankyoutomymentor,DonnaKennedy-Glans,foryourinspirationandmotivation,andforremindingmetoneverforgetwherehomeis.Averyspecialthankyoufortheirconstantencouragementandbeliefinmedespiteourgeographicalseparation,ColleenNugentandChristyGoodwin.Finally,IwouldliketoextendmygratitudetomystakeholdersandtheparticipantsIhadthepleasureofinterviewing;withoutthemthisthesiswouldnothavebeenpossible.
iii
TableofContentsPart1:TheChallengeLab
Chapter1:IntroductiontotheChallengeLab.......................................................................................21.1 PreparatoryCourse:LeadershipforSustainabilityTransitions.....................................................41.2 Phase1Description......................................................................................................................51.3 TheoreticalFraming.....................................................................................................................9
Part2:Master'sThesis
Chapter2:IntroductionandPurpose..................................................................................................132.1 Alignment=Engagement...........................................................................................................132.2 PsychologicalSafety+Motivation&Accountability=HighPerformance.................................142.3 Mentalmodelsofsustainabilityareunexploredterritory..........................................................152.4 ResearchQuestions....................................................................................................................15
Chapter3:TheoreticalFraming..........................................................................................................163.1 OrganizationalConsciousness....................................................................................................163.2 Personalandorganizationalalignment.....................................................................................193.3 Motivation,discretionaryenergy...............................................................................................193.4 Limitingvaluesandbehaviours..................................................................................................213.5 Determiningalignment..............................................................................................................213.6 Consequencesofalignmentandmisalignment..........................................................................213.7 Wheredotheenergybarrierscomefrom?.................................................................................223.8 Whatcanbedonetoreducethebarriers?.................................................................................233.9 Applicationtothisthesis............................................................................................................23
Chapter4:DescriptionofCaseStudyandResearchMethod...............................................................234.1 CaseStudyBackground..............................................................................................................234.2 ResearchProcess........................................................................................................................244.3 TheInterviews............................................................................................................................254.4 DesigningtheFocusGroup.........................................................................................................264.5 TheFocusGroup.........................................................................................................................284.6 DataAnalysis..............................................................................................................................30
Chapter5:Results..............................................................................................................................325.1 Level7–ServicetoHumanityandthePlanet............................................................................345.2 Level6–MakingaDifference,StrategicAlliances&Partnerships............................................355.3 Level5–InternalCohesion,BuildingInternalCommunity.........................................................375.4 Level4–Transformation,ContinuousRenewal&Learning.......................................................395.5 Level3–Self-esteem,HighPerformance...................................................................................415.6 Level2–Relationship,HarmoniousRelationships.....................................................................425.7 Level1–Survival,FinancialStability..........................................................................................455.8 Sociometry..................................................................................................................................46
iv
5.9 FocusGroup................................................................................................................................485.10 SummaryofResults....................................................................................................................51
Chapter6:Discussion.........................................................................................................................556.1 ModelJustification.....................................................................................................................556.2 Opportunityforincreasingperformance....................................................................................556.3 MoveintotheLearningZone......................................................................................................556.4 Howdoesthisreportcontributetotheresearchbeingdoneinthefield?.................................576.5 TheMulti-MethodResearchProcess..........................................................................................586.6 TheChallengeLabProcess.........................................................................................................586.7 UncertaintiesandLimitations....................................................................................................59
Chapter7:ConclusionsandRecommendations..................................................................................607.1 Recommendations......................................................................................................................607.2 Possibilitiesforfurtherresearch.................................................................................................61
Chapter8:Epilogue............................................................................................................................638.1 Researcherreflections................................................................................................................63
References………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..64
Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….67A. InterviewGuide..............................................................................................................................67B. FocusGroupOutcome,descriptionof“TheHeart”aspects...........................................................69C. FocusGroupOutcome,descriptionof“TheBrain”aspects............................................................71D. BVCModelJustification..................................................................................................................72E. 2016CohortChallengeLabTheses.................................................................................................73
v
ListofTablesTable3-1:TheSevenLevelsofOrganizationalConsciousness....................................................................................18Table4-1:ParticipantReferenceandOrganizationalTitles........................................................................................25Table5-1:Resultsofthevaluesexerciseandinterpretationsofsustainabilityperspectives......................................33
vi
ListofFiguresFigure1-1:TheChallengeLabProcess..........................................................................................................................2Figure1-2:Theresource-demandfunnel(Robertetal.,1997).....................................................................................3Figure1-3:ChallengeLabstudentsinthecentreoftheTripleHelix&KnowledgeTriangle(adaptedfromHolmberg,2014).............................................................................................................................................................................4Figure1-4:PhasesanditerationsinDesignThinkingMethodology(Söderberg,2014)................................................8Figure1-5:Conceptscreening,scoring,testing(Söderberg,2014)...............................................................................9Figure1-6:TheChallengeLabrepresentationofthefourdimensionsofsustainability(adaptedfromHermanDaly’striangleofmeansandends,inAtkisson,2010)............................................................9Figure1-7.Trust,CollaborationCycle(SandowandAllen,2005)................................................................................10Figure1-8.DisruptionCycle(SandowandAllen,2005)...............................................................................................11Figure2-1:Dimensionsofpsychologicalsafety(adoptedfromEdmondson,2014)....................................................14Figure3-1:TheSevenLevelsofOrganizationalConsciousness(adoptedfromBarrett,n.d.).....................................16Figure3-2:Lowpotentialenergyorganization,“highentropy"..................................................................................19Figure3-3:Highpotentialenergyorganization,"lowentropy”..................................................................................19Figure3-4:Highentropyorganizations,lackingalignment........................................................................................20Figure3-5:Lowentropy,highpersonalmotivation,highperformance......................................................................20Figure3-6:Energyalignmentvs.Engagement(Barrett,2010)...................................................................................22Figure4-1:Brainstorming(a)......................................................................................................................................27Figure4-2:Brainstorming(b)......................................................................................................................................28Figure4-3:SevenLevelsofOrganizationalConsciousness(BVCc,n.d.)......................................................................30Figure4-4:Examplesofsociometricdiagrams............................................................................................................31Figure5-1:Level7SustainabilityPerspectives............................................................................................................35Figure5-2:Level6SustainabilityPerspectives............................................................................................................37Figure5-3:Level5SustainabilityPerspectives............................................................................................................39Figure5-4:Level4SustainabilityPerspectives............................................................................................................40Figure5-5:Level3SustainabilityPerspectives............................................................................................................42Figure5-6:Level2SustainabilityPerspectives............................................................................................................44Figure5-7:Level1SustainabilityPerspectives............................................................................................................46Figure5-8:SociometricDiagrams(a-d).......................................................................................................................47Figure5-9:FocusGroupWhiteboardOutcome...........................................................................................................48Figure5-10:FocusGroupOutcome.............................................................................................................................50
vii
HowtoreadthisthesisThisreportfollowsanunconventionalstructureforamaster’sthesis,namelybecausetheresearchmethodandprocesshavebeenconductedinanunconventionalcontext,thatofTheChallengeLab(C-Lab).TheChallengeLabisauniquesettingforhowstudentsmayconducttheirmastersthesis.TheprocessoftheChallengeLabfirstbeginswithanon-mandatorybuthighlyrecommended,preparatorycourse,LeadershipforSustainabilityTransitions,heldinstudyperiodtwo1(November–January),atChalmersUniversityofTechnology.TheChallengeLabthesisprogrammethencoversstudyperiods1threeandfour.
Thethesisprogrammeisdividedintotwophases.Phase1isheldoverthefirstfourweeksandisdesignedinsuchawaythatattheconclusionofthefourweeks,studentsareabletogeneratetheirownresearchquestionthroughtheapplicationofself-leadershiptools,stakeholderdialoguesanddesign-thinkingmethodologies.TheresearchquestiondevelopedattheendofPhase1,thenmarksthebeginningofthesecondphase.Inthissecondphase,thetraditionalthesisprocessbegins.
DuetothisuniquearrangementoftheChallengeLabthesisprogramme,thispaperfollowsauniqueformat.ItbeginswithanintroductionandoverviewoftheChallengeLabprocessinPartI,includingtheoriesfromPhase1thathaveprovidedtheframingforthegeneratedresearchquestionsexploredinPhase2.
InPartII,thereaderisgivenanintroductiontotheresearchundertakeninPhase2,withsupportiveargumentsdescribingthepurposeandimportanceforthisfieldofinquiry.Detailstheresearchmethods,aswellasthetheoreticalmodelemployedforanalysisthenfollows.Resultsarethenpresentedaswellasadiscussion.ConclusionsandrecommendationsarethendescribedattheendofPartII.TheEpilogue,PartIII,annotatesthisthesiswithpersonalreflectionsoftheresearcher.
1RefertoChalmersUniversityofTechnologyacademicschedule.
1
Part1:TheChallengeLab
2
CChhaapptteerr11:: IInnttrroodduuccttiioonnttootthheeCChhaalllleennggeeLLaabb
TheChallengeLabatChalmersUniversityofTechnologyisauniqueopportunityformastersstudentstoconducttheirfinal30-creditthesisproject.TheChallengeLab(C-Lab)providesstudentswiththephysical,temporalandmentalspacetobecome“powerfulchangeagents”(Holmberg,2014)inthequestforsolvingsociety’scomplexsustainabilitychallenges. TheChallengeLabispremisedontheunderstandingthatthechallengessocietyfacestodayarecomplex,andcannotbesolvedbyanyoneindividualororganization;thatsolutionsrequirecross-disciplinarycollaboration(Holmberg,2014). TheLabdifferentiatesitselffromthetraditionalthesisapproachbyfacilitatingthestudentsthroughtheBackcastingMethodologysothatstudentsgeneratetheirownprojectsandsolutionsthatarebothtransformativeandintegrative.
TheentiretyoftheChallengeLabprogrammebeginswithanoptional,butrecommended,7.5creditpreparatorycourse,LeadershipforSustainabilityTransitions,instudyperiodtwooftheChalmersacademicschedule.Phase1oftheChallengeLabthesisprogrammethenofficiallybeginsinstudyperiodthree.Thisphaselastsfourweeksandculminateswiththedevelopmentofself-generatedresearchquestionsbyeachstudent.Phase2thencommenceswithstudentsfollowingamoreconventionalthesisprocess,albeit,condensedasthecompletionofphase2alignswiththeendofthesecondsemester.AnoverviewofthecompleteChallengeLabprocessisillustratedinFigure1-1.AdescriptionofthepreparatorycourseandPhase1ensues;Phase2iscoveredinChapterIV.
Figure1-1:TheChallengeLabProcess
AccordingtoVergragtandQuist(2011),sustainabilityisa,“systemicmultidimensionalconceptthatencompassestheenvironment,humanwell-being,equity,humandevelopment,andtheeconomy,andit
Phase1
Jan‘16 Mid-Feb ‘16
Criteria ResearchQuestion
?DialoguesSelf-
Leadership
PrepCourse
Nov‘15 Jan‘16
1:Definecriteria+vision
2:Understandpresentsystem
3:Envisionfuturesolutions
4:Findingstrategies
Chalmerscampus, literature,workshops,personalreflections
Phase2
Mid-Feb ‘16
Interviewsx10
FocusGroup
Analysis&Writing
PlanningHand-in
+Celebration!
June‘16
25-Apr29-Mar
3
isaconceptthatislargelyconceptualizedasalong-termsocietalgoalorobjective.”Theseauthorsalsoarguethat,“asystemicsocietaltransformationisnecessaryinordertoachievesustainability.”
Thechallengesfacingsocietycanbevisualizedbythefollowingresourcefunnel,Figure1-2.Itrepresentsthesystemicallydecreasingresourcepotentialduetoover-harvesting,mismanagementofresources,andincreasingconcentrationofemittedsubstances(Robertetal.,1997).Theresourcefunnelalsoshowsthatdemandofnaturalresourceswillcontinuetogrowwithincreasedpopulation,demandsdrivenfromourcurrenteconomicsystem,andanincreasedresourceintensityperserviceprovided(Robertetal.,1997).Asthewallsofthefunnelcontinuetoclosein,societymustshiftitseconomicrelianceawayfrompracticesthatdegradetherelationshipbetweentheglobalsocietyandtheecologicalsphere,aswellassocietyitself(Holmberg,1998).Thisstatementcouldn’tbeanymoretruethanitistodaygiventhecurrentunsustainableandunstableglobalsocietythatexists(Vergragt&Quist,2011).Itcanbesaidthattherecentfinancial,economic,ecological,andsocialcrisesthatencompasstheglobalsociety,“areonlymanifestationsofdeeperstructuralandculturalunsustainabilities”(Vergragt&Quist,2011).
Figure1-2:Theresource-demandfunnel(Robertetal.,1997)
LearningappropriateandpracticaltoolsandframeworksthatcanbeappliedtohelpshiftthesecomplexchallengesiswhatledtothecreationoftheChallengeLab.ThepremiseoftheChallengeLabistoempowerstudentswiththetoolsetandexperiencetobecome,“powerfulchangeagents”inthetransitiontoasustainablefuture(Holmberg,2014).Thepowerofthestudentsliesintheircharacteristicofneutrality.Meaning,thatstudentsdonotentertheLabrepresentingaparticularorganization(eg.publicorprivate).Thatisn’ttosayeachstudentdoesn’thavetheirownpersonalbias,yet,comparativelytosomeonewhoisemployedbyaparticularorganization,studentsofferanopen-mindandnon-threateningperspective.
OneofthedefiningfeaturesthatsetsChallengeLabmastersthesisstudentsapartfromotherthesisstudents,isthattheresearchtopicsdevelopedintheChallengeLabhavebeenself-generated,meaningtheyarenotattachedtobiasfromaprofessororcompany.Additionally,ChallengeLabstudentsareseekingtheexploratoryspaceaffordedintheChallengeLabtochallengesocietalnormsandtodiscoverhowtheycanmakeameaningfulcontributiontoamoresustainablesociety.
Suchcuriosityenablesthestudentstoapproachadiversecross-sectionofsocietalactorsandstakeholderswithoutanylabelsorpre-conceivedagendas.Thesamecouldbesaidfortheabilityofothermastersstudents.However,thedifferentiatorintheChallengeLabisthatstudentsareequippedwithaparticularsetofmethods,toolsandframeworkstonavigateandfacilitatesocietaltransformations,whichotherstudentsarenotequippedwith.Additionally,andperhapsmoreimportantly,thesequalitiesanddevelopedskillsetsenabletheestablishmentofasafe,non-threateningenvironmentwherebysocietal
4
actorsandstakeholdersarebothwillingandopentocometogetherandcollaborate,throughstudent-ledfacilitation,fortheadvancementofatransitiontoasustainablefuture.
Inmorespecificterms,Holmberg(2014)describeshowChallengeLabstudentshavethepossibilitytocentrethemselveswithintheregional“triplehelix”knowledgecluster:1)academy(research),2)society(publicsector),and3)business(privatesector).WithinthetriplehelixliesaKnowledgeTrianglethatalignsacademy(research)witheducationandinnovation,seeFigure1-3.
Figure1-3:ChallengeLabstudentsinthecentreoftheTripleHelix&KnowledgeTriangle(adaptedfromHolmberg,2014)
ThedevelopmentoftheChallengeLabisconnectedwiththeformationoftheAreasofAdvance(AoA)atChalmers.ThepurposeoftheAreasofAdvanceistoincreasetheintegrationandcollaborationofbothexternalandinternalactorsinpursuitofChalmers’vision,‘forasustainablefuture’throughtheformationofavirtualmatrixorganization(Holmberg,2014).WithinChalmers,theAreasofAdvancestrivetoincreasethebalanceacrossthethreedimensionsoftheKnowledgeTriangle.ExternaltoChalmers,theAreasofAdvancestrivetopromotegreatercollaborationoftheuniversitywithbothpublicandprivatesectors,tostrengthentheconnectionsoftheuniversitywiththeothertwocornersintheTripleHelix.
ThereareeightAreasofAdvanceatChalmersUniversityofTechnology:BuiltEnvironment,Energy,InformationandCommunicationTechnology,LifeScienceEngineering,MaterialsScience,NanoscienceandNanotechnology,Production,and,Transport(Holmberg,2014).WithinChalmers,eachoftheseeightareasstriveforthefollowing(Holmberg,2014):
• StrengthandbalanceacrosseachcorneroftheKnowledgeTriangle;• Increasedcollaborationofeducation,researchandinnovationwithpublicandprivatesectors.
What’simportantwiththeAreasofAdvanceisthattherolesofbotheducationandinnovationaregivengreaterattentionasmeansforsocietalcollaboration,astraditionally,thishasmainlybeendonethroughresearch(Holmberg,2014).Shiftingthemeansofcollaborationtoalsoincludeeducationandinnovation,iscriticaltostrengthensociety’stransformationalcapacitytowardsasustainablefuture(Holmberg,2014).
1.1 PreparatoryCourse:LeadershipforSustainabilityTransitions
StudentswhoareinterestedintakingtheirmastersthesisintheChallengeLab,arehighlyencouragedtotakethepreparatorycourse,LeadershipforSustainabilityTransitions,heldovertwomonthsinthefallsemesteratChalmers.Thecourseisopentoallmastersstudents,butislimitedtoapproximately35students.Thiswasthesecondyearthecoursehasbeenrunning.
5
Theteachingmethodsusedinthecoursearediverseandintendedtoincreasestudentengagementthroughhands-onapplicationoftheoriesandtoolsbeingtaught.Thedifferentteachingmethodsinclude:groupprojectwork,assignedliteraturestudies,guestlecturers,workshops,andpersonalreflectionpapers.
TheprepcourseintroducesstudentstotheBackcastingMethodology,andusestheChalmerscampusasitstest-bed.EachweekisfocusedononeofthefourstepswithintheBackcastingapproach.Thecourseisdesignedinsuchawaythatstudentsgettoapplycoursematerialwithhands-onexperience.
Inadditiontothebackcastingmethodology,thecourseappliesthefollowingtwoperspectivestoprovideaholisticapproachtocomplexsustainabilitychallenges(Holmbergetal.,n.d.):
1. OOuuttssiiddee--iinnperspective:systemdynamics,multi-levelperspective,design-thinkingmethodologies.2. IInnssiiddee--oouuttperspective:self-leadershipmethodsandtoolstounderstandandreflectonpersonal
values,strengthsandvisions;and,dialoguetoolstoleadinteractionwithdifferentstakeholders.
Uponcompletionofthecourse,itisexpectedthatthestudentswillbeableto(Holmbergetal.,n.d.):
1. Describecriticalsustainabilitychallengesandhowtheconnectionsamongstdifferentindustrialandsocietalactorsperpetuateourcurrent“lock-ins”acrossdifferentsocietallevels;
2. Reflectuponshiftsinmindsetsthatareneededforsustainabilitytransformations;3. Applysystemsperspectivesandrelevantframeworkstosolvesustainabilitychallenges;4. Describe,reflectandapply,theoriesandtoolsfortransformativeleadership;5. Applyfacilitationanddialoguetoolstoenablecollaborationwithmultiplestakeholders.
1.2 Phase1Description
2016isthethirdyearthattheChallengeLabisinoperation.Thisyear,thereare14studentswritingtheirthesisintheLab.AstheLabisopentostudentsfromallacademicbackgrounds,thereisadiverseacademicandculturalmix.StudentsarealsoallowedtoapplyfromuniversitiesotherthanChalmers.Thisyear,therearetwostudentsparticipatingintheChallengeLabfromoutsideChalmers.Studentsinthe2016ChallengeLabrepresentninedifferentcountries:Canada(x1),Mexico(x1),CostaRica(x1),Brazil(x1),Sweden(x3),Germany(x4),Estonia(x1),Greece(x1),Iran(x1).TheChallengeLabstudentsareguidedbyateamoffacilitatorsandsupervisors,referredtointhisreportasTheChallengeLabTeam.
Belowisalistofthestudents’masterprogrammesparticipatinginthe2016ChallengeLab:
• IndustrialEcology• DesignandConstructionProjectManagement• Sustainability,EconomicsandManagement• EnvironmentalScience• SustainableEnergySystems• MaritimeManagement• CommunicationEngineering• IndustrialDesignEngineering• InfrastructureandEnvironmentalEngineering
Note:throughouttheremainderofthisreport,‘students’willbeusedinterchangeablywiththetermparticipants,C-Lab,ChallengeLab,2016C-Labetc.
SomeofthedistinguishingfeaturesoftheChallengeLab,arethat:
1. studentsgainaholisticperspectiveonsociety’ssustainabilitychallenges,
6
2. theylearnhowtoapplythebackcastingmethodologytounderstandpossibleinterventionpoints,3. theydevelopself-leadershipskillsinthecontextofsustainabilitytransitions,and,4. theirresearchquestionsaredevelopedinagenerative,bottom-upapproach.
Inordertounderstandandcharacterizethesystem,Geels’(2002)multi-levelperspectiveframeworkisused.In2016,the‘system’understudyistheCityofGothenburg.ThisselectionwasmadeonHolmberg’s(2015)premiseforSustainabilityLeadership,“Thinkbig,startsmall,actnow.”Inotherwords,ifyouwanttoaffectglobalchange,onemusthavetheabilitytofirstdosofromwhereonecurrentlystands. BackcastingfromguidingprinciplesisthemethodutilizedinPhase1oftheChallengeLabthesisprocessduetoitsabilitytocreateasharedmentalframeworkbyuseofbothinside-outandoutside-intools.ThefinalproductofPhase1wastheresearchquestionseachstudentwouldinvestigateforPhase2.AdescriptionoftheprocessandmethodsemployedthroughoutPhase1ensues.
1.2.1 Developingcriteriaforasustainablefuture
Thefirststepofbackcastingfromprinciplesistodevelopcriteriaforasustainablefuture.Inordertodoso,inside-outactivitiesareconductedtobuildagreatersenseofself-awarenessamongsteachindividualstudent.Tobegin,eachstudentdevelopsaCoatofArmstovisualizetothemselves,andtotheC-Labgroup,whytheyhavechosentodotheirthesisintheChallengeLab,whattheycareabout,andwhatconcernsthem.Thisisthefirstintroductoryassessmenttobegintheprocessofgettingtoknoweachother.
Self-Leadershiptoolsarethenusedtoconductanindividualvaluesassessmentandanindividualstrengthsassessment.ActivelisteningtechniquesareusedtobuildunderstandingandtrustamongsttheChallengeLabgroup,seeFigure1-7(Sandow&Allen,2005).Tofurtherbuildteamcollaboration,interactivesessionsareledbytheworkshopleadertomapoutthegroups’valuesandstrengths.Thisfurtherassistedintheunderstandingandtrustcycletosupportlatercollaboration.
Anothercriticalactivitythatisintroducedtothestudentsistheprocessofthe“Check-in”and“Check-out”topracticeactivelisteningandtobuildteamcohesionbyenabling,“thefieldofenergy,spaceandfocusforconversation”(Sande,2015).Thecheck-inallowsparticipantstoenterthefield(ofconversation)byunderstandingwhateachparticipantisbringing,whattheyfeelandwhattheyneedfortheupcomingconversation.Thecheck-outservesasawaytoleavethefieldandforparticipantstosharewhattheyhavelearnt.Duringthefirstweek,thisprocedureisusedtostartandcloseeachday.Insubsequentweeks,thisproceduremovestoacheck-inatthebeginningofeachweek,andacheck-outtocloseeachweek.ThisisadialogueprocedureinlinewithTheoryU,Senge’sfivedisciplinesandIsaacs(1999).
Inparallelwiththeleadershipactivities,theChallengeLabstudentsdevelopsustainabilitycriteriaforeachofthefourpillars:ecological,wellbeing,social,economy.Thestudentsaredividedintofourgroups,oneforeachpillar.Withineachgroup,onepersonisdesignatedasthehost;thispersonstaysattheirpillar,theothersrotatethroughallthegroupsandrepeattheirfirstgrouppillarattheendasareviewofwhatothershavesaidanddiscussed.ThismarkstheinitialformationoftheC-Lab’ssustainabilitycriteria.
Thenextstepsconsistofareviewofliterature,pertinenttoeachpillar.Whenthisiscomplete,thedraftcriteriaarerevisitedbytheentiregroup.ThecriteriadevelopedbytheChallengeLabGroupinthepreviousyearwasusedasaresourcetobuildon.Later,theChallengeLabFacilitationTeamjoinstoprovidetheirconstructivefeedback,andtotestthedevelopedcriteriaagainstrequirementsforfirst-orderprinciples(Holmberg&Robert,2000).Thecriteriaarethen“frozen”inordertoprogressthebackcastingprocedureontostep2,intheallottedtime.ThecriteriadevelopedforChallengeLab2016isasfollows.
7
NatureCriteria
Humanactivitiesaffectingnature’sfunctionanddiversityaredoneinsuchawaythatthey:• donotincreasetheconcentrationofsubstancesfromthelithosphereintheecosphere;• donotincreaseconcentrationofhumanmadesubstancesintheecosphere;• donotsystematicallydeterioratetheresourcebase;suchasfreshwater,fertileland,andbiodiversity
throughmanipulation,mismanagement,orover-exploitation.AdoptedandinspiredbyHolmberg(1998)andHolmberg&Robèrt(2000),Post-15Goals,CriteriabyC-Lab(2015).
Well-beingCriteria
Firstwepresentthebasicsforsurvivalandcontinuewithcomponentssupportingself-fulfillmentandself-realization. Thegoalofthesocietyandeconomy,lyingonthenatureasitsfundament,istoservethehumanwellbeing,where:
• Everyonehastherighttohumanbasicneeds;health,security,futuresecurity,food,water,sanitation,recreation,shelter,energy;
• Humanlifeincludes:subsistence,protection,affection,understanding,participation,idleness,creation,identity,freedom;
• Everyoneshouldhaveaccesstothesameopportunityandthefreedomtobuildameaningfullife; • Everyoneshouldhaveaccesstothesameopportunityandfreedomtoexploreandexpressyour
”innerself”andtobeyourvalueswithoutlimitingothers’freedomsorharmingothers; • socialandeconomicinequalitiesarenotjustifiedunlesstheyaretothegreatestbenefittotheleast-
advantagedmembersofsociety. AdoptedandinspiredbyRawls(1971),InternationalWellbeingGroup(2013),Cruzetal(2009),Post-15Goals,CriteriabyC-Lab(2015).
EconomicCriteria
Theeconomicsystemisaninstrumentthatenablesindividualstomeettheothercriteria(society,wellbeing,nature)efficientlyandeffectively,assuch:
• Thefunctionoftheeconomicsystemisdrivenbytheothercriteriaandnottheotherwayaround; • Itenablesfurtheruseofresourcesandavoidsdissipativeuseofmaterials; • Itassuresanequitabledistributionofresources; • Ithasaninherentmechanismofmaintainingandservingsocietalinfrastructureandinstitutionsthat
permitshumanwellbeingtobemetovertime; • Ithastheabilitytochangeandtoadaptwhenfacingshocksanddisturbances.
AdoptedandinspiredbySen(1999),AnandandSen(2000),SimmieandMartin(2010),Post-15Goals,CriteriabyC-Lab(2015).
SocietalCriteria
Thesocietalsystemisaninstrumentforindividualstolivetogetherwithintheothercriteriawithrespecttothefollowingconditions:
1. Itenablesthewell-being,empowermentandproductivenessofeveryindividualwhileadheringtotheecologicalprinciplesby:
a. equitableaccessibilitytoeducationandhealthcare; b. genderandsocialequity; c. equalhumanrights;
• Itsgoverningmechanisms(andsocietalinstitutions)arebuiltontransparency,accountability,mutualtrust,adaptabilityandrecognitionofdiversity.
AdoptedandinspiredbyRaworth(2012),Pisano(2012),Post-15Goals,CriteriabyC-Lab(2015).
8
1.2.2 Understandingtoday’ssituation
Step2ofbackcastingconsistsofbuildinganunderstandingofthecurrentsituationofthesysteminordertoidentifygapsbetweenthecurrentsituationandpreviouslydevelopedsustainabilitycriteria(seestep1).GothenburgwasselectedasthesystemfortheChallengeLabduetoitslocalityandaccessibilityforstakeholderaccess.Furthermore,thethinkingappliedisthatifyoucan’taffectchangeinyourownlocalcontext,itwillbeofgreaterdifficultytoaffectchangeelsewhere.Inordertodoso,stakeholderdialoguesareheldwithactorsfromallcornersoftheTripleHelixaccordingtodifferentthemeseg.transport,urbandevelopment,andfacilitatedbytheChallengeLabstudents.Researchonthestakeholdersandtheirorganizationsareconductedinpreparationforthedialogues.Thisyeartherewereatotalofsixstakeholderdialoguesessionscoveringthefollowingthemes:AreasofAdvance(AoA)General,MobilityandUrbanDevelopment,SustainabilityDrivenInnovationforUrbanDevelopment,AreasofAdvance(AoA)Energy,IntegrationandSocialInnovation1.0and2.0.
1.2.3 Applieddesignthinking
Followingthestakeholderdialoguesessions,variousDesignThinkingmethodsareappliedinordertomakesenseofallthatwasdiscussedandallthedifferentideasandbarriersthatwerefound.Furthermore,thisstepistohelpthestudentsenvisionfuturesolutionsbasedonthegapsidentifiedpreviously.ThisisanimportantstepasitisaprecursorfortheChallengeLabstudentstodeveloptheirownresearchquestionthatwillleadintoPhase2ofthetraditionalthesisprocess.TheDesignThinkingmethodisaniterativeprocessandtheworkshopsarefacilitatedbytheChallengeLabTeam;theoveralldesignprocessappliedisrepresentedinFigure1-4below.TheredarrowsrepresentthequestionstheChallengeLabTeamasksthestudentstoreflectonduringtheprocess,andtheyellowarrowsrepresentwhatquestionsthestudentsreflectonbyhimself/herself.Throughouttheiterations,conceptsarecontinuallyscreened,scoredandtesteduntiltheycanbenarroweddowntotheoptimalsolution,seeFigure1-5.
Figure1-4:PhasesanditerationsinDesignThinkingMethodology(Söderberg,2014)
9
Figure1-5:Conceptscreening,scoring,testing(Söderberg,2014)
1.3 TheoreticalFraming
ThissectionintroducesrelevanttheoriesfromthepreparatorycourseandPhase1thatwereusedtoframetheresearchconductedinPhase2.
1.3.1 SustainabilityFramework
Inthecontextofthisreport,sustainabilityisviewedasaframeworkconsistingoffourpillarsinaccordancewithAtkisson(2010)andthesustainabilitycriteriadevelopedinPhase1oftheChallengeLab.Thefirstpillaristheecologicalpillarrepresentingournaturalresourceconstraints.Thesecondpillar,isthatofindividualpersonalwellbeing,implyingthatthisistheultimategoalforhumanity.Thethirdpillar,thesocietalpillarcanbethoughtofinthemannerthatbecausewehaveecologicalconstraints,andbecausetherearemanyofusonthissameplanetallstrivingforpersonalwellbeing,weneedtohavesocialsystemsandstructuresinplacetoallowallofustoliveinharmonywithoneanother.Pillarfour,theeconomy,isawaytoachieveequitabledistributionofresourcesacrosshumanity,givenourecologicalconstraintsandnecessityforappropriatesocialsystems.Figure1-6adaptedfromAtkisson(2010)illustratesthisconcept.Theimportanceofusingthisframeworkisthatitillustratesthatsustainabilityismuchbroaderthanjusttheenvironmental,orecologicalpillar.ThesustainabilitycriteriathatwasdevelopedinPhase1isreflectiveofthisframeworkforsustainability(seesection1.2.1Developingcriteriaforasustainablefuture).
Figure1-6:TheChallengeLabrepresentationofthefourdimensionsofsustainability
(adaptedfromHermanDaly’striangleofmeansandends,inAtkisson,2010)
1.3.2 OrganizationalLearning
Organizationallearningisdefinedasa,“processofdetectingandcorrectingerror.Error[meaing]anyfeatureofknowledgeorknowingthatinhibitslearning”(Argyris,1977,pg.116).Thismeansthattheorganizationdoesn’tjustdothingsright,butthatisstrivestodotherightthings;itmeansthatthe
10
organizationdoesn’tjustlookforimprovingefficiency,butthatitaskswhetherthereisamoreeffectivewaytoreachitsgoals.Putanotherway,itmeansthattheorganizationisnotgoingaboutitsworkblindly,andthatitisseekingforotherperspectives,lookingoutsideitself,andopenforreflection.Doublelooplearningalsomeansthattheorganizationisabletoapplysomefluidityinhowitconductsitswork,forinstance,sometimesitwillbeinamoreaction-orientatedstate,andothertimes,inamorereflectivestate.
InPeterSenge’s1990book,“TheFifthDiscipline:TheArtandPracticeofTheLearningOrganization”hediscussescorecapabilitiesfornurturingandimplementingorganizationallearning.Senge(!990)discussesthatthefollowingfivedisciplinesarenecessarytoenablealearningorganization:personalmastery,mentalmodels,sharedvision,teamlearning,andsystemsthinking.Personalmasterymeansthatanindividualiscontinuallyseekingtoclarifyanddeepentheirownpersonalvision,andthattheyareabletoextendandmanifestthatintheirorganization(Senge,1990).Itmeansperseveringenroutetovisionfulfillment.Havingtheopenspaceandtrusttochallengementalmodelsandperspectivesiscriticalforalearningorganizationsothatindividualsandteamsarenotafraidtotestassumptionstobetterunderstandtheworld.Individualsinanorganizationmustpartakeinco-creationoftheorganization’svisiontodevelopasenseofsharedpurposeandempowerment.Teamlearningthencomplementsthisasitdefinestheneedfordiscussionanddialoguebycreatingthespaceforinquiryandreflection.Finally,systemsthinkingisnecessaryasitcangiveindividualsappreciationfortheirexperiencesandforthecomplexityoftheworld(Senge,1990).
1.3.3 SocialCollaboration
Nurturing“socialcollaboration”(Sandow&Allen,2005)isanorganizationalabilitythatgoeshand-in-handwiththeinsideoutperspectivesoforganizationallearning.AsdescribedinthearticlebySandow&Allen(2005),socialcollaborationisanecessityintoday’s“KnowledgeAge.”Asdescribedintheirarticle,socialcollaborationinvolvesdeeplistening,sharinginformation,afocusonvaluecreation,capacityforreflection,recognitionoftheimportanceoflanguage,and,legitimizingnetworksofcollaboration.TheseattributessupportthosedescribedbySenge(1990),Argyris(1977),andSande(2015).SandowandAllen(2005)describetheimportanceofdeeplisteningforbuildingunderstanding,trustandcollaborationinanorganization.ThiscycleisillustratedinFigure1-7below.Theauthorsalsoillustratewhatcanhappenwhenlisteningandunderstandingarenotachieved,seeFigure1-8.
Figure1-7.Trust,CollaborationCycle(SandowandAllen,2005).
11
Figure1-8.DisruptionCycle(SandowandAllen,2005).
12
Part2:Master’sThesis
13
CChhaapptteerr22:: IInnttrroodduuccttiioonnaannddPPuurrppoossee
Sustainability,synonymousinthisreportastheterm,sustainabledevelopment,isdefinedbytheBrundtlandCommission(1987),as“developmentwhichmeetstheneedsofcurrentgenerationswithoutcompromisingtheabilityoffuturegenerationstomeettheirownneeds.”Althoughthereisgeneralglobalrecognitionofthisdefinition,theambiguityofwhatthisreallymeansinpracticabletermsforhowwe,thegeneralpopulace,aretoconductourselvesinourpersonallivesandworklivesisenormous.
Thisbeingsaid,thenewglobalsustainabilityagendaagreeduponinParisatthe21stConferenceofthePartiesinDecember2015showedremarkableeffortstodelineatesustainabilityintooverarchinggoalsandtargets.Moreimportantly,theagreementofthisagendaconfirmedthatcollectively,asaglobalcommunity,weneedtodomore;sustainabilityneedstobeapriority,andoureffortstoadvancethisagendamustimprove.
Anotherwayofputtingit,isthatwemustimproveourlevelofperformanceinthesustainabilityfield.Inordertodoso,atransformationinhowwelive,andhowweworkisneeded.Iborrowconceptsfromliteratureonleadership,engagement,andorganizationalconsciousnesstodescribeafewkeyfundamentalsthatIhavefoundrelevanttounderstandhowperformancecouldbeimprovedinthetranslationofsustainabilitygoalstoactualimplementation.
2.1 Alignment=Engagement
AccordingtoRichardBarrett(2010),founderoftheBarrettValuesCentrewithheadquartersintheUK,ahighlyengagedemployee2hasthepotentialtodoubletheiroutput,ascomparedtosomeonewhoisnot.Inordertoattainahighlevelofengagement,Barrett(2010)statesthattheremustbealignmentacrossthefollowingthreecomponents:
• Personalvalues,• Currentorganizational3values,and,• Desiredvaluesforwheretheorganization3intendstogo.
However,accordingtoauthorsChristopherRice,FraserMarlowandMaryAnnMasarech,lackofalignmentissomethingeasilyoverlookedintoday’sorganizations.Intheir2012book,TheEngagementEquation:LeadershipStrategiesforanInspiredWorkforce,Riceetal.describethislackofalignmentasthe‘silentkiller’ofengagement.Theauthors(2012)claimthatmisalignmentissoeasilyoverlookedintheengagementequationbecauseoftwofactors(p.140):
1. Definitionsofengagementfocusonjobsatisfaction,ratherthanaddressingcontributionandperformance.
2. Leadersassumeitalreadyexists.
2Theterm“employee”isusedlooselytorefertoanyindividualsituatedinthecontextofsupportinganorganization.
3Note,thatinthecontextofthisreport,theterm“organization”isusedtodescribe,“…anyhumangroupstructure”;forinstance,for-profitcorporations,governments,municipalities,educationalinstitutions,not-for-profits(NFP),andnon-governmentalorganizations(NGOs)(Barrett,n.d.).
14
2.2 PsychologicalSafety+Motivation&Accountability=HighPerformance
ConnectingpersonalmatterswiththoseofperformancewasaprojectinitiatedbyGooglein2012,calledProjectAristotle,a3-yearlongstudy,wherebyagroupofsocialscientistsweretaskedwithuncoveringwhatitwasthatmadeoneteam’sperformancesuperiortoanother’s(Duhigg,2016).AfterinterviewsandsurveyswithhundredsofGoogle’steams,theresearchersfoundthatwhatfostershighperformance,istheabilityoftheteamtoestablishandnurtureafeelingofpsychologicalsafety(Duhigg,2016).Thisfindingiscontraststotheconventionalwisdomthatwhatmakesasuccessfulteamisthecombinationofthebestpeople.IttookGooglenearlyadecadeand“untoldmillionsofdollars”evaluatingalmosteveryaspectofitsemployees’livestodiscoverthatthereisno“right”combinationofpeopletoformthemostwellperformingteam(Duhigg,2016).Rather,itistheteam’scollectiveabilitytoestablishandmaintainafeelingofpsychologicalsafety(Duhigg,2016).
AmyEdmondson(1999,pg.354)describesthissafetyasa,“sharedbeliefheldbymembersofateamthattheteamissafeforinterpersonalrisk-taking…itdescribesateamclimatecharacterizedbyinterpersonaltrustandmutualrespectinwhichpeoplearecomfortablebeingthemselves.”Perhapswhat’smoreimportantisthatEdmondsondescribespsychologicalsafetyasasharedtacitbelief,meaning,ithasatendencytobetakenforgranted,andnotnecessarilygivendirectattention.Inotherwords,thisdrawsparallelswiththeclaimsfromRice,MarlowandMasarech’s2012bookthatassumptionsunderminehighperformance.
Furthermore,inher2014TedXvideo,Edmondsonenrichesher1999studybystatingthatbuildingpsychologicalsafetyinateam,orinaworkplace,doesnotimplyadecreaseinmotivationandaccountability.Rather,psychologicalsafetyistwo-dimensional,withaspectsofmotivationandaccountability.Figure2-1illustratesthesedimensions,andhighlightstheneedformotivationandaccountabilitytoaccompanyhigherlevelsofpsychologicalsafetyinordertomoveoutofthe‘comfortzone’andintothe‘learningzone’,wherehighperformanceteamsreside(Edmondson,2014).Furthermore,havinghighmotivationandaccountability,withlowpsychologicalsafetywillleaveteamsinthe‘anxietyzone’,whereperformanceisrestricted.Edmondson(2014)emphasizesthatpsychologicalsafetyisonlynecessarywhenbothuncertaintyandinterdependenceexist.Fortunately,boththesefactorsareubiquitousinthefieldofsustainability,makingEdmondson’s(2014)claimshighlyrelevantandapplicablewhenitcomestoimprovingperformanceinthecontextofsustainability.
Figure2-1:Dimensionsofpsychologicalsafety(adoptedfromEdmondson,2014)
Motivation&Accountability
PsychologicalSafety
ComfortZone
ApathyZone
AnxietyZone
LearningZone
low high
low
high
15
2.3 Mentalmodelsofsustainabilityareunexploredterritory
Accordingtoa2014articlebyGermanauthors,StefanHielscherandMatthiasGeorg,inSystemsResearchandBehaviouralScience,therehavebeen,“nosystematicattemptsinsystemicsustainabilityresearchtomake(shared)mentalmodelsofcorporatesustainabilityaccessibleforempiricalscrutiny”(p.711).ThisisparticularlyinterestinggiventhefindingsfrombothEdmondson(1999)andGoogle’sProjectAristotle,onthecriticalityofunderstandingsharedmentalmodelsforahighperformanceteam.Thisneedforpsychologicalsafety,complementsthenecessityforpersonalandorganizationalalignmentdescribedbyBarrett(2010)andRiceetal.(2012).
However,thereasonwhytacitassumptionsofsustainabilityhavenotyetbeenexploredandrevealedthroughempiricalresearchintheliteratureremainselusive.Nevertheless,thecriticalityofthetaskisparamountifgenuinecommitmentandengagementinsustainabilityistobeachieved.Intheirpublication,HielscherandGeorg(2014)makeafirstattemptatrevealingthepotentialofqualitativeresearchfor“unearthingandanalyzing”mentalimagesorganizationshaveofsustainability.However,theirmethodislimitedtousingtextualdatafromacorporation’ssustainabilityreport.Theyrecognizethislimitation,andadviseforfurtherresearchtobedoneusingotherqualitativemethods,eg.interviews,torevealmentalmodelsofsustainabilityandpotentialconflicts.
Therefore,thisthesisaimstobuildonHielscherandGeorg’s(2014)identifiedgapthroughtheuseofaqualitativeresearchapproach.However,thisstudydivergesfromHielscherandGeorg(2014)byattemptingtouncoversustainabilityperspectivesheldwithinanorganization,ratherthanperspectivesamongstanorganizationanditsexternalstakeholders.Consequently,thisthesisattemptstoillustratetheneedtounveiltacitinterpretationsofsustainabilityinordertogaugecapacityforhighperformanceinthetranslationofsustainabilitygoalstoaction.
Morespecifically,theresearchquestionstobeaddressedareasfollows.
2.4 ResearchQuestions
• Howdopersonalandorganizationalperspectivesonsustainabilityaligninanorganization?• Howmayamanagementgroupusethepotentialoftheirhumanresourcestoovercome
obstaclestowardsimplementationofsustainabilitygoals?
Ianchormystudyintheoriesoforganizationallearning,socialcollaboration,andleadershipforsustainabilitytransitions.IcentremyanalysisonRichardBarrett’smodelforOrganizationalConsciousness.Detailsofmymethodologyensue,followingadescriptionofBarrett’sOrganizationalConsciousnessmodel.
16
CChhaapptteerr33::TThheeoorreettiiccaallFFrraammiinngg
ThefollowingtheoriesbuilduponthoseframedpreviouslyinChapter1andChapter2andareapplieddirectlyfortheanalysisofPhase2ofthismaster’sthesis.
3.1 OrganizationalConsciousness
TheBarrettValuesCentrebuildsonMaslow’shierarchyofneedsandtheoryofhumanmotivationwithamodeldevelopedbyRichardBarrett,theOrganizationalConsciousnessmodel.Barrett(n.d.)claims,thatifanorganizationdesirestobeofservicetosocietyatlarge,i.e.tohumanityandtotheplanet,theorganizationmusthave:
• Alignmentbetweenpersonalvalues,currentorganizationalvalues,anddesiredorganizationalvalues.
• Needsmustbefulfilledwithineachofthesevenlevels.
AccordingtoBarrett,organizationsthatareabletosatisfyneedsacrossallsevenlevelsaresaidtohave,“fullspectrumconsciousness.”Figure3-1illustratestheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodel.Adescriptionofeachlevelfollows.
Figure3-1:TheSevenLevelsofOrganizationalConsciousness(adoptedfromBarrett,n.d.)
Themodelshouldbereadfrombottomtotop,startingwiththefirstthreelevelsof(i)Survival,(ii)Relationship,(iii)Self-Esteem.Thesearelevelsthataddressthefundamentalbasicneedsofanorganization–thatoffinancialstability,employeeandcustomerloyalty,efficiencyandeffectivenessofsystemsandprocesses.Theselowerlevelsfocusontheself-interestsoftheorganizationanditsshareholders.SimilartoMaslow’stheoryofmotivation,ifbasicneedsattheselowerlevelsarenotmet,individualsinanorganizationwillfeelasenseofanxiety.Thesefirstthreelevelsarecalled“deficiency”needs.
Thehigherlevels,(v)InternalCohesion,(vi)MakingaDifference,and(vii)Service,arereferredtoastheorganization’s“growth”needsfocusingon,“culturalcohesionandalignment,buildingmutuallybeneficialalliancesandpartnerships,and,long-termsustainabilityandsocialresponsibility”.Barrettstatesthatwhentheseneedsaremet,theyareforeverengendered,perpetuatingdeeperlevelsofcommitmentandmotivation.
Thefourthlevel,Transformation,isabridgebetweenthethreelowlevels,andthethreehigherlevels,representingashiftinmode-of-operandi.It’sashiftfromaculturerootedinfulfillingbasicsurvivalneeds,tooneofempowermentand“responsiblefreedom”.
17
Atthetimeofpublishing,Barrett(n.d.)statedthatonlyafeworganizationsoperatewithfullspectrumconsciousness,perhapsthishaschangedsincethen.Nevertheless,Barrettdescribesthatthefundamentalfactorinachievingfullspectrumconsciousnessisrootedintheexperienceoftheemployees,andtheabilityoftheorganization’sleaderstoreleasetheiremployee’sfullenergeticpotential.
Organizationsthatonlyfocusonthefulfillmentofthelowerthreelevelsarecharacterizedbyaninabilitytoadapttochangingmarketconditions,littletonoinnovationorcreativity,andlackofemployeeenthusiasm.Typically,theorganizationisgovernedfromaplaceoffear,andemployeesarefrustratedand/orstressedout.Conversely,organizationsthataresolelyfixatedonfulfillingthehigherthreelevels,lackbasicbusinesscapabilitiesnecessaryforeffectiveandefficientoperation.
Barrettdescribeseachofthesevenlevelsbythefollowingdifferentattributes,summarizedinTable3-1.Healsostatesthatateachlevel,thereisafocustofulfilltheneedsofcertaingroupsofstakeholders.Notethatthefirstthreelevels(i,ii,iii)arepronetoseverallimitingfactors,thatifnotreduced,willlimitfurtherconsciousnessdevelopmentandgrowth,andultimately,theabilitytoservehumanityandtheplanet.
18
Table3-1:TheSevenLevelsofOrganizationalConsciousness
Level7:Service• Long-termperspective,humility,ethics,socialresponsibility,compassion,futuregenerations.
Level6:MakingaDifference• Environmentalawareness,communityinvolvement,employeefulfillment,
coaching/mentoring,makingadifferenceintheworld,attentiononleadershipdevelopment.• Deepinternalconnectedness,withexpandingexternalconnectedness.
Level5:InternalCohesion• Commitment,sharedvisionandvalues,trust,integrity,creativity,transparency,passion,
openness,capacityforcollectiveaction,uniqueculturalidentitybypromotingfromwithin.• Alignmentofemployees’personalsenseofmissionwithorganization’svision.
Level4:Transformation• Teamwork,accountability,adaptability,goalsorientation,personalgrowth,empowerment,big
picturethinking,innovation,decisiveness,education,diversity.• Abilitytomakedecisionswhileactivelyseekingemployees’ideas,opinions,participation.
Level3:Self-Esteem• Processes,quality,prideinperformance,bestpractices,systems,desiretolead,continuous
improvement,encouragement.• LLiimmiittiinnggffaaccttoorrss::Complacency,bureaucracy,long-hours/demandingenvironment,silo
mentality,hierarchy,confusion,fire-fighting,rigidity.
Level2:Relationships• Customersatisfaction,senseofloyaltyandbelongingamongemployees,opencommunication,
friendship,employeerecognition,responsiveness,listening.• Harmoniousinterpersonalrelationships,goodinternalcommunication.• LLiimmiittiinnggffaaccttoorrss::Blame,manipulation,internalcompetition,empirebuilding,rivalry,
intimidation.
Level1:Survival• Financialstability,shareholdervalue,employeehealthandsafety,organizationalgrowth.• LLiimmiittiinnggffaaccttoorrss::Short-termfocus,control,caution,micro-management,job-insecurity,risk-
aversion,territorialism,corruption,greed.Perspectiveofexploitationforpersonal/organizationalgain,attitudetomeetregulationswithminimumcompliance.
(adoptedfromBarrett,n.d.)
19
3.2 Personalandorganizationalalignment
AccordingtotheBVC,thatanorganizationfulfillsneedsatall7LevelsoftheConsciousnessModelisnotenoughifitwantstogrow,developandbealeaderinitssector.Thus,Barrett(2010)claimsthatinorderforanorganizationtoimproveitsperformance,itisnecessarytoreducethepersonalentropy4oftheorganization’sleaders.
Personalentropy4,accordingtoBarrett(2010),istheamountofhumanenergyavailablefordoingusefulwork.Inordertounleashthefullenergypotentialofeachindividual,employeesneedtofeeltheirpersonalvaluesarealignedwiththecurrentvaluesoftheorganization,andthevaluesthattheorganizationdesirestoembody.
Whenindividuals’valuesarealignedwiththoseofthecurrentanddesiredorganization,theorganizationissaidtohavelow“CulturalEntropy”andhastheabilitytoproducemeaningful,value-addedwork,i.e.,products,services,societalcontributions(Barrett,2010).Similarly,ifthereismisalignmentbetweenpersonalandorganizationalvalues,theorganizationwillhavelostopportunitiestoproducevalue-addedwork.
Inordertobetterunderstandthisconcept,Barrett(2010)usestheanalogyofamechanicalsystem;whereby,thebetterthealignmentofthesystemcomponents,thegreatertheefficiencyofthesystemtoproducework.Inthecontextofthisreport,thesystemistheorganization,andthesystemcomponentsaretheemployees.Twosimplegraphicsbelowillustratethisconcept.
Figure3-2:Lowpotentialenergyorganization,“highentropy"
Figure3-3:Highpotentialenergyorganization,"lowentropy”
3.3 Motivation,discretionaryenergy
WhenCulturalEntropyislow,meaninghighvaluesalignment,thereisopportunitytoigniteanothersourceofenergy,termed“discretionaryenergy”(Barrett,2010,pp.2).Thisenergyisreleasedwhenemployees’needsarefulfilledatallsevenlevelsoftheOrganizationalConsciousnessModelaannddwhentheindividualfeelstheyarecontributingtotheimplementationofaninspiringvision(Barrett,2010).When
4Entropyisathermodynamicconceptusedtodescribeacharacteristicofenergy.Insimpleterms,entropycanbethoughtofastheextentofdisorderedenergywithinansystem.Entropydoesnotconsidertherelationbetweenasystemanditssurroundings.Thewayinwhichentropyisappliedinthiscontextisdebatable(S.Karlsson,personalcommunication,31May2016).Energypotentialmaybeamorescientificallycorrecttermtocharacterizeefficiencyofthesystemanditscomponents,inthiscase,employees.Nonetheless,applyingconceptsfromthermodynamicstohumanorganizationscouldprovetobeuseful.However,furtherdevelopmentisneededtoexplorethis.
20
thishappens,employeesarehighlymotivatedbytheirworkandhavethepotentialtodoubletheamountofoutputascomparedtosomeonewhoisnotmotivated(Barrett,2010).
Thisisso,becauseofthefollowingtworeasons:
“Theinspiringvisionfocusestheenergyofallemployeesinthesamedirection,and,itgivesemployeesanopportunitytomakeadifferenceandbeofserviceinawaythatbringsmeaningtotheirlives.”
(Barrett,2010,pp.3)
Additionally,Barrett(2010,pp.3)statesthatahighlymotivatedpersonis,“committed,enthusiasticandpassionate,andtapsintohisorherdeepestlevelsofcreativity.”
“Toevenstandachanceofunleashingpeople’sdiscretionaryenergies,employeesneedtofeelathomeintheorganizationsotheycanbeauthentic–bringtheirwholeselvestowork(valuesalignment),andthey
mustalsofeelthattheorganizationisontherighttrack–thecurrentanddesiredculturevaluesarealignedandtheyresonatewiththeorganization’spurpose(missionalignment).”
(Barrett,2010,pp.4)
BuildingonFigure3-2andFigure3-3,Ihavedrawnthefollowingtwofigurestoillustratetheadditionofthelaterconcept–theimportanceofaninspiringvision,toincreaseemployee’smotivation.Figure3-4illustratesalackofalignmentandconnectionamongstpersonalvalues,organizationalvalues,andthevision.Ontheotherhand,Figure3-5illustratesalignmentbetweenpersonalvalues,organizationalvalues,andaninspiringvisionthattheindividualisabletoconnectwith,increasingtheirmotivation.
Figure3-4:Highentropyorganizations,lackingalignment
Figure3-5:Lowentropy,highpersonalmotivation,highperformance
21
3.4 Limitingvaluesandbehaviours
Barrett(2010)describesthedifferentfactorswithinanorganizationthatcaninhibitemployees’abilitytoaccesstheirdiscretionaryenergy.ThesequalitiesarefoundwithinthebottomthreelevelsoftheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodel,levels1through3.Theyincludefactorsthatpreventemployeesfromworkingeffectively(Level1),factorsthatcausefrictionbetweenemployees(Level2),andfactorsthatslowdowntheorganizationanditsdecisionmakingability(Level3).RefertoTable3-1forfurtherdescriptorsofthelimitingfactorsforeachlevel.
Theconsequenceofhavingtheselimitingvaluespresentinanorganizationisthatitinhibitstheabilityofindividualstodirecttheirenergytowardsfulfillmentofthequalitiesateachofthehigherlevels,4through7,oftheOrganizationalConsciousnessModel.Theirmotivationislow,causingemployeestochannelanydiscretionaryenergytheymayhaveintotheirprivatelives,orelsewhere(Barrett,2010).
Ultimately,thismeansthatServicetoHumanityandthePlanetareinhibited.Orintheveryleast,effortstofulfillsuchambitionsmaybemet,buttherewillbeahugeamountofwastedenergyalongthewaytryingtoovercomethelimitingvaluesandbehaviours(Barrett,2010).Inotherwords,theefficiencyofthesystem(organization)willbeverylow;employeeswillexpendagreatershareoftheirenergydealingwiththelimitingfactors,ratherthanadvancingtheirdevelopment,andultimately,thatofsociety.
3.5 Determiningalignment
Inordertoassesspersonalandorganizationalalignment,alongwiththepresenceoflimitingfactors(describedabove)theBarrettValuesCentre(BVC)conductsaseriesofsurveyswithemployees,invariousassessmentprocesses,e.g.CulturalValuesAssessment(CVA),or,LeadersValuesAssessment(LVA),dependingontheobjectivesofthestudy.Nonetheless,theessenceofeachassessmentfollowsasimilarmethodwherebyemployeesareaskedtoselectvalues/behavioursthatbestreflect(BVCb,n.d.):
• employees’personalvaluesofwhotheyare,ratherthanwhotheydesiretobecome;• employees’viewsofhowtheorganizationcurrentlyoperates;and,• employees’perceptionofwhattheorganizationdesirestoachieveandembody.
3.6 Consequencesofalignmentandmisalignment
In2008,theBarrettValuesCentretookpartinaBestEmployerSurveyinAustraliaandNewZealand(BEANZ),runbyHewittAssociates.Thestudysurveyed163organizationsinAustraliaandfoundastrongcorrelationbetweenCulturalEntropywithinanorganizationandthelevelofstaffengagement(Barrett,2010);thelowertheentropy,orthegreatertheenergypotential,thegreaterthestaffengagement.Figure3-6illustratesthis.
InthisBEANZstudy,BVCfoundthefollowingconnectionswithrevenue(Barrett,2010):
• Organizationswithemployeeengagementabove65%andCulturalEntropybelow10%,hadgrowthinrevenuesabove35%injusta3-yearperiod.
• Organizationswithemployeeengagementbetween40-65%andentropylargerthan22%,hadagrowthinrevenueofonly7%ina3-yearperiod.
22
Figure3-6:Energyalignmentvs.Engagement(Barrett,2010)
Further,theBVChasmeasuredover2,000organizations,andhasfoundthatwhenlimitingvaluesstarttoaccountforapproximatelyforty-percentofresponsesincomparisontohowtheorganizationcurrentlyoperates,bankruptcy,dissolutionoraggressivetakeoversfrequentlyensue(Barrett,2010).Barrett(2010)givesthefollowingexamplesfrompreviousBVCstudiestoillustratetheseriousnessandrealitiesofthepresenceoflimitingvalues,measuredthroughCulturalEntropy:
• TheCulturalEntropyinIcelandwasmeasuredinAugust2008,comparingpeoples’personalvalues,howtheyperceivedtheirnationalculture,andtheirdesiresfortheircountry.CulturalEntropywashighat54%.Later,inSeptemberofthatsameyear,Iceland’seconomycollapsed.
• AsimilarstudywasconductedinLatviainAugust2007.Again,CulturalEntropyforthenationwaselevatedat54%.InOctober2007,theGovernmentwasdisbandedfollowingpublicunrest.
• TheCulturalEntropyofasmallpopulationofbusinessmeninArgentinawasmeasuredinFebruary2001,andwasfoundtobeatalevelof60%.Eightmonthslater,thecountrydeclaredbankruptcy.
3.7 Wheredotheenergybarrierscomefrom?
Barrett(2010)statesthat,CulturalEntropyisafunctionofthefollowingtwoelements:
1. Personalentropyofthecurrentleadersoftheorganization,and,2. Legacyofpreviousleaders’personalentropy.
Suchpersonalentropyisengrainedintheorganizationthroughbureaucracy,silos,andhierarchicaldecision-making(Barrett,2010).Furthermore,thisentropywillshowitselfintheorganization’sculture,exhibitingqualitiesofexcessivecontrolandcaution,blame,internalcompetition,confusion,andlonghours(Barrett,2010).
EmphasizedbyBarrett(2010),isthatpersonalentropystemsfromthepresenceoflimitingvaluesandbehaviourswithintheindividual.Thisresultsin,“subconsciousfear-baseddecision-making”andwillbeexpressedinaleader’sdaytodayinteractions(Barrett,2010).
23
3.8 Whatcanbedonetoreducethebarriers?
Inordertoreducethelimitingvaluesandbehavioursofcurrentorganizationalleaders,Barrett(2010)statesthat“personalmastery”isthesolution;thatleadersmustlearnhowtocreatetheirownpersonalalignment.Thiscanbeaccomplishedthroughthelearning,growth,anddevelopmentofself-leadershipskills(Barrett,2010).
Dependinghowgreatisthelevelofpersonalentropyforaleader,Barrett(2010)recommendsthattheleaderevaluatehowhis/herbehavioursandactions:
1. affectthosearoundthem,howtheymakedecisions,andtheirdegreeofwork/lifebalance;2. mayjeopardizetheirrelationshipswithcolleaguesandsubordinates,negativelyaffectingtheir
goals;and,3. maybecompromisingtheirpersonalintegrityandimpactingtheirabilitytoinspireandlead.
InordertoreduceCulturalEntropycausedbythelegacyofpreviousorganizationalleaders,Barrett(2010)recommendsstructuraladjustmentsfortheorganizationtoreducehierarchy,silosandbureaucracy.
3.9 Applicationtothisthesis
Insummary,Barrett’stheoryonOrganizationalConsciousnesswillbeusedtoexplorealignmentbehaviouramongstamanagementteamappliedinthecontextofsustainability.
CChhaapptteerr44::DDeessccrriippttiioonnooffCCaasseeSSttuuddyyaannddRReesseeaarrcchhMMeetthhoodd
Itookaqualitativeapproachusingacasestudytoaddressmyresearchquestions.GiventheemphasisBarrettplacesontheleadersofanorganization,IsoughtstakeholdersofwhomIwouldbeabletoaccessonthemanagementlevel.Inselectingtheorganizationtoworkwith,Ihadtwoadditionalcriteria.First,theorganizationshouldbelocaltotheGothenburgRegion.Second,theorganizationmusthaveambitionstomakesustainabilityabusinesspriority.Thereasonforthesecriteriaweretoenableaneasieraccesspointintoa“live”testsubject.And,asthesageadviceofprofessorJohnHolmberggoes,“Thinkbig.Startsmall.Actnow.”
InspiredbyRäisänenandGunnarson(2004),Iutilizedatwo-phasemulti-modemethodtoensure,“triangulation,flexibilityandreflexivity”(p.8).Thismulti-modemethodwasusefultocapturethe,“complexinteractionsandconflictingdiscourses”(Räisänen&Gunnarson,2004,p.3)presentwithintheorganization.Thiswassuitablegiventhecomplexity,ambiguityandabstractnatureofmytopic.
Thefirstphaseofmymethodinvolvedatotaloftensemi-structuredinterviews.Thisphasemaybereferredtoasthe“exploratoryphase”accordingtoRäisänen&Gunnarson(2004).Followingapreliminarydataanalysis,Imovedintothesecondphaseofmyresearch,wherebyIconductedafocusgroupwithmembersofthemanagementteamIhadinterviewedinphaseone.Forthepurposesofconfidentialityandanonymity,thiscompanyshallbereferredtoas“M-Lab”,standingforMeeting-PlaceLab.
AbriefdescriptionoftheM-Labisgiven,followedbyadetailedaccountofmymethodologyemployedforeachphase.Thereafter,IexplainhowIconductedmydataanalysis.
4.1 CaseStudyBackground
TheM-Labisuniversityorganizationthatprovidesrealestateandpropertymanagementservicesauniversity.TheM-Labisasmallcompanywithapproximately32employees.Accordingtotheir
24
organizationalstrategydocuments,M-Labaimsto,“operateanddevelopthecampusandvenuesinamannerthatenablestheuniversity’svisionforasustainablefuture.”
AsofMarch1st,2016,theM-Labbeganthetransitionfromamoretraditionalhierarchicalorganizationalstructuretoanewprocess-orientedorganization.Accordingtoorganizationaldocuments,thepurposeofthenewstructureisto:
• Havegreaterclarityaboutrolesandresponsibilities;• Haveagreatercustomerfocus;• Facilitategreaterparticipationandcooperationwiththelocalcommunityandcampus;and,• Beflexibleandadaptabletochangesinthebusinessenvironment;
Furthermore,theM-Labhasanumberofongoingsustainabilityinitiativesthatmakethemaninterestingcasetostudy:
1. In2015,theystartedanewmanagementposition,acombinedroleofBusinessandSustainabilityManager.
2. Theyareworkingwithexternalconsultantswhohaveconducted~25interviewswithexternalstakeholderstobetterunderstandwhattheirsustainabilityexpectationsofM-Labare.
3. Aninternalonlinesurveywasconductedforallemployeestogetanunderstandingofcurrentsustainabilityperspectives.
4. Basedonfeedbackandinformationcollectedfromitems(2)and(3),M-Labisfinalizingfoursustainabilitygoalsforthecompanytofacilitategreaterinternalcohesionaboutthistopic.
5. Twiceayear,theM-Labwillbeholdingfull-dayworkshopsonsustainabilityforallemployees.ThefirstonewasheldinApril.
Inthepasttherehavebeensustainabilityinitiativestakenbyemployees,however,verysporadically,andoftenwithoutsupportfromthemanagement.Therefore,theseinitiativesareimportantforM-Labastheyhaverecognizedtheabsence,andnecessityofacohesivesustainabilityculturethroughouttheorganization.
Atthetimeofdatacollection(April2016),M-Labhaddraftedthefollowingfoursustainabilitygoals:
• Promotewell-beingthroughthecampusspacesthattheyoffer.• Reducecarbonfoot-print.• Optimizeuseofresources.• Bethefirst-mover,betheleaderinsolutionsforasustainablecampus.
4.2 ResearchProcess
Theempiricalresearchprocessconsistedofeightsemi-structuredinterviewsoftheorganization’smanagementteam,followedbyafocusgroup.Thereweretwoadditionalinterviewsfrompersonneloutsidethecoremanagementteamtobalanceperspectives.Alloftheteninterviews,aswellasthefocusgroup,wereconductedinEnglishduetotheresearcher’slackoffluencyandproficiencyintheSwedishlanguage.Table4-1listsinterviewparticipantsandcorrespondingorganizationaltitleswithEnglishandtranslation.TheparticipantsselectedforinterviewswerebywayofrecommendationfrommypointofcontactintheM-LabwhenIaskedforthoseindividualsthatheldresponsibilityformanagementdecisions.Itwasalsothroughthediscretionofthisindividualtoprovidemewithanadditionaltwosupportinginterviewees,whoarenotinvolvedinmanagerialdecisionsatM-Lab.
25
Table4-1:ParticipantReferenceandOrganizationalTitles
OOrrggaanniizzaattiioonnaallTTiittlleeBusinessandSustainabilityLeader–processowner“Nurturecustomer”President/CEOandthemanagementprocessownerCommunicationsManager&ExecutiveAssistant
ProcessLeader–technicalplanningProcessLeader–operation,maintenanceandservicedeliveryFinancialOfficer/CFOandsupportprocessownersDevelopmentManager–ProcessOwner“Nurtureanddevelopvalues”EnergyStrategistProjectLeader(PL)OperatingandMaintenanceTechnician(DA)
EachinterviewwasconductedinaprivatemeetingroomorpersonalofficeattheheadofficeofM-Labandwasscheduledfor60minutes.Interviewswereconductedoverathree-weekperiod,withamaximumoftwointerviewsperday.MgrAwasthefirstinterviewandwasgivena90-minutetimeslotasitwasintendedtoallowforadeeperunderstandingofhowtheparticularmanagerinterpretedM-Lab’sorganizationalstructure.Allinterviewswereaudiorecordedontheresearcher’ssmartphoneandlatertranscribed.
Throughoutthethreeweeksofinterviews,andinthefinalweekleadinguptothefocusgroup,theinterviewsweretranscribedandapreliminarydataanalysiswasdone.Thesectionbelow,DesigningtheFocusGroup,describesthemethodthatwasusedtodeterminethestructureandformatofthefocusgroupandthethemestobeaddressed.
Thefocusgroupwasheldatanoff-sitelocation,aweekaftercompletingthefinalinterview.Invitationsweresentoutapproximately4weeksbefore.Thesessionwasscheduledfor2hours.Alloftheeightintervieweesfromthemanagementteamwereinvitedtothefocusgroup(ManagerA–H),however,onlyfourwereabletoattend.Thefocusgroupwasaudioandvideorecordedontheresearcher’ssmartphoneanddigitalcamera.Verbalagreementwasobtainedfromallparticipantsforaudiorecordingdoneduringtheinterviewsandbothaudioandvideorecordingdoneduringthefocusgroup.
4.3 TheInterviews
Beforebeginningeachinterview,abriefexplanationwasprovidedtoparticipantsaboutthepurposeofthisthesisproject.Verbalassurancewasgiventhatconfidentialitywouldbemaintained,andverbalpermissionwasgrantedtoaudiorecordtheinterview.Eachparticipantwasinvitedtoattendthefinalpresentationofthisthesistostimulateencouragementandasenseofmeaningforthetimetheyafforded.
26
TheinterviewguidethatwasusedinallinterviewsisprovidedinAppendixA.Theresearcherwascarefultoensurethatallquestionsontheguidewereaskedineachinterview.Theinterviewwasbrokendownintoseventhemes,coveringthefollowingtopics:
i. Introduction/Backgroundii. Sustainability–whatdoesthatmeanfromapersonalleveliii. Sustainability–whatdoesthatmeanfromanorganizationalleveliv. Motivationv. CommunicationMappingvi. Leadershipvii. CurrentOrganizationalCultureValues
Item(v)requiredtheparticipanttoplacethemselvesinthecentreofapage,onablanksheetofA4paper,andtodrawamap/webofwhotheycommunicatewithfortheirrolewithinM-Lab,howoftentheycommunicatewithsaidperson(orgroup),andhowdotheycommunicate(e.g.phone,email,in-person).Thistechniqueisinspiredbysociometry,whichallowstheresearcher“toobtainarobustrepresentationofthestructureandcohesionoforganizationalgroupsandtheirimpactsonindividualactors”(Räisänen&Gunnarson,2004,p.8).
Item(vii)askedparticipantstoselecttenitemsvalues/behavioursfromalistof44itemsthattheyfeltbestreflectedhowM-Labcurrentlyoperates.Thelistofitems(values/behaviours)wasadoptedfromtheBarrettValuesCentre,SevenLevelsofOrganizationalConsciousnessmodel(BVCc,n.d.).ItemsincludedbothanEnglishandSwedishtranslation,andwereorderedalphabetically,bytheirEnglishterm.SeetheInterviewGuideinAppendixAforthecompleteworksheet.TheadditionofthisactivityisapointofdeparturefromthemixedmethodsdescribedbyRäisänenandGunnarson(2004).Thisactivityconstitutesaquantitativemethodandwasusedfordatatriangulation.Toencouragemotivation,itwasemphasizedthatfollow-upfromthisactivitywouldbeprovidedduringthefocusgroupexercise.
4.4 DesigningtheFocusGroup
Thethemesselectedforexplorationinthefocusgroupweredeterminedbywayofapreliminarydataanalysisutilizingacombinationofmethods.Thesemethodswereinspiredbygroundedtheoryprocedures(Tayloretal.,2015),DesignThinking,DeepDemocracydialoguetools(Sande,2015),andmyyogatherapytrainingfromFunctionalSynergy.BothDesignThinkingandDeepDemocracydialoguetoolswereintroducedandpracticedduringtheChallengeLabpreparatorycourse,andalso,Phase1oftheChallengeLabthesisprogramme.Figure4-1andFigure4-2documentmybrainstormingandplanningprocess,pullingontheaforementionedmethods.ThefollowingsectiondescribeshowIthendecidedtoconductmyfocusgroup.
27
Figure4-1:Brainstorming(a)
28
Figure4-2:Brainstorming(b)
4.5 TheFocusGroup
Thefocusgroupbeganwithallparticipantsseatedinacircle.Iactedasthefacilitator,whilemythesissupervisorsatoutsidethecircleandactedasanobserver,takingnotes.Ibeganthefocusgroupbyfirstthankingallparticipantsforattendingandthengivingthemanintroductionastowhytheywerethere.Thereasonswerestatedasfollows:
1. Tounderstandtheirperspectivesonwhatittakestobealeaderwithinanorganizationwithhighsustainabilityambitions;
2. Furthermore,thatbothparticipantsandfacilitatorcouldenjoythemselvesandhopefullylearnsomethingnewtogether.
Iemphasizedmyneutralityandtheimportanceoftherebeingno“wrong”answersduringthissession.IalsostatedthatthisfocusgroupwasanopportunityformetopracticesomeofthedialoguefacilitationskillsIhavebeenlearningintheChallengeLab.
Followingtheintroduction,thefocusgroupsessionconsistedofthefollowingphases:
i. Check-inii. In-depthexplorationonselectedtheme
29
iii. Inquiryintosecondarythemeiv. Check-out
InspiredbySande(2015),andRäisänen&Gunnarson(2004),thecheck-inconsistedofthreequestions:1)Statementofnameandjobtitle;2)Whatthreewordsdescribeleadership?3)Doyouwanttobehere?Iansweredthequestionsfirstsoastoserveasanexample,settingthetone,paceandlevelofdepthexpected.Theparticipantscouldthenanswerastheyfeltreadytoina“popcorn”manner,i.e.noordernecessaryinwhorespondedwhen,soastoreducepersonalstressoranxietyofhavingananswerreadyjustbecauseofapredeterminedorder.Irecordedthewordsparticipantsusedtodescribeleadershiponlargepost-itnotesinadark,thickfeltmarker.
Becauseallparticipants,includingmyself,werefamiliarwithoneanother,thefirstquestionwasnecessarysothatvoicescouldbematchedandunderstoodwhenreviewingtheaudiorecording;askingforastatementoftitlewasalsousedfordata(verification)onhowtheydescribedthemselvesincomparisontointerviews.Additionally,thisinformationwashelpfultomysupervisorwhowasobserving,andwhowasmeetingthesepeopleforthefirsttime.Thesecondquestionwastoserveasthestartingpointforphase(ii),thein-depthexplorationphase.Askingthelastquestion,“doyouwanttobehere?”servedthepurposeoflowering“thewaterline”,orrather,tensionsandawkwardnessamongsttheparticipants(Sande,2015).
Afterthecheck-inwascompleted,Itookallthepost-itswithwordstheparticipantsusedtodescribeleadershipandplacedthemonanadjacentwhiteboard.Thepost-itsweregroupedaccordingtosimilarwords/themes.Ithenbeganaskingtheparticipantsiftheycouldelaborateastowhytheychoosethewordstheydid.Asfacilitator,Iaskedthefollowingopen-ended,leadingquestionsforeachofthewordsonthewhiteboardtoassistintheexploration.TheformatofthesequestionwereinspiredbymyFunctionalSynergytraining,andtheworksofRäisänenandGunnarson(2004).
i. Whatneedstobeinplaceforsuchqualitiestobeexpressed,andputinaction?ii. WhataresomeofthepositivethingsthatarealreadyhappeninginM-Labthatsupportthat
quality?iii. Aretherethingsthatarehappening(withinM-Lab)thatyoudon’tthinkshouldbehappeningin
ordertosupportsuchleadershipqualities?iv. Whataresomethingsthatarenothappeningnow,withinM-Labthatyoufeelshouldbe
happeninginordertosupporttheseleadershipqualities?
Asdiscussionswerehappening,Icapturedthekeystatementsonthewhiteboard.Statementswerecolourcoded,asbestaspossible,tomaintainsomelevelofclarityinthethoughtprocessamongstthemultitudeofstatements:blackcorrespondingto(i)above,bluecorrespondingto(ii)and(iv),andredfor(iii).
Afterathoroughelaborationoneachtheme,Iaskedtheparticipantsforthreewordsthatcometotheirmindswiththesecondarythemeofinquiry(iii),thatofemployeefulfillment.Similarquestionswereposedasaboveforthethemeofleadership,however,thisremainedasaverbaldiscussionduetotimeconstraints.
Followingthis,Iledthegroupinthecheck-out.Forthecheck-out,Iaskedeachparticipanttoanswerthefollowingtwoquestions,againinapop-cornstyle:howareyoufeelingnow?Whatisyourtake-away,orrather,“pearloftheoyster”fromthissession?Assimilartothecheck-in,I,thefacilitator,ledthecheck-outtosetthetone,pace,andlevelofdepthexpected.
30
4.6 DataAnalysis
ThesustainabilitygoalsandambitionsofM-Labimplythattheyareseekingtobeofservicetotheircommunityatlarge,andalsototheplanet.Therefore,itisreasonabletoutilizeRichardBarrett’s7LevelsofOrganizationalConsciousnessModelfortheanalysis.Furthermore,theConsciousnessModelprovidesacomprehensiveinclusionofthesustainabilitycriteriathatwasdevelopedbythe2016ChallengeLabStudents;referto6.1ModelJustificationforajustificationofthemodel.
Statementsfrominterviewtranscriptionswerecodedandclassifiedasappropriatetoalignwiththeforty-fourspecifictermsidentifiedforeachlevelofthesevenlevelsonBarrett’sOrganizationalConsciousnessModel,seeFigure4-3.Insomecases,additionaltermswereaddedtoeachlevelinordertoappropriatelycaptureintervieweestatements;IfolloweddescriptionssummarizedinTable3-1toguidemyclassification.Thestatementswereorganizedtomakereferencetowhichintervieweemadethestatement,andwhichquestionthestatementwasmadeinresponseto.Thenumberofstatementsmadeweretotaledforeachcategory,andforeachinterviewee.Radargraphswerethendevelopedtoprovideavisualillustration.Datafromthevaluesexercise,andthefocusgroupwereusedtocorroboratedatafromtheinterviews.
Figure4-3:SevenLevelsofOrganizationalConsciousness(BVCc,n.d.)
Originalcommunicationdiagramsweredrawnonthecomputer,usingMicrosoftPowerpoint.Besteffortsweremadetokeepcomputerdrawingstooriginalscale,andorientation.Specificemployeenamesweretranslatedtotheirpseudotitlesforconfidentiality.Thistranslationtocomputerrenderingswasdonesoastocreateaneutralframeofreferenceforviewingandanalyzing.Figure4-4providesillustrationsoftwohanddrawnsociometricdiagramsadjacenttotheircomputerdrawndiagrams.
31
Figure4-4:Examplesofsociometricdiagrams
32
CChhaapptteerr55::RReessuullttss
ThisempiricalstudywiththeM-Labillustratedthefollowingfindingsamongsttheparticipants:
1. Alimitedunderstandingofsustainability;2. Personalandorganizationalperspectivesofsustainabilitylackalignment;3. Theabilityofthemanagementgrouptousethepotentialoftheirhumanresourcestoovercome
obstaclestowardsimplementationofsustainabilitygoalsexists,however,itappearstoexhibitqualitiesoflatency5andvacancy6.
Inotherwords,theM-Labdemonstratedalowleveloforganizationalconsciousness,inthecontextofsustainability,duetoahighlevelofculturalentropy,aninabilitytoactivateemployee’sdiscretionaryenergy,andanimpliedhighlevelofpersonalentropy.Furthermore,theresultsindicatethattheM-Labiscurrentlylackingactivationofemployee’sdiscretionaryenergyduetounfulfilledneedsandlackofaninspiring,unitingvision.
Table5-1presentstheresultsfromthevaluesexerciseconductedduringtheinterviewsincombinationwiththetallyofsustainabilityperspectivesdescribedbytheparticipantsinaccordancewitheachleveloftheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodel.Theresultsindicatealackofcoherenceamongstvaluescurrentlypresentintheorganizationandperspectivesheldbytheparticipantsacrossthecategoriesofpersonalsustainability,currentorganizationalsustainabilityanddesiredorganizationalsustainability.ThehighlightedcellsinTable5-1arethosewithanassociationmadebyhalformoreoftheinterviewparticipants.
FollowingTable5-1theresultsarepresentedinaccordancewitheachleveloftheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodel.Icomplementthedescriptionswithgraphicalillustrationssothatthereadercanmoreeasilycomprehendtheseseeminglyabstractconcepts.Eachlevelisaccompaniedwithagraphicalportrayaltoprovideaclearillustrationoftheabsenceofdepthandalignmentintheunderstandingofsustainabilityacrossthefollowingthreecategories:
1) Personalviews,2) Viewsheldbyeachindividualofthecurrentorganization,and,3) Desiresofeachinterviewparticipantforwhattheywouldliketheorganizationtoachievewith
regardstosustainability,andwhattheyexpectofeachindividualintheorganizationwithrespecttosustainability.
ThenumbersontheradialaxesrepresentthenumberofparticipantsthatmadeastatementreflexiveofthatparticularlevelontheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodel.Inotherwords,forM-Labtoembodyastateof“fullspectrumconsciousness”(Barrett,2010)alltenparticipantsshould(ideally)beabletofreelyassociatesustainabilitywithcharacteristicsandvaluespertainingtoallsevenlevels.Theadditionaltermsarerepresentedoneachfigurewithanasterisk(*)foreasieridentification.Thereafter,resultsfromthesocio-metricdiagramsarepresented,followedbythosefromthefocusgroup.Thischapterendswithasummaryofthemainfindings.
5Latencyisdefinedas,“presentandcapableofemergingordeveloping,butnotnowvisible,obvious,oractive”(Merriam-Webster,2015a).6Vacancyisdefinedas,“devoidofthought,reflection,orexpression”andasthe,“absenceofappropriatecontentsoroccupants”(Merriam-Webster,2015b).
33
Table5-1:Resultsofthevaluesexerciseandinterpretationsofsustainabilityperspectives
VVaalluueessEExxeerrcciissee PPeerrssoonnaall CCuurrrreenntt DDeessiirreedd
7:ServicetoHumanity&the
Planet
Long-TermPerspective 55 2 2 2Humility 2 1 0 1Ethics 2 2 3 0SocialResponsibility 1 44 66 3Compassion 0 0 0 0FutureGenerations 0 2 0 0
6:MakingaDifference,
StrategicAlliances&Partnerships
EnvironmentalAwareness
88 99 66 4
CommunityInvolvement 4 3 2 3EmployeeFulfilment 3 4 0 0Coaching/Mentoring 0 0 1 0
5:InternalCohesion,Building
InternalCommunity
Commitment 88 1 3 66SharedVisionandValues 3 2 2 55Trust 3 0 1 0Integrity 2 0 0 3Creativity 2 1 0 1Transparency 1 0 0 0Passion 1 0 0 0Openness 1 0 0 1
4:Transformation,Continuous
Renewal&Learning
Teamwork 66 0 0 0Accountability 66 3 0 0Adaptability 2 0 0 0GoalsOrientation 2 1 3 66PersonalGrowth 1 0 0 0Empowerment 0 1 1 0
3:Self-esteem,HighPerformance
Processes 77 3 2 3Quality 2 1 3 2PrideinPerformance 2 1 2 3BestPractices 1 1 1 3Complacency 1 0 2 0Bureaucracy 1 0 0 0Systems 0 1 2 4
2:Relationship,Harmonious
Relationships
CustomerSatisfaction 55 0 1 1Loyalty 3 1 1 1OpenCommunication 3 0 0 1Friendship 2 0 0 0Blame 1 0 0 0Manipulation 0 0 0 0
1:Survival,FinancialStability
EmployeeHealth 4 77 4 0Safety 2 2 3 0ShareholderValue 2 0 0 0OrganizationalGrowth 1 1 0 0Corruption 0 0 0 0Control 0 0 0 0Greed 0 0 0 0
34
5.1 Level7–ServicetoHumanityandthePlanet
SocialResponsibilityisoneattributethatmorethanhalfoftheinterviewparticipantsassociatedsustainabilitywithfromacurrentorganizationalperspective.Yet,therewasonlyoneparticipantthatidentifiedthisattributeasbeingpresentcurrentlyintheorganizationduringthevaluesexercise.Lessthanhalfoftheparticipantsverbalizedtheassociationofsocialresponsibilityandsustainabilityfromapersonalanddesirablestate.
Havingalong-termperspectivewasavalueidentifiedbyhalfoftheparticipantsascurrentlypresentintheorganizationduringthevaluesexercise.However,onlyoneparticipantdescribedtheirorganizationalroleinreferencetoalonger-termperspective,andjustoneotherparticipantdescribedhis/hertypicaldayinrelationtothisquality.Nevertheless,fourparticipantsidentifiedM-Lab’slonger-termbusinessperspectiveasoneoftheirmotivatingfactorsforchoosingtoworkthere.Onlytwoparticipantsconnectedlong-termperspectivewithsustainabilityineachofthethreecategories:personal,currentorganizationanddesired.
Incomparisontolong-termperspectivebeingidentifiedbyfiveofthetenparticipantsinthevaluesexercise,noparticipantidentifiedthesimilar,yetperhapsmoretangiblevalueoffuturegenerations.Intermsofsustainability,futuregenerationswasdiscussedbyonlytwoparticipantsfromapersonalperspectiveofsustainability.Thislowlevelofassociationwithfuturegenerationswasalsofeltelsewherethroughouttheinterviews.Forinstance,justoneparticipantidentifiedfuturegenerationsasareasonforworkingatM-Labduetotheabilitytoworkalongsidethe“youngergeneration,beingamentor,conductingstudentsandyoungpeopleintotheworkingenvironment.”
Compassionwastheonequalityfromthislevelinwhichnoparticipantconnectedwithsustainabilityacrossanyofthethreeperspectives.Additionally,noneofthetenparticipantsidentifiedcompassionasavaluepresentintheorganizationduringthevaluesexercise.Whenparticipantswereaskedtodescribethreeoftheirpersonalvalues,onlyoneparticipantstatedcompassion.
TheradargraphofFigure5-1illustratestheassociationparticipantsmadewithsustainabilityacrossthethreeperspectivesforthisparticularleveloftheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodel:personal,currentorganizationalanddesiredorganizational.Thetwoqualitiesofjusticeandaskforhelp,usehelpwereadditionalattributesdescribedbyparticipantsrelevanttothislevel,yetnotexplicitlystatedintheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodel,seeFigure4-3;thesearemarkedwithanasterisk(*).Intheidealscenario,theradargraphshouldbefilledouttotheoutermostcircle,signallingthatalltenparticipantscouldassociateeachqualityacrossthethreesustainabilityperspectives.
35
Figure5-1:Level7SustainabilityPerspectives
5.2 Level6–MakingaDifference,StrategicAlliances&Partnerships
Environmentalawarenessisthequalityidentifiedbythegreatestnumberofparticipantsasnineofouttenintervieweesmadethisconnectionwiththeirpersonalperspectiveofsustainability.Thatbeingsaid,onlysixmadestatementsreflectingthatwithinthecurrentorganization,andonlyfourparticipantsassociatedthatwithsomethingtheywouldliketheorganizationtoachievewithregardstosustainability.Incomparison,eightofthetenparticipantsidentifiedenvironmentalawarenessaspresentintheorganizationduringthevaluesexercise.Interestingly,onlytwoparticipantsdescribedtheirorganizationalroleassomethingpertainingtoenvironmentalawareness,while,oneparticipantdescribedhis/herassociationwithprofessionalenvironmentalnetworks.Duringthesocio-metryexercise,justthreeparticipantsindicatedtheycommunicatewiththeemployeeresponsibleforM-Lab’sISO14001EnvironmentalManagementSystem.
Althoughtherewerefourintervieweesthatidentifiedemployeefulfillmentwithsustainabilityfromapersonalperspective,noparticipantmadereferencetosuchtraitwhenaskedtodescribewhatsustainabilitymeanscurrentlyforM-Lab.Also,noparticipantdescribedadesirablestateoftheorganization,intermsofsustainability,withemployeefulfillment.Nevertheless,threeparticipantsidentifiedemployeefulfillmentinthevaluesexerciseassomethingthatcharacterizesM-Labtoday.Furthermore,adifferentsetofthreeparticipantsdescribedtheircurrentroleinamannerthatidentifieswithemployeefulfillment,whiletwoothersassociatedthecharacteristicasamotivatingfactorforcomingtoworkatM-Labastheyfeltasenseofalignmentoftheirpersonalvalues,withthoseoftheorganization.Thislowlevelofassociationandrecognitionofthevalueoftheemployeefulfillmentisimportanttonoteduetoits’correlationwithwhatsupportsahighlymotivatedperson,accordingtoBarrett(2010).
Nostatementswerefoundtoconnectthevalueofcoaching/mentoringwithsustainabilityfromapersonalperspective,andalsoforwhatisdesirableforM-Labtoachievewithregardstosustainability.However,therewasoneparticipantwhodidassociatecoaching/mentoringwithsustainabilityfromacurrentorganizationalperspectivestatinghowhe/shetriestocoachthosehe/sheisresponsiblefor,withregardstobalancingacrossthethreepillarsofsustainability.But,thisparticipantadmitssuchcoachingisseldomdone.
36
Inregardstocurrentcircumstances,noparticipantsidentifiedcoaching/mentoringassomethingpresentintheorganizationtodayduringthevaluesexercise;onlyonepersonfeltthathe/shesometimesviewedatypicalworkdayasbeingacoachtoothersintheorganization.Threeothersdescribedtheirrolesinvolvingsomesortofcoaching,although,therewasrecognitionthisisn’tdoneveryoften.
AttentiononleadershipdevelopmentisalsopertinenttothislevelaccordingtoTable3-1.Whentheparticipantswereaskedaboutwhatkindofleadershiptrainingwasgiventostaff,therewascompleteagreementthatnonewasgivenatM-Lab,norevenproactivelyconsideredonpersonaldevelopmentplans.Acouplerespondentsdidmakeitevidentthatifanemployeewasinterestedinanysortoftraining,theywouldjusthavetopresentittotheirmanager,anditwouldlikelybeapproved.Othersrespondedinamannerthatclearlyassociatedthetermleadershipwithbeingamanager,forinstance,“consideringI’mnotaleaderinanyway,Ihaven’treceivedanyleadershiptraining.”Also,throughoutsomeoftheinterviews,thetermsofleadershipandmanagementwereusedinterchangeablyandnotdiscussedinamannerresemblingacknowledgementofanydifferencebetweenthetwo.
Giventhattheentiremanagementteamwasinterviewed,inadditiontotheM-Lab’sdesiretobealeaderinsustainablecampussolutions,itseemssurprisingthattherewasnotaperspectiveontheneedforanactiveapproachtoleadershipdevelopmentwithintheorganization,andbeyondthemanagementteam.GiventhatBarrett(2010)statesthatself-masteryandpersonalleadershiparethekeystoreducingentropy,activingdiscretionaryenergyandraisingorganizationalconsciousness,itiscauseforconcernthatattentionisnotbeingplacedonpersonalleadershipdevelopment.
Furtherpointstonote,althoughperhapsnotsurprisinggiventheabove,isthelowlevelofassociationparticipantshaveofleadershipandsustainability.Lessthanhalfoftheparticipants(four)madeastatementdesiringM-Labtobealeaderinthefieldofsustainability.Justthreeparticipantsdescribedleadershipinrelationtocurrentsustainabilitypracticesattheorganization,whilenooneassociatedleadershipwithsustainabilityfromapersonallevel.
Figure5-2illustratestheradarchartforthisparticularleveloftheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodelinregardstotheparticipants’perspectivesofsustainabilityacrossthethreecategoriesofpersonal,currentorganizationanddesired.NotethattherewereanumberofqualitiesaddedtothislevelfromthatofFigure4-3.Theseareindicatedwithanasterisk(*):tobealeader,balance,rolemodel,influence,and,integrated.SimilartoFigure5-1,intheidealscenario,allringsonFigure5-2shouldbefilledoutwithallthreesustainabilityperspectivesindicatingthatalltenparticipantscouldassociationsustainabilitywiththeindicatedqualities.
37
Figure5-2:Level6SustainabilityPerspectives
5.3 Level5–InternalCohesion,BuildingInternalCommunity
Duringthevaluesexercise,commitmentwasidentifiedbyeightoutofthetenparticipantsassomethingthatispresentintheorganizationtoday.Thisthemecarriedthroughinotherareasexploredintheinterviews.Forinstance,participants’commitmenttotheirchosencareerpathisexemplifiedinthat9outof10employeesarepartofformalandinformalnetworksconnectedwiththeircareers,insupportoftheworktheydoatM-Lab.Fromapersonalstandpoint,theparticipants’alsoshowedtheircommitmenttotheirworkwhenasked,“Whatgetsyouupinthemorning?”,andeightparticipantsrespondedwithstatementssuchas,“Ilikemywork”or,“Ilovemyjob.”Additionally,participantsappearedtohaveafairlyfocusededucationalbackgroundandpriorworkexperienceintherealestatesector,furthersupportingtheircommitmenttotheirlineofwork.
However,thestoryisabitdifferentwhenitcomestoperspectivesonsustainability.Onlyoneparticipantreferencedcommitmentinrelationtosustainabilityfromapersonalperspective,whilethreereferencedcommitmentfromacurrentorganizationalperspectivebydescribingM-Lab’spurposeofsupportingChalmer’svisionforasustainablefuture.Thatbeingsaid,therewasmoreattentionwhenparticipantswereaskedwhattheydesireofeachemployeeatM-Lab,inregardstosustainability,assixintervieweesidentifiedhowtheywouldliketheircolleaguestobeinterestedinsustainabilityandalwaysthinkingabout“howwecoulddoitbetter.”
Thestatementsmadebytheeightparticipantswhorespondedwith,“Ilikemywork”or,“Ilovemyjob”asdescriptionsoftheirmorningwake-upmotivation,couldalsobeinterpretedtoindicatealevelnotonlyofcommitment,butalsoofpassion.However,duringthevaluesexercise,onlyoneparticipantidentifiedthistraitbeingpresentintheorganizationtoday,and,onlytwoparticipantsdescribedtheirorganizationalroleinamannerexemplifyingpassion.Inthecontextofsustainability,noneoftheparticipantsmadeanyassociationwiththeneedforpassionacrossanyofthethreesustainabilityperspectives.
AdesirabletraitwhenitcomestosustainabilityishavingSharedVisionandValues;thiswasexpressedbyhalfoftheparticipants.However,onlytwoparticipantsmadereferencetothisinresponsetowhatiscurrentlyhappeningintheM-Labtodaywithregardstosustainability,withonlyanothertwoparticipantsreferencingthisfromapersonalperspectiveofsustainability.Duringthevaluesexercise,onlythreeparticipantsidentifiedthisasbeingpresentintheorganizationtoday.Thislowassociationisperhapsnot
38
surprisinggiventhattherewasnointerviewparticipantthatdescribedtheirmotivationforwakingupinthemorningasbeingtheopportunitytocontributetotheimplementationofaninspiringvisionatwork.Alackoffeelingamongstemployeesthattheyarecontributingtoaninspiringvisionrestrictsactivationoftheirdiscretionaryenergy.
Trustwasidentifiedbyonlythreeparticipantsinthevaluesexerciseasatraitcurrentlypresentintheorganization.Furthermore,trustlackedcorrelationwithsustainabilityastherewasonlyoneparticipantwhoreferredtotrustduringthatsectionoftheinterview.ThevacancyofthisqualityisnoteworthyasSandowandAllen(2005)identifythattrustisaprecursortobuildingcollaboration,excitementandparticipant,seeFigure1-7.Furthermore,Edmondson(1999)describestheneedfortrustamongstteammemberstonurturepsychologicalsafety.
Alsorelatingtopsychologicalsafety,isthetraitofopennessasitimpliesalevelofcomforttobeoneself.Unfortunately,onlyoneintervieweeidentifiedopennessaspresentinthecurrentorganizationduringthevaluesexercise.Furtherstill,therewasonlyoneparticipantwhoreferencedopennessinthecontextofsustainability.Thispersondescribedtheneedtobeopen,includingtheabilityto“beopentocriticism”asadesirabletraitinthecontextofsustainability.
AnadditionalqualityassociatedwiththislevelfromTable3-1isthatofthecapacityforcollectiveaction.Thiswasillustratedthroughthethemeof“us”vs“them”thatwasbroughtupmultipletimesthroughouttheinterviewinvariousquestionsIposed;the“us”referringtothemanagementteam,and“them”referringtoallotheremployees.Inotherwords,therewasavoidofstatementsreferringtotheorganizationasacollective“whole.”ThisthemewaslaterconfirmedintheFocusGroup.Furthermore,thesociometricexercisegavesomeexamplesreflectingsubtletiesofalackofacollectivewholebetweenthoseinmanagementandthosenotinmanagement.Forinstance,inonediagram,aparticipantdistinguishedfourdifferentgroupsofwhomhe/shecommunicateswithinhis/herrole:tworepresentingexternalnetworks/groups,andtworepresentingtheinternalorganization.Thelattertwoweredistinguishedwithlabelsspecifying1)aparticularmanager,and,2)“employees.”Therewasnofurtherdistinctionorelaborationmade.Furthermore,thereweretwoparticipantswhomindicateddifferentgroupsofinternalM-Labcolleagues(inadditiontoexternalgroups)theycommunicatewithfortheirroles.However,thesetwoparticipantsmadenoexplicitreferencetoanyoneontheM-Labmanagementteam.
Figure5-3displaystheresultsofthethreesustainabilitycategoriesamongstalltraitspertinenttothislevelaccordingtotheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodelinFigure4-3.Therearesixadditionaltraits,markedwithanasterisk(*)thatweredescribedbyparticipantsandarerelevanttothislevel.Ideally,theradargraphwouldbefilledouttotheoutermostcirclewithalltenparticipantsbeingabletoverbalizeallqualitiesacrossallthreesustainabilityperspectives.
39
Figure5-3:Level5SustainabilityPerspectives
5.4 Level4–Transformation,ContinuousRenewal&Learning
TeamworkwasidentifiedbyamajorityoftheparticipantsasanattributecurrentlypresentintheM-Laborganization.However,onlythreeparticipantsdescribedtheirroleinrelationtoworkingasateam.Furthermore,theparticipants’renderings,fromthesociometryexercise,ofhowandwhotheycommunicatewithintheirorganizationalroleslackedasenseorrecognitionofteamwork;onlytwoparticipantsusedtheword“team”somewhereontheirsocio-metricdiagram.Additionally,noneofthetenparticipantsassociatedtheconceptofteamworkacrossanythreeofthesustainabilityperspectives.
Accountabilitywasafairlystrongattributeidentifiedbytheparticipants.First,itwasidentifiedbyamajorityoftheinterviewparticipantsduringthevaluesexerciseasanattributepresentintheorganizationcurrently.Second,sixoutoftenparticipantsconnectedaccountabilitywiththedescriptionoftheirorganizationalroleatM-Lab.Thatbeingsaid,whenitcomestosustainabilityperspectives,therewaslittleassociation;theonlyreferencewasmadebythreeparticipantsfromapersonalsustainabilityperspectivee.g.,“[onapersonallevel,sustainabilitymeans]takingresponsibility,beingawareofactions”.
Ahighlydesirableattributeforsustainabilityidentifiedbysixparticipantswasthatofbeinggoalorientated.However,itwasonlyreferencedbyoneparticipantfromapersonalperspectiveofsustainabilitystating,“howcanwe[each]impactUNSDGs?”OnlythreeparticipantsreferredtoM-Lab’scurrentorientationtowardssupportingChalmers’sustainabilitygoals.Perhapsthisisnotsurprisinggiventhatjusttwoparticipantsidentifiedgoalsorientationasaqualitycurrentlypresentintheorganizationduringthevaluesexercise.Furthermore,therewasonlyoneintervieweewhodescribedtheirroleinrelationtogoals,whilejustoneotherparticipantdescribedhis/hertypicaldayas,“workingwithChalmersonsustainabilitygoals.”
Barrett(2010)describeshowpersonalmastery,accomplishedthroughcontinuouslearning,self-developmentandself-leadershipskills,iscrucialtoreducebothpersonalentropyandultimatelyculturalentropy.InparticularreferencetothisarethequalitiesontheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodelofpersonalgrowth,empowermentandeducation7.Unfortunately,onlyoneintervieweeidentifiedpersonal
7AsreferencedinTable3-1.
40
growthasbeingpresentinthecurrentM-Laborganization.Furthermore,noneofthetenintervieweesidentifiedempowermentasbeingpresentinthecurrentorganizationduringthevaluesexercise.Theabsenceofthesetwoqualitieswasalsofeltwhendiscussingsustainability:noneoftheparticipantsassociatedpersonalgrowthacrossanyofthesustainabilityperspectives,and,onlyoneparticipantacknowledgedempowermentfromapersonalandcurrentorganizationalperspective.
Althougheducationwasnotonthevaluesexercise,itwasfoundtobeahighlydesirabletraitforsustainabilityassevenofthetenparticipantsdescribedtheneedforeducationandintegrationofknowledgeforachievementoftheorganization’ssustainabilityambitions.Therewerearangeofstatementsmadepertainingtothis,someinclude:“Ineedtolearn,andIhopepeoplecananswerbetterthanme”,“ifwelearnsomethingnew,weneedtotakeitintoourroutines”,“weneedtoincreaseourknowledge”,and,“weneedtouseChalmersknowledgesowecanbealeader.”Thatbeingsaid,therewasnoassociationbetweeneducationandwhatsustainabilitymeansonapersonallevel.OneparticipantconnectededucationwiththecurrentlevelofsustainabilityatM-Labrecognizingthatthereisa“lackofknowledge.”
ReflexivityandseekingoutothersopinionsaredescribedinTable3-1aspertinenttothisleveloftheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodel.Whenaskedabouthoweachrespondentquestionsiftheyaredoingthe“right”activityatwork,itappearedthereisalackofreflexivitybuiltintotheorganizationtoformallyaddressthisinacommonplatform.Tworespondentsrepliedwithacomplacenttone:“Goodquestion”,and,“Youaredoingtherightthingbecauseotherwisesomeonewouldhavetoldyou.”Threeotherparticipantsrespondedsayingthatthiswassomethingtheyaskthemselvesontheirowneveryday.Generalcommentsweremadeaboutinquiringwithcolleagues,althoughonlyspecificallywithothersinthemanagementteam.
Figure5-4identifiestheattributespertinenttothisleveloftheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodelinthecontextofthethreesustainabilityperspectives.Notethattherearesixadditionalattributesdiscussedbyparticipantsasrelevanttothethreesustainabilityperspectives,markedwithanasterisk(*).Thefigureshowsthelackofrecognitionbyparticipantsofthequalitiesassociatedwithsustainabilityasalltencirclesarenotfilledout.
Figure5-4:Level4SustainabilityPerspectives
41
5.5 Level3–Self-esteem,HighPerformance
Overall,forthisparticularleveloftheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodel,itwasillustratedthattheparticipantshavealowlevelofassociationwiththeseattributesfrombothacurrentorganizationalvalueslevel,andalso,fromasustainabilityperspective.Theonlyattributeinthislevelthatwasidentifiedbymorethanhalftheparticipantswasthatofprocesses.Thiswasidentifiedbysevenparticipantsduringthevaluesexercise.Therewerejustacoupleparticipantsthatidentifiedprocessesasnecessaryacrossthethreesustainabilityperspectives.OneparticipantreferencedM-Lab’sISO14001ManagementSystem,whileanotherstated“[processesforsustainability]arenotinsomuchfocus,that’swhywearebringinginatooltoassistindecisionmaking.”ThreeparticipantsexpressedtheirdesireforprocessestoassistinM-Lab’ssustainabilityambitions.
Inasimilarcategory,systemsweredescribedbyoneparticipantasnecessaryforpersonalsustainability,e.g.“democracy”and“makingsure[therearesystemsso]thateverythingrunsefficiently.”TwopeoplereferencedsystemswhenaskedaboutcurrentsustainabilityeffortsattheM-Lab,andfourparticipantsstatedtheirdesireforsystemstoenableachievementoftheorganization’ssustainabilitygoals.Noparticipantidentifiedsystemsduringthevaluesexercise.Comparatively,thelackofacknowledgementofsystemsisalsoillustratedinthatonlyoneparticipantreferencedM-Lab’sISO14001EnvironmentalManagementSystem.Furthermore,andasdiscussedpreviouslyinLevel6,onlythreeparticipantsindicatedtheycommunicatewiththeemployeeresponsibleforM-Lab’sISO14001EnvironmentalManagementSystemduringthesociometryexercise.
Qualitywasassociatedbyoneintervieweeaspartoftheirperspectiveofsustainabilityfromapersonallevel,statingthat“[partof]wellbeingistohaveniceworkenvironments”.AlthoughtwoparticipantsdescribedaspectsofqualityinM-Lab’scurrentsustainabilitywork,oneparticipantcounteredthatstatingthatsustainabilityatM-Labiscurrently,“mostlywords”.Nonetheless,twoparticipantsexpresseddesireforqualityinwhatandhowM-Labbuilds,whileanothertwoparticipantsidentifiedqualityasatraitcurrentlypresentintheorganizationduringthevaluesexercise.
InthisleveloftheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodel,therewasalsoidentificationofthefollowinglimitingfactors:complacency,bureaucracy,long-hours/demandingworkenvironment,and,confusion.ComplacencywasexpressedwhenaskedaboutcurrentsustainabilityeffortsatM-Labandtwoparticipantsrespondedwith,“there-organizationhascausedsustainabilitytofallbehind”and“[sustainabilityis]mostlywords”.Furthermore,oneparticipantidentifiedcomplacencyduringthevaluesexercise,aswellasbureaucracy.Additionally,fourinterviewparticipantsdescribedtheirtypicalworkdayasconsistingof“meetings,meeting,andmoremeetings”,implyingbureaucraticprocesses.
Intermsoflong-hours/demandingworkenvironment,oneparticipantmadeastatementthatcertainindividualsarenotgivenadequatetimeandspacetodeliverandworkwiththeirsustainabilitymessages.Moreimportantly,yetoutsideofthedirectsustainabilitycontext,sevenoutoftenparticipantsdescribedthedemandingworkenvironmentasacharacteristicmakingitdifficulttocometowork.Examplesinclude,“somanypeopletoinform”,“therequirementstoconsidersomanypeoples’wishesandthoughtwhenmakingdecisions”,“howtokeepupwiththeconstantinflowofinformation?”and“thefeelingthatyoudon’tdoenough.”Additionally,sixparticipantsstatedtheirrelianceonthealarmclocktogetthemoutofbedinthemorning.Lastly,whenaskedtodescribeatypicalworkday,oneparticipantrecognizedhis/her“massivecalendarandchallengetoproducefreetime,tobetospendwithemployees.”
StatementsfromfourparticipantswereclassifiedunderconfusionfromacurrentorganizationalperspectivebecausetheylackedtheabilitytoprovidearticulateandconcreteexamplesofwhatsustainabilitymeanttoM-Labtoday.Oneparticipantmadethestatementthatsustainabilityis“mostly
42
words”intheorganizationtoday,andanotherrecognizedthatalthoughM-LabisheretosupportChalmersvisionforasustainablefuture,“everyoneprobablyhastheirowninterpretation.”
ConfusionwasalsorevealedinwhattheparticipantsdesireforM-Labtoachievewithregardstosustainability.Theimpressionportrayedthroughfourdifferentparticipantswasthattherehasbeenalackoftimespentinthevisioningprocessforwhattheywouldliketheirorganizationtoachievewithrespecttosustainability.ThisissubstantiatedwiththefollowingresponsesfromdifferentparticipantswhataskedwhattheydesireforM-Labtoachievewithrespecttosustainability,“that’sakindofahardquestion”,“thatpeoplecananswerbetterthanme”,and“it’snotsoclearhowmygroupissupposedto[contribute].”Inaddition,threeparticipantswereunabletodescribeatypicalworkdayastheyfeltthateachdayissodifferent.Twootherparticipantsexpressedconfusionamongstthosetheyworkwithasreasonsmakingitdifficultforthemtocometoworkstating,“ittakesalotofefforttoexplainandmakepeopleunderstand”and“mentalstrainfrompoorcommunicationandthetendencytocomplicatethings.”
Theidentificationoflimitingfactorsisimportantasitexemplifiestheculturalentropywithintheorganizationandtherestrictionoftheorganization’sabilitytoaccessdiscretionaryhumanenergy.Figure5-5illustratestheattributesofthislevelinthecontextofthethreesustainabilityperspectives.Asinthediagramsforthepreviouslevels,theradargraphshouldbefullofallthreeperspectivestoindicatethateachparticipantisabletoassociatesustainabilitywitheachofthepositiveattributesfromthislevel.Confusionandlong-hours/demandingworkenvironmentareadditionalqualitiesaddedfromFigure4-3andindicatedwithanasterisk(*).
Figure5-5:Level3SustainabilityPerspectives
5.6 Level2–Relationship,HarmoniousRelationships
OutofthesevenlevelsoftheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodel,thislevelshowedthegreatestvacancyinacknowledgementofqualitiesnecessaryforsustainability;Figure5-6belowvisualizesthis.Aspersimilarfiguresforthepreviousfivelevels,thisfigureshould,intheidealcase,befilledouttotheoutermostring,signifyingthatalltenparticipantsacknowledgethepositiveattributes.Unfortunately,noneofthequalitieshadrecognitionbymorethanoneparticipant.Furtherstill,therewaspresenceoftwolimitingfactors:blameandintimidation.Blamewasidentifiedbyoneparticipantduringthevalues
43
exercise,andalsobyanotherparticipantwhendescribingwhatmakesitdifficultforhim/hertocometowork,stating“oldthingsinthewallsthatdon’tgoout,likeoldroutines”.Therewaspresenceofintimidationinthecontextofsustainability.However,thiswasmadebyjustoneparticipant,andfromapersonalperspectiveofsustainability.Thisclassificationwasmadebytheparticipant’sexpressionofwhatconstituteda“challengingworkenvironment”inhis/hermind.
Oneaspectofaparticipant’sperspectiveonsustainabilitywascodedtotheattributeofintimidationduetoacombinationofstatementsmadebythisparticularparticipantwhenaskedfortheirinterpretationofsustainability.First,itbeganwiththeparticipantquicklymergingpersonalandorganizationalsustainabilityperspectives,despitemyeffortstomakeitclearwhenIwasaskingforpersonalperspectives,andthencurrentorganizationalperspectives.ThestatementIdrawattentionto,isonepartofthisparticipant’sresponsetothequestionofwhatcomestoyourmindwithregardstosustainability,“Niceworkingenvironments,challengingenvironments,maintaininginnovationsaswearedoing.”Iwouldliketoemphasizetheuseofthephrase,“challengingenvironments.”
WhenIlateraskedthisparticipantwhathe/shedesiresofeachemployeeatM-Labwithregardstosustainability,Ireceivedanarrativeexplainingthisperson’sdesireforeachemployeetohavesustainabilityfocusedintheirmind,andtoconstantlybethinkingabouthowtheirdecisionsaffecttheirsurroundings,theirworld,andthateachemployeequestionsiftheyarereallydoingtherightthing.Thisparticipantthenelaboratedstating,“Somychallengeistowidenthem,tokindofcreateastressinthem.BecauseI’mtearingthemapart.Tensionisimportantwhenyoucomehere(laughs).”Thus,giventhatthisparticipantconnects‘challenge’withstressandtension,Ichoosetoclassifyoneaspectoftheirpersonalsustainabilityperspectivewithintimidation.
Fromapositiveside,halfoftheinterviewparticipantsidentifiedthepresenceofcustomersatisfactionduringthevaluesexercise.However,justtwoparticipantsdescribedtheirroleinamannerreflectingcustomersatisfaction.Intermsofsustainability,oneparticipantassociatedM-Lab’scurrentsustainabilityworkwithcustomersatisfaction,andanotherassociatedthisattributewithwhatisdesirableforM-Lab’ssustainabilitywork.ThelackoffullrecognitionofthevalueofcustomersatisfactionisinterestinggiventhattheM-Lab’scurrentrestructuringistoallowformorecustomeremphasis.
ReferencetoopencommunicationwasonlymadeinwhatisdesirableforhowM-Labistoworkwithsustainability,andwhattheparticipantsexpectofeachemployeeinthecontextofsustainability.Thisreferencewasonlymadebyoneparticipant.Therewereonlythreeparticipantswhoidentifiedopencommunicationasbeingpresentintheorganization,accordingtothevaluesexercise.
AlackofimportanceonfosteringstronginternalcommunicationandcohesiverelationshipsacrossorganizationalboundariesandlevelswithintheM-Labwasillustratedduringthesociometryexercise.Thisispurportedbythefollowingexamples.Outofthetensocio-metricdiagramsconstructedbyeachparticipant,onlyonemadeexplicitreferencetoM-Lab’scommunicationofficer.
Inanotherdiagrambyoneparticipant,therewereeightgroupsidentifiedforwhomhe/shecommunicatedwith,althoughoneofthosewasanemptycircle.Oftheremainingsevengroups,onlyoneofthosemadereferencetotheinternalorganization,andthatwastheM-Labmanagementteam;therewasnoexplicitindicationmadetoanyotherM-Labemployees.Thatbeingsaid,thisparticipantacknowledgedthatbeingtiedupinmeetingsalldaywithexternalpeoplemakesitchallengingforhim/hertobe“visiblefortheorganization.”He/shesaiditisa“shame[tobeso]invisibleforthewholeorganization.”
Furthermore,thereappearedtobeconfusionamongsttheparticipantsinreferenceto“how”theycommunicatewitheachotherintheorganization.Thisapparentlackofappreciationwasevidencedinthedifficultyparticipantshadinaddressingthequestionsof,1)Whodoyoucommunicatewithforyour
44
role?2)Howdoyoucommunicatewiththem?3)Howoftendoyoucommunicatewiththem?Participantsweregenerallyflusteredwhenaskedtodothisexerciseandpuzzledastohowtobegin.Forinstance,oneparticipantstated,“Uh,that’sdifficult,therearesomany[pause]Iamcommunicatingwithsomanypeople,somanylevels[pause].”Inordertocompletethisexercise,theparticipantshadtoputafairbitofthoughtintoit;someappearedtoeaseintotheprocessoncetheybegan,whileothers,appearedtoremainuncomfortable,preferringtohaveitdoneandoverwithassoonaspossible.Fortheseones,Ihadtodosignificantmoreprobinginordertohavetheparticipantsprovideallrequestedinformation.Onlytwoparticipantswereabletofulfillresponsestothethreequestionsinwrittenform.
Perhapsthissenseofuneasinessisnotsurprisinggiventhelackofspecificityindescribingtheirformofcommunication.Thefollowingtermsareanexhaustivelistofwrittenwordsusedbytheparticipants:“meetings”,“inperson”,“one-to-one”,“email”,“halltalk”,“webpagetext”,“advertising”,“socialmedia”,“phone”,“errorreports”.Nootherdescriptorswereusedtodescribetheircommunication.
Complementingthislackofstructureisthatonlythreeparticipantscouldprovideawrittendescriptionofhowoftentheycommunicatewitheachidentifiedpersonand/orgroup.OnereasoncouldbethattheM-LabhadonlybegantherolloutofaneworganizationalstructurejustoveramonthbeforeIconductedtheseinterviews.Thatbeingsaid,eightoutofthetenintervieweesweremembersofthemanagementteam;thus,itisassumedthatthesememberswouldhavethebestknowledgeofanyoneinthecompanyofhowtheneworganizationalstructureistowork.
Thevalueoflisteningwasidentifiedbyoneparticipantasapersonalvalue.However,theonlyassociationofitwithsustainabilitywasintherecognitionbyoneparticipantthatM-Lab’scurrentsustainabilityeffortsinvolve“lotsofmeetingstoknowwhat’sgoingonandwhateachotherisdoing.”Theabsentappreciationforthevalueoflisteningisimportantasitisfundamentalforbuildingunderstanding,trustandcollaborationasdescribedbySandowandAllen(2005)inFigure1-7.
Figure5-6:Level2SustainabilityPerspectives
45
5.7 Level1–Survival,FinancialStability
Sevenoutofthetenintervieweesdescribedtheimportanceofemployeehealthforpersonalsustainabilitywithparticularreferencetothenecessityof,“beingwell”and“wellbeing.”AlthoughfourparticipantsfeltsuchwellnessismeaningfulforsustainabilityinM-Labtoday,thesestatementswerenotattributedtohealthofemployeesinternaltothecompany,butratherthehealthandwellnessofthepeoplewhooccupytheirbuildings.Noreferencewasmadetowell-beingoremployeehealthfromaperspectiveofwhatisdesirablefortheorganizationtoachievewithrespecttosustainability.Duringthevaluesexercise,lessthanhalfidentifiedemployeehealthasatraitcurrentlypresentintheorganization.
Theneedfororganizationalgrowthwasreferencedbyjustoneparticipantinrelationtopersonalsustainability.However,theparticipantwhomadethisreferenceblendedthequestionofpersonalsustainabilitytoorganizationalsustainabilityashe/shedescribedmonthlyeducationalworkshopsonthe17UNSDGs.Theonlyotherreferencetoorganizationalgrowthmadeduringtheinterviewswasasfollows:oneparticipantselectedthisqualityduringthevaluesexercise,anotherdescribedhis/hercurrentroleinawaythatispromotingorganizationalgrowth,and,anotherexpressedtheirmotivationforworkingatM-Labbecauseoftheprojectcontinuityandabilitytogetfeedback.Nevertheless,theassociationwiththisattributeislow.
Similarly,shareholdervaluewasnotdiscussedbyanyparticipantinthecontextofsustainability,fromanyofthethreeperspectives.Theonlyreferencetoshareholdervaluethroughouttheinterviewswasfromthevaluesexercisewherebytwoparticipantsidentifiedthistrait.
Thatbeingsaid,halfoftherespondentsindicatedthatatapersonallevelitisimportanttobe“economicallyefficient”forsustainability.Fourparticipantsreferencedeconomicaspectswhenaskedwhatsustainabilitymeanspresentlytotheorganization.However,therewassomeconfusionassociatedwiththisbytwoparticipants,asexemplifiedbythefollowingstatements,“[theeconomicpillar]isnotsomuchinfocus,that’swhywe’rebringinginatooltoassistindecisionmaking”and“I’mprettyunsureofwhat[M-Lab’s]standingisonthis”.TherewasoneparticipantwhoreferencedtheeconomicpillarofsustainabilityasbeingintegralforM-Lab’sfuturesustainabilitywork.
Figure5-7illustratestheparticipants’sustainabilityperspectiveswiththeattributesassociatedwiththislevel.Note,theabsenceofthelimitingfactors:greed,control,corruptionfromasustainabilityperspective.
46
Figure5-7:Level1SustainabilityPerspectives
5.8 Sociometry
Theexerciseofhavingtheparticipantsdrawtheirownsocio-metricdiagramscorroboratedthefindingofparticipantshavinglittleappreciationoracknowledgementoftheneedsassociatedwithLevel2–Relationships,oftheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodel.Itwasfeltthatthereislittleefforttofosterstronginternalrelationshipsthrougheffectivechannelsofcommunication,andutilizationofresourceswithintheorganization,particularlyinthecontextofthesustainability.IemphasizetheseobservationswiththereminderthatM-Labisarelativelysmallorganizationofonly30-35employees.
Thesociometryexerciserevealedvastlydifferentperspectivesonhoweachparticipantcommunicates,inthecontextoftheirorganizationalrole.Forinstance,themajorityofparticipantsdrewconnectinglinesamongstthemselvesandthosetheyclaimtocommunicatewith.However,twoparticipantsdidnotdrawanyconnectinglines,butratherhadtheidentifiedpersonnel/groups“floating”aroundthem.Figure5-8(a,b)illustratethesedifferences.Someparticipantsensuredtheyuseddoubleheadedarrowsontheirconnectinglinestoensureitwasclearthattheyweresignallingtwo-waycommunication.Othersdrewlineswithnoarrowsateitherend.
Therewasonlyoneparticipantthatdrewinterconnectinglinesamongstdifferentgroupshe/shecommunicateswithtorepresenthowotherscommunicated,inrelationtohis/herrole;refertoFigure5-8(c).Anotheruniquesocio-metricdiagramwasfromoneindividualwhorotatedtheirpagein360degreesashe/shedrewtheirdiagram,seeEErrrroorr!!RReeffeerreenncceessoouurrcceennoottffoouunndd..(d).
Theparticipantsalsochosetorepresentthemselvesindifferentforms;somewrotetheirnameinthemiddleofthepage,somewrote,“me”;othersusedasmileyfaceorstickfigure.Someparticipantsoccupiedthefullpagefortheirdiagram,whileothersoccupiedlessthan20%(approximately);Figure5-8(a,b)serveasanexample.
47
(a)
(d)
(c)
(b)
Figure5-8:SociometricDiagrams(a-d) (d)
48
5.9 FocusGroup
Theseeminglyhighlevelofculturalentropy,coupledwithalowrateofactivationofindividualdiscretionaryenergy,exemplifiesthenecessityforself-leadershipinordertoincreaseorganizationalconsciousnessandimproveorganizationalperformance.Therefore,itwasworthytocentrethefocusgrouparoundthethemeofLeadership.
AlleightintervieweesfromthemanagementteamatM-Labwereinvitedtoattendthefocusgroup,however,onlyfourwereinattendance.I,theresearcher,maintainedaneutralroleinhowIprobedtheparticipantsthroughoutthefocusgroup,carefultoensureIwasnotputtingwordsintheirmouths,asitwasacriticalpieceinthisreflexiveexercisethattheresponsescomefromtheparticipants,notthroughthefacilitator.BasedonthemethoddescribedinChapterIII,theparticipantsexpressedthefollowingtermstodescribeleadership:humbleness,inspiration,compassion,honesty,openness,coaching,interestinothers,culture,organization,structure,cleardirection,translation,and,knowledge.Ithenaskedparticipantstoelaborateonwhatthewordsmeantothem,whattheyfeltwasworkingnowinM-Labtosupportthisquality,andwhataretheircurrentchallengestoenactthisquality.
Themainfindingfromthisfocusgroupwasthattheparticipantsco-constructed(amongstthemselves)astoryofwhatleadershipsignifiestothem.Thatis,theparticipantssawforthemselves,thatleadershipinvolvestwomaincomponents,ononehand,leadershipisaboutthesoftvalues(i.e.,humbleness,inspiration,compassion,honesty,openness,coaching,interestinothers),andontheotherhand,leadershipisaboutthemorestructuredcomponentsoforganization,andprovidingacleardirection.AphotoofthewhiteboardfromtheendofthefocusgroupisshownbelowinFigure5-9.Asummarizedversionofthisphotohasbeenre-drawnonthecomputerandisrepresentedinFigure5-10.Adescriptionoftheattributesthatweregivenmoreattentionduringthefocusgroupensues.
Figure5-9:FocusGroupWhiteboardOutcome
Fromtheperspectiveoftheparticipants,humblenesswasdescribedinthefollowingmanner:“takestime”,“understandeachother”,“culture”,“realism”,“trust”,and“bothpositiveandnegative”.Phrasesusedtodescribecompassionincluded,“havinganinterestinpeopleandwork”,“havingtime”,“listening”,“communication”,and“beingattentivetotheindividual’ssituation.”Coachingwasdescribedinaway
49
that“makesemployeesfeelenabled”,and“shouldbebydefault.”Theparticipantsfeltthattheyarecurrentlytryingtocoach,yettheylacktimetospendonthis.Thislackoftimewasalsofeltasachallengetonurtureinspirationinthecurrentorganization.Culturewasdescribedas“howweactvs.behave”,“corporateculture”,“inthewalls”,“values”and“everyonehasabigroleinthis.”Whenaskedtodescribewhatwashappeningcurrentlyinregardstocultureintheorganization,theresponseswere“weneedtochangevaluewordsandhowwewantthemtowork”,“howtobe”andalso,“weusedtohavelotsofworkshops.”Regardingwhatwasachallengeofcurrentorganizationalculture,theparticipantsrespondedwith,“peoplehaveleftthecompany”,implyingthatthecurrentculturewasnotworkingoutsowellattheM-Lab.Opennesswasanotherattributedescribedbytheparticipants.Totheparticipants,opennesssignifies,“trust”,“awaytothink”,“transparency”,“whattotellemployees”,“dependsonindividualsituation”,“timing,delivery”,and“respectwhenyouhaveavoice.”AsummarytableoftheseattributescanbefoundinAppendixB.Inthewordsoftheparticipants,theattributesdescribedabovewerethosetermedasrelatingto,“theHeart”andareindicatedontheleftsideofFigure5-10.
Theotherhalfoftheattributesdiscussedbytheparticipantswerelatertermedbythegroupasthoserelatingtothe“brain”,i.e.thosefoundontherightsideofFigure5-10.Theattributesdescribedbythefocusgroupparticipantsareasfollows:structurewasdefinedas“tools,givingmoretime,allowingforcompassion”,“predictability”,“clarity”and“senseofdirection.”Achallengetoprovideclarityinthecurrentorganizationwasthatthecurrenttimewasatransitionperiodwitha“loosenedupstructure”,and“uncertainperiods”.Participantsalsodescribedthatthelackofstructurehasprovidedmuchfrustrationintheorganization,andthatemployeesendupputtinginmoretimeatwork.Theparticipantsinterpretedtranslationofknowledgeas“beingpartofalearningcommunity”,“coaching”,investingineveryone”,“translateintopractice,“toteachoneanother”and“clarity”.InregardstowhatisworkinginthisrealmoftranslationofknowledgecurrentlyattheM-Lab,participantsfeltthatthiswas“obvious”.However,theparticipantsalsofeltthatchallengesassociatedwiththismirroredsimilarchallengesfrombeingabletoprovideacleardirection,andthattheorganization“stopsalongtheway.”AsummarytableoftheseattributescanbefoundinAppendix0.
Attheendofthefocusgroup,duringthecheckout,theparticipantsfeltasenseofrelief,andasenseof“opening”bybeingabletoseetheconnectionsbetweenthe“softside,theHeart”,andthemorestructuredsideof“theBrain.”Thisconclusionwasbestexpressedbyoneparticipantatthecheck-out:
“Ithinkcultureisatthecentreofit.Andit’sthebridgebetweentheheartandtheorganization,whichisthebrain…Butthatside,isinneedrightnow(theheart),tohelpusthrough,togetthere.”“Thisishowwe’regoingtofixtheotherthings,isthroughthis[theheart].Andweareveryoftenveryfocusedonthat[thebrains].Wewillgetthereifwehavethosethingswithus,Ithink.”
Nevertheless,thereflectionsoftheparticipantsatthecheck-outarenoteworthy,withjustoneparticipantdescribingfeelingscontrarytotheothers:
“Iseeapattern,whichgivesmeasenseofrelief.”
“Ialsofeelrelieved….it’sakindofopening.”“ItakewithmeandIseethatwehaveto,wehavetolistenandtakewithusallofthis.”
“Ifeelgood….IamfrustratedbecausemaybeIamtooeagertogettoourgoalquicker,Ifeelthat…Maybeweshouldreallysitdownandthinkabouthowlongthiswilltake.Andmaybebeabitmorerealistic….Or,ontheotherhand,sometimesIthinkwedon’tworksmart.AndI’mactuallynotsurewhichofit,isit.Andthattroublesme…alot…”
50
Insummary,theparticipantsrecognizedthattherearemanyaspectsthathavenotbeenattendedtointheorganization.Theyalsorecognizedthecomplexityandthepluralityofleadership.Theoutcomeofthefocusgroupshowedthehigh-levelambiguouslanguagethemanagementteamuses,asthedescriptionsandstatementsgivenlackedasenseof‘concreteness’andtangibility.Furthermore,thefocusgroupcorroboratedthefindingsfromtheinterviewsandhighlightedtheabsenceofunfulfilledneedsdiscoveredduringtheinterviews.Additionally,thefocusgroupillustratedhowdialogueandreflexivitycanofferaconstructivespaceforacknowledgingcriticalorganizationalattributesthatareneededinordertoelicitahigherstateofconsciousnessandperformance.
Figure5-10:FocusGroupOutcome
51
5.10 SummaryofResults
Intheidealscenario,fortheM-Labtomaximizetheirorganizationalperformanceinthetranslationofsustainabilitygoalsintoaction,thenaccordingtotheBarrettValuesCentre,thefollowingconditionsneedtobefulfilled:
• Alignmentofpersonalvalues,currentorganizationalvalues,and,desiredorganizationalvalues.• FulfillmentofneedsatallsevenlevelsoftheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodel.• Afeelingamongemployeesthattheyarecontributingtotheimplementationofaninspiring
vision.• Absenceoflimitingfactorsassociatedwithlevels1–3intheOrganizationalConsciousness
model.• Lowpersonalentropyamongstcurrentorganizationalleaders.
AccordingtoBarrett(2010),havingtheseconditionsmetwouldenableanorganizationtoexhibit“fullspectrumconsciousness”,orrather,ahighperformanceorganization,markedbyhighemployeeengagement.Inthecontextofthisreport,thatwouldmeanthatideally,allteninterviewparticipantswouldbeabletoidentifysustainabilitywithqualitiesacrossallsevenlevelsoftheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodel.Moreso,thatalltenparticipantswouldviewsustainabilityinacoherent,alignedfashionsuchthatthevaluestheyassociatewithsustainabilityonapersonallevelarealsotranslatedintocurrentvaluesoftheM-Lab,andalsovaluesofwhattheydesiretheorganizationtoachieveinthisregard.Ideally,therewouldalsobeafeelingoffulfilledneedsatallsevenlevelsofthemodel,withalackofpresenceofanylimitingfactorsfoundonlevels1-3oftheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodel.Lastly,pointnumberfiveimpliesthatself-leadershipskillsaredevelopedactively,ratherthanpassively,andaregivenimportanceforpersonalandorganizationaldevelopment.
However,theresultsoftheempiricalstudyshowedthattheM-Labhassignificantroomforimprovementtofulfillallstatedrequirementsabove,inordertohaveahighleveloforganizationalconsciousness,andsubsequentlytoberecognizedasaleaderintheperformanceofsustainability.Theorganizationappearstoexhibitqualitiesofhighculturalentropy,withalowactivationofdiscretionaryenergy.Furthermore,theresultsindicatethefollowing:
1)alimitedperceptionofsustainability;
2)differentperspectivesofsustainabilitywhenitcomestotheirpersonallifeandorganizationallife;
3)littletime,ifany,hasbeenspentenvisioningwhatsustainabilitymeanstotheorganization.
5.10.1 Limitedperceptionofsustainability
Therewasnosingleattributethathalformoreoftheparticipantscouldassociatesustainabilitywithacrossthethreeperspectivesofwhatsustainabilitymeansonapersonallevel,fromacurrentorganizationallevel,andwhattheydesiretheM-Labtoachievewithregardstosustainability.However,environmentalawareness,socialresponsibility,commitment,sharedvisionandvalues,goalsorientation,andemployeehealthwereamongtheattributesthatparticipantscouldmoreeasilyassociatewith.
Thatbeingsaid,tsherewasassociationmadebyatleastoneintervieweeinallpositiveattributes,i.e.non-limitingfactor,oftwoofthesevenlevels:Level6–MakingaDifference,StrategicAlliancesandPartnerships,and;Level3–Self-Esteem,HighPerformance.Level2–Relationships,hadthelowestnumberofparticipantsmakingaconnectionbetweenthoseattributesandsustainability.
52
Inadditiontotheoriginallistof44,therewereatotalof24attributesIaddedinanefforttoretaintheessenceofparticipants’statements.Level6–MakingaDifferenceandLevel4–Transformation,hadthegreatestnumberofattributesaddedasthenumberwasdoubledineach.
PersonalPerspective
Whenaskedfromapersonalcontext,participantwereabletoexplainsustainabilityinrelationto21ofthe44needslistedintheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodel.Ofthose21,therewereonlythreequalitiesthathalformoreoftheintervieweeparticipantsverballyspoketo:SocialResponsibility(Level7),EnvironmentalAwareness(Level6)andEmployeeHealth(Level1).
CurrentOrganizationalPerspective
Similarly,whenIaskedeachintervieweewhattheyfeltsustainabilitymeanttotheM-Laborganizationpresently,Iwasabletointerpretparticipants’statementswithonly23ofthe44qualities/needs.However,overallaffiliationwaslowasonlytwoofthosequalitiesgarneredattributionbyhalformoreoftheparticipants:SocialResponsibility(Level7),and,EnvironmentalAwareness(Level6).
DesiredPerspective
Comparably,intermsofwhattheparticipantsdesiredtheorganizationtoachievewithrespecttosustainability,Imatchedstatementsto25qualities/needsontheOrganizationalConsciousnessModel.Nevertheless,therewerejustfouritemsassociatedbyhalformoreoftheparticipants:Commitment(Level5),SharedVisionandValues(Level5),GoalsOrientation(Level4),andEducation(Level4).Thislastattribute,Education,wasanitemIaddedintotheoriginallistof44needsasperthedescriptionoftheOrganizationalConsciousnessModel(BVCc,n.d.).
UnidentifiedQualities
Oftheoriginallistof44qualities/needsfromtheOrganizationalConsciousnessModel(BVCc,n.d.),fourteenitemswerenotidentifiedbyanyparticipantacrossallthreecategoriesofsustainabilityperspectives(personal,currentorganizational,desiredorganizational):compassion,transparency,passion,teamwork,adaptability,personalgrowth,bureaucracy,friendship,blame,manipulation,shareholdervalue,corruption,control,and,greed.Thatbeingsaid,itshouldbepositivetonotethatnoneoftheparticipantsmentionedthelimitingfactorsofbureaucracy,blame,manipulation,corruption,controlorgreed.However,statementsweremadereflectingthreeotherlimitingfactors:long-hours/demandingworkenvironment,confusion,and,intimidation.
5.10.2 Unfulfilledneeds
Thevaluesexerciseidentifiedalackoffulfilledneedsinthepresentorganization,aspertheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodel.Inparticular,noneofthetenparticipantsidentifiedcompassion,futuregenerations,coaching/mentoring,empowermentorsystemsasbeingpresentinthecurrentorganization.However,inthefocusgroup,theacknowledgementandawarenessofthesequalitieswerebroughttotheparticipants’attention.Furthermore,halformoreoftheparticipantsdididentifylong-termperspective,environmentalawareness,commitment,teamwork,accountability,processesandcustomersatisfactionaspresent,currentlyinM-Lab.GiventheneworganizationalstructureoftheM-Lab,tobemoreprocessandcustomerorientated,togetherwiththeirdraftsustainabilitygoals,itshould
53
notbesurprisingtohavemajorityagreementonthesequalities.However,outoftheseparticularsevenqualities,onlyenvironmentalawarenessandcommitmentwereconnectedwithsustainabilitybyhalformoreparticipants.Thisdisconnectsuggestsanisolatedandnarrowperspectiveofsustainability.Furthermore,combinedwiththelackofapparenttimespentinthevisioningprocess,thissignalsalowlevelofignitionofdiscretionaryenergyfromeachemployee.Suchalowlevelinhibitstheorganizationfromutilizingthefullpotentialoftheirhumanresources.
Thesocio-metricdiagramsindicatedalackofinternalcohesionandappreciationforinternalrelationships.ThisfindingisconsistentwiththelackofacknowledgementparticipantshadforanyoftheneedsassociatedwithLevel5-InternalCohesion,BuildingInternalCommunityandalso,Level2–RelationshipsoftheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodel.Therewasalsoverylowrecognitionofthequalitiesfromthesetwolevelsduringthevaluesexercise:oneoutofeightneedsfromLevel5wasidentifiedbymorethanhalfoftheparticipants,andoneoutoffourneedsfromLevel2wasidentifiedbymorethanhalfoftheparticipants,withoneparticipantidentifyingthelimitingfactorofblame.Onceagain,thelackoffulfilledneedsinhibitsactivationofemployees’discretionaryenergy.
Alackofappreciationforinternalrelationshipsisfurthersupportedfromthereflectionsmadebytheparticipantsduringthefocusgroup.Theparticipantsrecognizedthepluralityandcomplexityofleadership,recognizingthatattentionisneededonsuchqualitiesof:humbleness,honesty,openness,compassion,inspiration,coachingandlistening,inordertoaffectanysortofculturechangewithintheorganization.Thisrecognitionprovidedtheparticipantswithasenseofrelief,andaspaceforthemtorecognizewhatneedsarenecessarytofulfillinordertoimproveorganizationalconsciousnessandsubsequently,organizationalperformance.Afocusonfulfillingthesepreviouslyabsentneedswillassistintheimprovementoftheorganization’sperformancethroughtheactivationofemployee’sdiscretionaryenergy.
5.10.3 Lackofaninspiringvision
Inregardstothethirdpoint(3)above,whenIaskedtheparticipantsabouttheirmotivationforcomingtoworkattheM-Lab,theparticipantsdiscussedamiablequalitiessuchastheirlong-termperspective,theabilitytoworkwiththeyoungergeneration,tobeinvolvedinthecommunity,andtointegratepreviouseducationandworkexperienceintotheircurrentrole.Afewparticipantsalsodiscussedhowtheyvaluedtheabilitytointegrateprojectfeedbackatanearlierstage,and,howtheythoughtthecampusenvironmentofferedinterestingprojectstoworkon.However,despitethesepositivequalitiesthatattractedtheparticipants,therewasnoparticipantthatmentionedamotivationbeingtheopportunitytocontributetotheimplementationofaninspiringvision.Alackoffeelingamongstemployeesthattheyarecontributingtoaninspiringvisionrestrictsactivationoftheirdiscretionaryenergy.
Complementarytothisfinding,isthatoftheapparentlackoftimespentbytheparticipantsenvisioningwhattheydesiretheM-Labtoachievewithregardstosustainability,andalsowhattheyexpectofeachemployee.Outofthe37positivequalitiesintheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodel,only3qualities:commitment,sharedvisionandvalues,andgoalsorientation,weredescribedbyhalfofmoreoftheparticipants.Therewere18positivequalitiesthatwerenotreferencedbyanyintervieweeintermsofwhattheydesire.Theotherremaining16qualitieswerereferencedbylessthanhalfoftheparticipants.
5.10.4 Presenceoflimitingfactors
Limitingfactors,albeitfew,werepresentintheorganization:complacency,bureaucracy,long-hours/demandingworkenvironment,confusion,and,intimidation.Thesecharacteristicsrevealedthemselvesthroughouttheinterviews,thevaluesexercise,andalsointhefocusgroup.Sevenoutoftenparticipants
54
describedhowthedemandingworkenvironmentcanmakeitdifficultforthemtocometoworksometimes.Someparticipantsrecognizedthattheirfullcalendarmakesitchallengingtoproduceenoughfreetimetospendfacetofacewithemployees.ConfusionshoweditselfwhenfourparticipantswereunabletoarticulatespecificexamplesofwhatsustainabilitymeanttoM-Labcurrently.Additionally,thereweresomeotherparticipantsthatseemedsurprisedatthequestionsof,“whatdoyouexpectM-Labtoachievewithregardstosustainability,and,whatdoyouexpectofeachM-Labemployeeinregardstosustainability?”Suchexampleshighlightedthefactorofconfusion.IntimidationwasrevealedbythepurposefulintentiontocreatestressandtensionintheworkenvironmentatM-Lab.Theselimitingfactorsraisethelevelofculturalentropyintheorganization,inhibitinggrowthoforganizationalconsciousnessandabilitytotapintoemployees’discretionaryenergy.
5.10.5 Lackofself-leadershiptraining
Alackofpurposefulintentionandrecognitionofthevalueforself-leadershiptrainingattheM-LabwasmadeevidentduringtheinterviewswhenIposedthequestion,“whatsortofleadershiptrainingisgiventostaff?”andtheresoundingansweracrossalltenparticipantswasnone.TheperceptionofleadershipattheM-Labappearedtobeonecloselyassociatedwithmanagement,forinstance,“ConsideringI’mnotaleaderinanyway,Ihaven’treceivedanyleadershiptraining.”Also,throughoutinterviewswithsomeparticipants,thetermsofleadershipandmanagementwereusedinterchangeablyandnotdiscussedinamannerresemblingacknowledgementofanydifferencebetweenthetwo.Giventhattheentiremanagementteamwasinterviewed,inadditiontotheM-Lab’sdesiretobealeaderinsustainablecampussolutions,itseemssurprisingthattherewasnotaperspectiveontheneedforanactiveapproachtoleadershipdevelopmentwithintheorganization,andbeyondthemanagementteam.GiventhatBarrett(2010)statesthatself-masteryandpersonalleadershiparethekeystoreducingentropy,activingdiscretionaryenergyandraisingorganizationalconsciousness,itiscauseforconcernthatattentionisnotbeingplacedonpersonalleadershipdevelopment.
55
CChhaapptteerr66::DDiissccuussssiioonn
6.1 ModelJustification
TheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodelisarelevantandlegitimatemodeltouseinthecontextofsustainabilityasitcorrelateswellwiththeprinciplesandframeworkdevelopedinPhase1ofthisChallengeLabprocess.AcomparisonbetweentheBVCConsciousnessmodelandthesustainabilitycriteriadevelopedbythe2016ChallengeLabisillustratedinAppendixD–BVCModelJustification.ThetableillustratesthatthecriteriadevelopedbytheChallengeLabstudentsisaddressedwithinallsevenlevelsoftheConsciousnessModel.However,italsoshowsthatthereareadditionalcomponentsintheBVCModelthatarenotexplicitlyaddressedinthecriteriadevelopedbytheChallengeLab.Theseitemsinclude:humility,compassion,integrity,openness,teamwork,goalsorientation,prideinperformance,andopencommunication.Limitingfactorsof:complacency,bureaucracy,blameandmanipulationarealsonotexplicitlyidentifiedintheChallengeLabsustainabilitycriteria,althoughtheyareimplicitlyimplied.Nonetheless,thesegapsrepresentpossibleareasfordevelopmentforfutureChallengeLabstudentstoaddress.
6.2 Opportunityforincreasingperformance
Giventhehighlevelofculturalentropyandlowleveloforganizationalconsciousnessthattheparticipantshaveexhibited,itisquitelikelythattheopportunityexistsfortheM-Laborganizationtomoveintoanarenaofhigherorganizationalconsciousness,i.e.higherperformanceandhigherengagementinpursuitoftheirsustainabilityambitions.Inotherwords,thepotentialuseoftheirhumanresourcesisnotfullyactivated,andhasshownsignificantroomforimprovement.Thatbeingsaid,thisfindingisnotsurprising,giventheresearchdonebyHielscherandGeorg(2014,p.711),wherebytheywereunabletofind,“[any]systematicattemptsinsystemicsustainabilityresearchtomake(shared)mentalmodelsofcorporatesustainabilityaccessibleforempiricalscrutiny.”Thisstatement,combinedwiththeworkofRiceetal.(2012),suggeststhatthereislikelyalowprobabilitythattheconnectionhasbeenmadetotheimportanceofbuildingsharedmentalmodelsofsustainabilityinordertoimproveengagementandperformanceonthesubject.AccordingtoRiceetal.(2012),thislackofalignmentcouldbeinpartduetothefactthatsharedmentalmodelsisthesilentkillerofsustainabilityengagementandperformance.
AppliedtothecontextoftheM-Lab,thiswouldnotbesurprisinggiventhesocialcollaborationcycle(SandowandAllen,2005)whereby,throughasharedunderstanding,trustisbuilt,lendingitselftocollaborationandincreasedparticipation.Thus,itissuggestedtheM-Labfocusonbuildingasharedunderstanding,throughouttheorganization,ofwhatsustainabilityisandhowitisperceivedamongstindividuals.Nurturingthissharedunderstandingwillbuildtrust,collaborationandincreasedparticipation.Additionally,havingsharedmentalmodelscontributestothedevelopmentofalearningorganization(Senge,1990).Furthermore,thefocusgroupshowedapositiveresultintheneedfordialogueforparticipantstobeabletoarticulateandverbalizetheirthoughtsinordertoreachacommonvisionthroughco-creationandcollaboration.
6.3 MoveintotheLearningZone
ResearchfromEdmondson(1999)andGoogle’sAristotleprojectcomplementthesearguments,byexplainingthatinordertofosterhighperformance,theteammusthavetheabilitytoestablishandnurtureafeelingofpsychologicalsafety(Duhigg,2016).Thismeansthattheteamclimateischaracterizedby“interpersonaltrustandmutualrespectinwhichpeoplearecomfortablebeingthemselves”(Edmondson,1999,pg.354).Thatbeingsaid,Edmondson(2014)emphasizesthatmerelyhavingahighlevelofpsychologicalsafetyisnotsufficienttomoveateamoranorganizationoutofthe“comfortzone”
56
andintothe“learningzone”,orrather,thehighperformancezone;highlevelsofmotivationandaccountabilityarealsorequired.Finally,itisimperativetostressthatpsychologicalsafetyinanorganizationmaynotalwaysbenecessaryforhighperformance,however,whenfactorsofuncertaintyandinterdependenceexist,qualitieswhichareubiquitoustosustainability,psychologicalsafetyismostcertainlyanecessity(Edmondson,2014).Thus,thesedimensionswillbebrieflydiscussedinthecontextofM-Labandthisempiricalstudy.
Fromthedatacollectedduringtheinterviews,therewassignificantevidencefromtheparticipantsthattheyhavehighlevelsofmotivationandaccountability:eightparticipantsidentifiedcommitmentonthevaluesexercise,andsixparticipantsidentifiedaccountabilityaspresentinthecurrentorganization.Theseresultsareevenmoresignificantgiventhattherewereonlyseven,outofforty-four,qualitiesidentifiedduringthevaluesexercisefromhalf(five)ormoreparticipants.Motivationandcommitmentwerealsoexhibitedwhentheparticipantswereaskedaboutwhatgetsthemupinthemorning;eightparticipantsusedstatementssuchas,“Ilikemywork”,and“Ilovemyjob.”Additionally,nineintervieweesdescribedvariousinformalandformalnetworkstheyparticipateinthatsupporttheircareersandarealignedwiththeirorganizationalroles.AccountabilityandresponsibilitywasexemplifiedthroughsixofthetenparticipantswhenaskedtodescribetheirpositionatM-Lab.Furthermore,theparticipantsfairlyfocusededucationalbackgroundintherealestatesectorsupporttheircommitmenttothislineofbusiness.
HavinghighlevelsofmotivationandaccountabilitysituatestheM-Labineitherthe“anxietyzone”orthe“learningzone”ofEdmondson’s(2014)model,Dimensionsofpsychologicalsafety,seeFigure2-1.ThedatacollectedfromthisempiricalstudyindicatesthattheM-Labisverylikelysituatedinthe“anxietyzone”,ratherthaninthehighperformance“learningzone”.Thisissoduetothefollowingresultspresentedinthepreviouschapter.Firstofall,thereweresignsofintimidation,“mychallengeistowidenthem,tokindofcreateastressinthem.BecauseI’mtearingthemapart.Tensionisimportantwhenyoucomehere(laughs).”Second,long-hours/demandingworkenvironmentswereexemplifiedfromsevenparticipantswhenaskedwhatmakesitdifficulttocometowork,eg.“dealingwithbigdecisions…that’sheavyandittakestime”and“thefeelingthatyoudon’tdoenough”;sixparticipantsstated,“thealarmclock”iswhatgetsthemupinthemorning.
ThethirdpieceofevidencethattheM-Labisverylikelyoperatinginthe“anxietyzone”,isthatthreeorfewerparticipantsidentifiedthepresenceofthefollowingtraits,whichconnectcloselywithcharacteristicsassociatedwithagroupinthe“learningzone”,asbeingpresentinthecurrentorganizationduringthevaluesexercise:compassion,trust,openness,personalgrowth,empowerment,opencommunication,friendship,employeehealth,safety,andorganizationalgrowth.Notethatveryfewofthesequalitieswereidentifiedbyanyparticipantswhendiscussingsustainabilityfromthethreedifferentperspectives.Thiscouldsuggestthatthesequalitiesareeitherassumedtobeever-present,or,thatthesequalitiesarejustnotgivenmuchacknowledgement.Likely,itisthattheyarejustnotgivenmuchacknowledgementorrecognitionbecauseduringthefocusgroup,someofthesequalitiesandcloselyconnectedqualities,didemergefromtheparticipantswhentheywereaskedtodescribewhatleadershipmeanttothem:humbleness,inspiration,compassion,interestinothers,coaching,openness,and,honesty.Further,supporttothelackofacknowledgementonthesequalitiesisthatduringthecheck-outofthefocusgroup,theparticipantsdescribedtheirtake-awayandwhattheysawwhenlookingatthewhiteboard,as“relief”;reliefinthesensethat,inordertoaccomplishandachievetheirgoals,theymustslowdownandcomebacktothe“softskills”.
Thevalueintherecognitionofthesequalitiesisthatpotentialdoesexisttoactivatethesesofterneeds,andtomovethemoutofalatentandvacantspace,intoanactiveandoperablespace.ThebenefitofthiswouldbeanincreasedfulfillmentofneedsontheBVCOrganizationalConsciousnessmodel,ultimatelysupportingthedevelopmentofahigherperformanceorganization,andincreasedcapabilitytobeof
57
servicetohumanityandtheplanet.Or,intheveryleast,theM-Labshouldbeinabetterpositiontoaccomplishtheirsustainabilitygoalsthroughsupportfortheactivationofemployees’discretionaryenergy.
AdditionalbackingtoorientateM-LabtoalearningorganizationissupportedbyArgyris(1977)andtheworkofPeterSengeinhis1990book,theFifthDiscipline.Argyris(1977)describesthenecessityfordoublelooplearningandaspaceforreflectiontoensureanorganizationisaskingitselfwhetheritisdoingtherightthinganddoingsointhemosteffectivemannerpossible.CreatingsuchaculturecomplementsoneofSenge’sfivedisciplines,thatofteamlearning.TheneedforsuchareflectivespaceisevidentintheM-Labasthroughtheinterviewsitwasapparentthatthereisalackofstructureandculturearoundsuchareflectivespace;thefocusgroupallowedforsuchreflectionandcouldbesomethingthemanagementteamattheM-Labmaywishtoimplement.Furthermore,theresponsetothequestionofatypicaldaybeing,“meeting,meetingsandmeetings”impliesalackofreflectivespacewithintheorganization.
TheotherfourdisciplinesdescribedbySenge(1990)arethoseof:personalmastery,buildingsharedmentalmodels,havingasharedvisionandsystemsthinking.ThesedisciplinesendorserecommendationsfromtheBarrettValuesCentreonbuildinganorganizationwithhigherconsciousness,andsubsequentimprovedperformance.DevelopmentandgrowthofpersonalmasteryalignswiththeBVCrecommendationsforloweringpersonalandculturalentropywithinanorganization,aswellasovercominglimitingfactors.Astherewasalackoffocusonpersonalmastery,i.e.self-leadership,withintheM-Lab,theneedforattentioninthisrealmisrecommended.
SupportingthedevelopmentofsharedmentalmodelsconnectswiththealignmentrecommendedbytheBVCtolowerculturalentropyinanorganization.Creationofasharedvisionaccompaniestheneedforemployeestofeeltheyarecontributingtoaninspiringvision(Barrett,2010)inordertohelpactivatetheirdiscretionaryenergy;aneedidentifiedascurrentlyabsentintheM-Lab.TheBackcastingprocessmayproveusefulinthisaspectasdevelopmentofasharedvisionispartofstep1inthemethodology.
Finally,systemsthinkingisnecessaryasitcangiveindividualsappreciationfortheirexperiencesandforthecomplexityoftheworld(Senge,1990).TheChallengeLabprocessofdevelopingasustainabilityframeworkandsubsequentsustainabilityprinciplescouldprovetobeusefulendeavortosatisfythisrequirementasitprovidesaholistic,systemsperspective;refertosection1.2.1.
6.4 Howdoesthisreportcontributetotheresearchbeingdoneinthefield?
Thisreportcontributestoresearchinthefieldsoforganizationalconsciousness,leadershipforsustainabilitytransitionsandtranslationofsustainabilitygoalsintoaction.Themulti-methodapproachcontributestotheBarrettValuesCentre’sworkonorganizationalconsciousnessbyprovidinganoptionfortriangulation,flexibilityandreflexivitytotheeffortsofsupportingincreasedorganizationalperformanceinthecontextofsustainabilitygoalimplementation.UtilizingtheBVCOrganizationalConsciousnessModelinthisstudyintroducesaspectsoforganizationalbehaviourintothefieldofsustainabilitytransitionsandsustainabilitygoaltranslations.ThisisparticularlyusefulasitseekstoaddressahigherlevelofMeadows’(1997)interventionlevelsforsystemchange.Morespecifically,thatofamindsetorparadigmshiftastheaspectofreflexivityaddedalearningloopfortheparticipantstoalterhowtheyleadandinteractwithothersintheirorganization.
Furthermore,thisreportisnoteworthyasitintroducesbehaviouralaspectsintotheChallengeLabthesescollection.WhatmakesthismeaningfultothecollectionisthathavingamethodorapproachtoaddressbehaviouralaspectswasacommonthemeduringPhase1Brainstormingsessionforsysteminterventionandleveragepoints.Shouldthetrendandquestioningofhowtoaddressbehaviouralaspectsinsystem
58
changecontinueduringsubsequentChallengeLabcohorts,thisreportmayoffersomeinsightforhowtotacklesuchchange.Additionally,thisreportcontributestothetranslationofsustainabilitygoalsintoactionasitmergesthefieldsofleadership,sustainabilityandorganizationalchange.Finally,thisempiricalstudycontributestothefieldofexploringmentalmodelsofsustainabilitythroughthecreationofvisualinterpretations,andthecriticalityofdoingsotobuildhigherlevelsofengagementandperformancearoundthetopicofsustainability.
6.5 TheMulti-MethodResearchProcess
Themulti-methodapproachusedinthisempiricalstudywasappropriatefortheresearchquestionsasitalloweddifferentperspectivesonthetopicofsustainabilitytoberevealed.Also,investigatingtheparticipants’perspectivesofsustainabilitythroughopen-endedquestioninghighlightedthelevelofintrinsicunderstandingofsustainabilityamongstthegroup.
Incorporatingthedifferentmethodsofinterviews,thevaluesexercise,sociometryandthefocus-group,allowedfordatatriangulation,flexibilityandreflexivity,lendingitselftoamorepracticalandactionorientation(Creswell,2003).Interpretationsofstatementsmadeduringtheinterviewswerenotvalidatedone-on-onewithparticipants,however,thefocusgroupservedasameansoftriangulationandvalidation.Thesocio-metricdiagrams,togetherwiththevaluesexercisealsocorroboratedtheinterpretations.
Theprocessofcodingstatementsfromtheinterviewtranscriptionsprovedtobeatimeintensiveprocess.However,thecodificationagainsttheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodelprovedtobeusefulbecausethroughthatprocess,itenabledparticipants’understandingofsuchacomplextopictobevisualizedthroughuseoftheradargraphs.
MypointofdeparturefromhowtheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodelseemstobeusedwiththevaluesexercisesemployedbytheBarrettValuesCentre,isthatItookaqualitativeapproachtodeterminefulfillmentofneedsacrossallsevenlevelsofthemodel.Thenbasedonthosefindings,Iincorporatedreflexivityforquickfeedbackandlearningtoparticipants(RäisänenandGunnarson,2004).Thiswasparticularlyusefulinthattheparticipantswereabletorecognizetheimportanceofthe“softskills”suchascompassion,transparency,humilityinthefocusgroupexercise.Thesequalitieswerenotidentifiedascurrentlypresentintheorganizationduringthevaluesexercise,norgivenattentionduringtheinquiryforsustainability.However,byinquiringwithanappropriatequestion,theparticipantswereabletoidentifythenecessityofthesequalitiestotheimprovedperformanceoftheorganization.
6.6 TheChallengeLabProcess
TheChallengeLabprocessprovedtobeausefulapproachtosupportingsustainabilitytransitions,andstudentgeneratedresearch.TheincorporationofPhase1intothetraditionaltimeperiodallocatedforconventionalthesesisdemanding,however,thebenefitstostudentlearningandachievement,expansivelearningandsocietalvalueareunmatched(Larsson&Holmberg,2016).Usingtheoverarchingmethodologyofbackcastingthroughguidingprinciples,incombinationwithself-leadershipandvaluesclarificationsetastrongfoundationforbuildingunderstanding,trustandcollaborationamongsttheChallengeLabstudents,aswellasexcitementandsatisfactionforthestudentresearchinPhase2(Larsson&Holmberg,2016).InthewordsofAmyEdmondson(1999,pg.354),ateamclimateofpsychologicalsafetywascreatedintheChallengeLabwherebystudentshad“interpersonaltrustandmutualrespect”andwere“comfortablebeingthemselves.”Havingtoworkthroughthedevelopmentprocessofthesustainabilityprincipleswaschallenging,however,thereflexivitybuiltintotheprocesssupportedadeeperunderstandingandcomprehensionofthe“wicked”natureofsustainability.
59
Thetrainingindialoguetoolsenabledadevelopmentofasetofsoft-skillsforus,students.Further,theapplieddesignthinkingmethodology,incombinationwiththeguidanceandfacilitationbytheChallengeLabTeamculminatedinarichandmeaningfulexperienceforthestudentsasitenabledthestudentstoclarifytheirpersonalvalues,interestsandstrengthsandapplyittoreal-worldsustainabilitychallenges(Larsson&Holmberg,2016).RefertoAppendixEforalistof2016ChallengeLabCohortthesisprojects.Overall,theChallengeLabprocess,particularlyPhase1,providedaframeworkforthestudentstonavigateinsociety,providingacompassfortheirfutureprofessionallives.
6.7 UncertaintiesandLimitations
Itisrecognizedthatthenumberofparticipantsinthisempiricalstudyisasmallsamplegroup.Therefore,itshouldnotbetakentoextrapolateforalargerpopulationofmanagementteams,normadeintoageneralstatementthatthisisthemindsetofanyoneinamanagementrole.However,thisstudydoesprovideaninterestingavenuetoexplorementalmodelsandorganizationalperformanceinthecontextofsustainability,andcouldproveusefulinotherorganizations,orevenalargercontext.Nevertheless,thecontextoftheM-Labshouldalsoberecognizedintermsofextrapolatingtoalargercontext.Forinstance,M-Labisarelativelysmallorganizationwithapproximately32employees,andisinauniquesettingofbeingacampusreal-estatecompany.
ThequalitativeprocessIusedinthismodelprovedtobeappropriateforthequestionsIsoughttoanswerasitencouragedaparticipatoryandaction-orientatedsolution.However,itneedstobeexplicitthatthisisthefirststudyofthiskindthatIhavecompletedwithinthesocialsciencesfield.Although,Ihavealackof‘formal’experienceinthesocialsciencerealm,theuseofmymulti-methodapproachvalidatedthedatainterpretationsIdidthroughouttheresearchprocess.Thatbeingsaid,itisworthytonotethatthespecificsofhowIcodedeachstatementtodifferentqualitiesontheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodelwerenotverified.However,thegraphicalrepresentationsdevelopedappeartobeinlinewithfindingsfromthevaluesexercise,socio-metricdiagramsandfocusgroup.
Anothernotablepointtoacknowledgeduringthedatacollectionprocessistheassumptionthattheparticipantsfullyexpressedthecompletenessoftheirperspectivesonsustainabilityduringtheinterviews.Ireliedonmyabilityto“pull”asmuchinformationasIcouldfromtheparticipantstogatherascompleteapictureaspossible;amoreskilledandmoreexperiencedinterviewermayhavebeenabletogarnermoreinformationfromtheparticipants.CorrespondingtothisistorememberthattheinterviewsandfocusgroupwereallconductedinEnglish,notthesubjects’nativelanguageofSwedish.Thismayhavepreventedcompletedisclosureoftheparticipants’perspectives.ThevaluesexercisecontainedbothEnglishandSwedishtranslations.
Inthisempiricalstudy,IhavehadthemindsetthattheM-Lab’soveralldriverissustainability.Thismaybeastretchtoassumeso,however,itcanbedeemedasrelevantandlegitimategiventhattheirmainpurposeistosupportChalmers’vision,“forasustainablefuture”.Anadditionalpointtomentionisthatperspectivesandviewpointsofsustainabilitymaybelimitedandscatteredastheywerebecauseduringthisstudy,theM-Labwasintheprocessofdevelopingandsolidifyingtheirnewstrategicsustainabilityplan.
60
CChhaapptteerr77::CCoonncclluussiioonnssaannddRReeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnss
ThisempiricalcasestudyoftheM-Labsoughttoaddressthefollowingtworesearchquestions:(i)Howdopersonalandorganizationalperspectivesofsustainabilityaligninanorganization?(ii)Howcanamanagementgroupusethepotentialoftheirhumanresourcestoovercomeobstaclestowardsimplementationofsustainabilitygoals?Thefindingsfromthisstudy’sparticipantswerethattheyhave(i)anarrowunderstandingofsustainability;(ii)misalignmentoftheirperspectivesonsustainabilityfromapersonalandorganizationalstandpoint;(iii)abilitytousetheirhumanresourcestoovercomeobstaclestowardsimplementationofsustainabilitygoals,however,suchabilitycurrentlyexhibitsqualitiesoflatencyandvacancy.Inotherwords,theM-Labexhibitsqualitiesofanorganizationwithhighculturalentropyandalowactivationofdiscretionaryenergy.Reducingthisentropyandactivatingemployees’discretionaryenergymaybedonethroughanactiveapproachtoself-leadershipandamotivationtothemovetheorganizationfromastateofanxietytooneoflearning.
TheOrganizationalConsciousnessModelfromtheBarrettValuesCentrewasusedtoanalyzetheinterviewdatapertinenttothefirstresearchquestion.ItprovedtobearelevantmodeltouseasitalignedwiththesustainabilityprinciplesdevelopedduringPhase1oftheChallengeLab.Asstatedabove,theuseofthemodelillustratedtheoveralllackofawarenessoftheneedsnecessarytosupportanorganizationthataimstoultimatelybeofservicetohumanityandtheplanet.However,themulti-methodapproachusedinthisstudyaffordedtheparticipantsaspaceforreflectionandlearning.Throughthestyleoffacilitationemployedinthefocusgroup,theparticipantsunveiledtothemselveswhataspectsandneedsarerequiredinordertocreatetheconditionsfortheirorganizationtomovefromoneoperatinginthe‘AnxietyZone’tooneofhighperformanceinthe‘LearningZone’throughthesupportofahigherlevelofpsychologicalsafety.
Nonetheless,inorderfortheM-Labtobuildacommonunderstanding,orsharedmentalmodelsofsustainabilityforagreatersenseoftrust,collaboration,innovation,participation,andmostofall,increasedperformancethefollowingrecommendationsaresuggested.
7.1 Recommendations
Tobegin,theM-Labwillneedtoslowdowntotaketimeforindividualandcommunalreflection,inordertoreducethelimitingfactorsthatwererevealedinthestudy,particularlythoseofconfusion,thelonghoursandthedemandingworkenvironment.Incorporatinganactive,ratherthanpassive,stancetowardsleadershiptrainingforallstaffwillbeessentialtoreducingthelimitingfactors;developmentofpersonalmasterythroughself-leadershipisthesolutionaccordingtoBarrett(2010),founderoftheBarrettValuesCentre.Exploringtheperceptionthatleadershipissynonymoustomanagementmayalsobeofvaluetotheorganization.Theself-leadershiptrainingconductedduringPhase1oftheChallengeLabmaybeausefulplacetostart.Suchtrainingcouldhelptofurtherpromptandnurturerelationshipsamongstemployeesacrossorganizationallevelsandroles.Specifically,suchtrainingcouldgivefirst-handexperienceandappreciationtotheimportanceoflistening,supportingthedevelopmentofM-Lab’sneedforcustomersatisfaction,opencommunicationandfriendship.
TofurthersupporttheM-Lab’sdeficientneedsontheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodel,applyingtheBackcastingthroughprinciplesapproachcouldprovetobeausefulendeavourtobuildingasharedmentalframeworkofwhatconstitutessustainability.Theexerciseofactuallyhavingtodeveloptheprinciples,aswasdoneduringthefirstweekofPhase1oftheChallengeLab,couldbeoneofthecriticalcomponentsinthisapproachtodevelopawareness,appreciationandrecognitionofthemultiplefacetsandneedsrequiredforsustainability.Theprocessofdevelopingtheprinciplesallowsindividualsthementalspacetofreethemselvesfromtheconstraintsoftoday’slock-insandforecastsofdifferent
61
scenariosthroughthefreedomofco-creatingwhatshouldhappenratherthanwhatwillhappen(Vergragt&Quist,2011).
Additionally,thisapproachincorporatestheprocessofreflexivityallowingparticipantstocontinuouslyiterateanddiscussastowhethertheyarenotjustseekingimprovedefficiency,butwhethertheyareactuallydoingthe“right”activities(Vergragt&Quist,2011).HavingthespaceandthecultureofdoublelooplearningwasfoundtobeabsentintheM-Lab,yetisnecessarytostimulateorganizationallearningaccordingtoArgyris(1977).
Additionally,thisapproachincorporatesdevelopmentofaninspiringvision.ThiswouldservetheM-Labgreatlyasoneofthefindingsfromthisstudywasthattheparticipantshadspentverylittletime,ifany,envisioningwhatitistheywouldliketheM-Labtoaccomplishwithregardstosustainability.Furthermore,inadditiontopersonalandorganizationalalignment,“[employeesmustalso]resonatewiththeorganization’spurpose”(Barrett,2010,pp.4)ifanorganizationaimstodevelophighlymotivatedandengagedemployees.
Finally,whatcouldbeusefulfortheM-LabthroughuseofthePhase1Backcastingapproachisthecomponentofdialogue,specifically,thetrainingandawarenessofwhatthecriticalaspectsaretobuildeffectivedialogue:activelistening,neutrality,compassion,non-judgement(Sande,2015;Isaacs,1999).AsIsaacs(1999,pg.2)states,peopleindialogue,“usetheenergyoftheirdifferencestoenhancetheircollectivewisdom”andthroughdialogue,leadersareabletounleashthecreativepotentialinanysituation;potentialthatisvitalforsustainabilitytransformations.
Suchqualitiesforeffectivedialoguewereattemptedduringthefocusgroupbymyself,thefacilitator,tobuildapsychologicallysafearenafortheparticipants,andtoaccessgreater“collectivewisdom”(Isaacs,1999,pg.2)fromtheparticipants.AlthoughImakenoclaimforthecompleteexpressionofthesequalities,IbelievetheeffortIemployedprovedusefulforareprieveandmindsetshiftintheparticipants’perspectiveforleadingthetranslationoftheirorganization’ssustainabilitygoalsintoaction.Furthermore,theuseofthewhiteboardandvisualelementsappearedtoassisttheparticipant’sunderstandingandlearningasevidencedbytheirresponsesofafeelingof“relief”duringthefocusgroupcheck-out.
Throughtheuseofmyprocess,Ihopetohavemadethecaseforthenecessityofestablishingasafe,compassionate,non-judgementandneutralspacefordialoguewhenattemptingtoovercomebarriersthatarecomplexandinterdependent,ie.thoserelatingtotranslationofsustainabilitygoalsintoaction.Aninabilitytonurtureandbuildasharedunderstanding,andasharedmentalmodelofsustainabilitycouldleadtoalackoftrust,separation,redundancy,increasedcosts,decreasedresources,competitionandfear(seeFigure1-8–DisruptionCycle,SandowandAllen,2005).Furthermore,asRice,MarlowandMasarech(2012)havedescribedhowassumptionscanbethe‘silentkiller’ofengagement.Thus,theimpetusforexploringdifferentperspectives,andrevealingmentalmodelsthroughneutral,non-judgemental,compassionatedialogueisimperativeifwe,asaglobalcommunity,aimtotrulycreateapeacefulandjustsocietyforallhumanity.
7.2 Possibilitiesforfurtherresearch
Basedonthefindingsofthisstudy,itissuggestedthatfurtherresearchbedoneusingsuchqualitativeandmixed-methodstoexplorementalmodelsofsustainabilityandunveilpotentialconflictsinotherorganizations,namelythosethatarealreadyinterestedinprogressingtheirambitionsinthesustainabilityfield.Inotherwords,itwouldbemostworthwhiletobeginthisworkwithorganizationsthataregenuineintheirambitionstobeofservicetohumanityandtheplanet.Itisrecommendedthisexplorationcontinuewithinanorganizationsoastobuildasharedunderstandingthatmayleadtoincreasedemployeeengagement,andultimatelyperformance.Establishingthiswithinanorganizationfirstand
62
foremostshouldlenditselftoimprovedpartnershipsandcollaborationduetoneedsfulfilledthroughouttheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodel.ExamplesoforganizationsthatmayserveasastartingpointcouldincludeotherorganizationscommittedtosupportingChalmers’vision,“forasustainablefuture”andthosecommittedtosupportingthefulfillmentoftheGlobal2030AgendaforSustainableDevelopment,includingthe17newSustainableDevelopmentGoals.
ItwouldalsobeinterestingtoconductalongitudinalstudyofM-Lab’sdevelopmentandprogressionthroughfulfillmentoftheOrganizationalConsciousnessmodelshouldtheyworktoaddresstheirdeficienciesfoundinthisstudy,andcontinuetoprogresstheirinitiativesforsustainabilityalreadybeingplannedforexecution.Doingsocouldbuildfurthersupportforthemethodologies,findingsandrecommendationsfromthisreport,aswellastheirowninitiatives,therebyprovidingaplausiblepathforwardinthetranslationofsustainabilitygoalsintoactionforamoresustainablefuturethatothersmaywishtolearnfromandapply.
63
CChhaapptteerr88::EEppiilloogguuee
8.1 Researcherreflections
Thisthesisprocesshasfilledmylifewithcountlessreflectionsandlearnings.Iwillhighlightthosemostrelevant.TheChallengeLabhasgivenmetheopportunitytomakesenseoflife,andsociety,andmyplaceinit.TheChallengeLabhasshownmethatnothingcanbedoneinisolation,thatlifeiscollectionofourexperiences.Thisthesisprocess,andthenurturing,supportive,yetchallengingenvironmentaffordedherehasgivenmetheopportunitytomakesenseandmeaningoflife.Thatismylife,thelivesofmyfriends,myfamily;howsocietyfunctions,whatfundamentalprinciplespoliticiansarereallydebatingabout.Ithasprovidedmewithaframeworkfornavigatingintheuncertaintyandcomplexityoftoday’ssocietalchallenges.TheLabhasequippedmewithskillsfornavigatingdifficultconversationsandbringingtogetherdiversestakeholders.
Mynecessityforcreativespace,visualizationsandinteraction.Butalso,boundaries.Iamavisualperson.Despitebeingtrainedasanengineer,Iamanythingbutyourstereotypicalengineer,gluedbehindcomputersimulations,withapocketcalculatoronhandatalltimes,readytoloadinanyandallsituations.Iliketosocialize,Iliketoengagewithothers.Ineedtomakethingsvisual.Ineedtofindawaytoinvolvesomesortofphysicalinteractionwithmydata,literatureIhaveread,andmythoughts.
Cultureisaproductofthenaturalenvironment,thelocalclimateandpeoples’needforsocialconnection.Allofwhichareunexplainableandintangible,andyetrequireexpression.Cultureallowsustoconnectwithoneanother;itallowsustoconnectourheadandourheart.
Breathe.Deeply.Itkeepsyourheadandyourheartmoving.
64
RReeffeerreenncceess
Anand,S.&Sen,A.(2000).HumanDevelopmentandEconomicSustainability.WorldDevelopment,Volume28(No.12),pp.2029-49.Retreivedfrom:www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/tsc220/hallam/readings/anandsenhumandevelopmenteconomicsustainability.pdf
Argyris,C.(1977).Doublelooplearninginorganizations.HarvardBusinessReview,September-October,pp.115-125. Atkisson,A.(2010).TheSustainabilityTransformation:Howtomakepositivechangeinchallengingtimes.London&Washington,DC:Routledge/Earthscan. Barrett,R.(2010).HighPerformance:It’sallaboutentropy,BarrettValuesCentre,viewed23May2016,https://www.valuescentre.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2011-12-14/High%20Performance%20-%20It's%20all%20about%20entropy.pdf
Barrett,R.n.d.,TheSevenLevelsofOrganizationalConsciousness,BarrettValuesCentre,viewed21May2016,https://www.valuescentre.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2010-07-06/The%207%20Levels%20of%20Organisational%20Consciousness.pdf
BarrettValuesCentre(BVCa),n.d.TheBarrettModel,BarrettValuesCentre,viewed21May2016,https://www.valuescentre.com/mapping-values/barrett-model
BarrettValuesCentre(BVCb),n.d.BarrettSevenLevelsandCulturalTransformationTools(CTT)Intro.[video]Availableathttp://www.valuescentre.com/our-products[Accessed1March2016].
BarrettValuesCentre(BVCc),n.d.LevelsofOrganizationalConsciousness,viewed25February2016,https://www.valuescentre.com/mapping-values/barrett-model/organisational-consciousness
Broman,G.,Holmberg,J.,andK-H.Robert.(1998).SimplicitywithoutReduction–ThinkingUpstreamTowardstheSustainableSociety,InternationalJournaloftheInstituteofManagementSciencesandtheOperationsResearchSocietyofAmerica(inpress).
Carstedt,G.(2015).ENM145LeadershipforSustainabilityTransitions,lecture3:TransformativeChangeandLeadershipforSustainableDevelopment,lecturePowerPointslides,viewed5January2016,https://pingpong.chalmers.se/courseId/6004/node.do?id=2670344&ts=1447244933136&u=1577468511 Creswell,J.W.(1998).Qualitativeinquiryandresearchdesign:Choosingamongfivetraditions.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Creswell,J.W.(2002).Educationalresearch:Planning,conducting,andevaluatingquantitativeandqualitativeresearch.UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:Merrill/Pearson.
Creswell,J.W.(2003).ResearchDesign:Qualitative,Quantitative,andMixedMethodsApproaches,2ndEdition,ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Cruz,I.,Stahel,A.,Max-Neef,M.(2009).Towardsasystemicdevelopmentapproach:BuildingontheHuman-ScaleDevelopmentparadigm,EcologicalEconomics,vol.68,pp.2021-2030.
Dincer,I.,Cengel,Y.A.(2001).Energy,EntropyandExergyConceptsandTheirRolesinThermalEngineering,Entropy,vol.3,pp.116-149.
Duhigg,C.(2016).WhatGoogleLearnedfromItsQuesttoBuildthePerfectTeam:Newresearchrevealssurprisingtruthsaboutwhysomeworkgroupsthriveandothersfalter.TheNewYorkTimesMagazine,
65
viewed11June2016,http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html?_r=1.
Edmondson,A.(1999).PsychologicalSafetyandLearningBehaviorinWorkTeams.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,vol.44,no.2,pp.350-383.
Edmondson,A.(2014).Buildingapsychologicallysafeworkplace:AmyEdmondsonatTEDxHGSE,onlinevideo,4May,viewed20March2016,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhoLuui9gX8.
Hielscher,S.,&Will,M.G.(2014).MentalModelsofSustainability:UnearthingandAnalyzingtheMentalImagesofCorporateSustainabilitywithQualitativeEmpiricalResearch,SystemsResearchandBehavioralScience,JohnWiley&SonsLtd.,vol.31,pp.708-719.
Holmberg,J.(1998).Backcasting:ANaturalStepinOperationalisingSustainableDevelopment,pp.30-51.GreenerManagementInternational.DOI:10.1080/00393277408587587 Holmberg,J.,&Robert,K.H.(2000).Backcastingfromnon=overlappingsustainabilityprinciples–aframeworkforstrategicplanning.InternationalJournalofSustainableDevelopmentandWorldEcology,nr.7,pp.291-308.
Holmberg,J.,Andersson,D.,&Larsson,J.(n.d.).Leadershipforsustainabilitytransitions–ChallengeLabpreparatorycourse,Course-PMENM145-7.5HEC,Chalmers,viewed01June2016.https://pingpong.chalmers.se/courseId/6004/node.do?id=2629170&ts=1446374961059&u=1577468511
InternationalWellbeingGroup(2013).PersonalWellbeingIndex:5thEdition.Melbourne:AustralianCentreonQualityofLife,DeakinUniversity(http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/instruments/wellbeing-index/index.php)
Isaacs,W.(1999).DialogicLeadership.TheSystemsThinker,vol.10,nr.1,pp.1-5.
Larsson,J.,&Holmberg,J.(2016).Learningwhilecreatingvalueforsustainabilitytransitions-thecaseofChallengeLabatChalmersUniversityofTechnology.Journalarticle:submitted/inreviewMerriam-Webster(2015a).Latent,Merriam-WebsterIncorporated,viewed29June2016:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/latentMerriam-Webster(2015b).Vacant,Merriam-WebsterIncorporated,viewed29June2016:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vacantMittelman,W.(1991)."Maslow'sstudyofself-actualization:Areinterpretation".JournalofHumanisticPsychology3311(1):114–135.doi:10.1177/0022167891311010. Pisano,U.(2012).Theoryofresilience,systemsthinkingandadaptivegovernance.EuropeanSustainableDevelopmentNetwork[ESDN]QuarterlyReportN°26.Retrievedfromhttp://www.sd-network.eu/quarterly%20reports/report%20files/pdf/2012-September-Resilience_and_Sustainable_Development.pdf
Räisänen,C.,&Gunnarson,S.(2004).Multi-ProjectOrganizationsfromaMethodologicalPerspective:ChallengesandRewards,IRNOPVIProjectresearchProceedings,Turku,TurkuAcademicPress,pp.252-265.
66
Rawls,J.(1971).ATheoryofJustice.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.
Raworth,K.(2012).Asafeandjustplaceforhumanity:canwelivewithinthedaughnut?Oxfam:Oxford.Retrievedfromwww.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/dp-a-safe-and-just-space-for-humanity-130212-en.pdf
Rice,C.,Marlow,F.,Masarech,M.A.(2012).TheEngagementEquation:LeadershipStrategiesforanInspiredWorkforce.Hoboken,NewJersey.JohnWiley&Sons,Inc.
Rockströmetal.(2009).Asafeoperatingspaceforhumanity.Nature461,pp.472-475.DOI:10.1038/461472a
Ryan,R.,&Deci,E.(2000).Self-determinationtheoryandthefacilitationofintrinsicmotivation,socialdevelopmentandwellbeing,AmericanPsychologist,vol.55,nr.1,pp.68-78.
Sande,M.(2015).ENM145LeadershipforSustainabilityTransitions,lecture5:Seeingfromwithin,Learninginbetween,lecturePowerPointslides,viewed5January2016,https://pingpong.chalmers.se/courseId/6004/node.do?id=2699243&ts=1448359419771&u=1577468511 Sandow,D.,&Allen,A.M.(2005).TheNatureofSocialCollaboration:HowWorkReallyGetsDone.Reflections,vol.6,nr.2,pp.1.
SelfLeaders(2009).Metamodelforintegrationofpersonalandorganizationaldevelopment,lecture,PowerPointslides,Self-Leadership877StockholmSchoolofEconomics.
SelfLeaders(2016).Values-basedSelf-Leadership,ChalmersChallengeLab–Spring2016,lecturePowerPointslides,viewed15February2016,DominicvonMartens.
Sen,A.(1999).Developmentasfreedom(1sted.).NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Senge,P.(1990).FifthDiscipline:TheArtandPracticeoftheLearningOrganization,Century,London.
Simmie,J.andMartin,R.(2010).Theeconomicresilienceofregions:towardsanevolutionaryapproach.CambridgeJournalofRegions,EconomyandSociety,Vol.3(No.1),pp.27-43.DOI:10.1093/cjres/rsp029
Söderberg,O.(2014).Challenge-LabCompendium,viewed20March2016:https://pingpong.chalmers.se/courseId/6004/node.do?id=2708901&ts=1448638474281&u=1577468511
Steffen,W,etal.(2004).GlobalChangeandtheEarthSystem:APlanetUnderPressure.SpringerVerlag.
Taylor,S.J.,Bogdan,R.,DeVault,M.(2015).IntroductiontoQualitativeResearchMethods.JohnWiley&SonsInc.,Hoboken,NewJersey.
ValuesOnline(2015).ValuesOnline,viewed12June2016,www.valuesonline.net
Vergragt,P.J.,andQuist,J.(2011).Backcastingforsustainability:Introductiontothespecialissue.TechnologicalForecasting&SocialChange,vol.78,pp.747-755
67
AAppppeennddiicceess
A. InterviewGuide1. Introduction/Background
• Couldyoutellmeabitaboutyourself:background,education,previousjobs?• Whatdoyoudoinyourfreetime?• Whatareyourhobbies?Whatdoyoudooutsideofwork?• Doyoubelongtoanynetworksoutsideorinsidework?• CouldyoupleasegivemeadescriptionofyourrolehereatCF?• Howlonghaveyoubeenworkingherefor?• WhydidyouchoosetoworkhereatCF?Whatroledoyouhave?• CouldyoupleasedescribeatypicaldayatCFforme?
2. Sustainability–PersonalLevel
• Inyourownwords,couldyoupleasedescribewhatsustainabilitymeanstoyou?• What3wordscometoyourmindwithsustainability?Couldyoupleasedescribewhateach
entails?
3. Sustainability–OrganizationalLevel• CouldyoudescribewhatsustainabilitymeansforCFtoday?HowdoesCFworkwith
sustainabilitytoday?Askforspecific/concreteexamples!• Asanorganization,whatdoyoudesireforCFtoachievewithregardstosustainability?• Inregardstosustainability,whatdoyouexpectofeachindividualhereatCF?
4. Motivation
• Whatgetsupyouupeverymorning?• Whatmakesitdifficultforyoutocometowork?
5. Communication
• [ASKTODRAWasaMAP/WEB,STARTWITH‘ME’INCENTRE:who,how,when!]• WhodoyoucommunicatewithinCF?• Howdoyoucommunicatewiththem?Ie.Talk,email…• Howoftendoyoucommunicatewiththem?
6. Leadership
• Whatsortofleadershiptrainingisgiventostaff?• Whathaveyoutakenawayfromthesetrainingsandappliedatwork?Howhaveyouapplied
anylearningsyoureceived?• Howdoyouquestionifyouaredoingthe‘right’activityatwork?
i. Howdoyouvoicethis?ii. Ifyouhavedoubts,howdoyouexpressthis?
• Couldyouname3ofyourguidingvalues?
7. OrganizationalCultureValues• Pleaseselect10ofthefollowingvalues/behavioursthatmostreflecthowCFcurrently
operates.Iwillfollow-upwiththisandgivefeedbackwhenwehaveourfocusgroupexercise.
68
OOrrggaanniizzaattiioonnaallVVaalluueess––CCiirrccllee1100vvaalluueesstthhaattrreepprreesseennttMM--LLaabb88ttooddaayy!!
AAnnssvvaarr
(Accountability)
AAnnppaassssnniinnggssfföörrmmååggaa(Adaptability)
FFrraammggåånnggssrriikkttaarrbbeettssssäätttt(BestPractices)
SSkkyyllllaappåå(Blame)
BByyrrååkkrraattii(Bureaucracy)
MMeennttoorrsskkaapp(Coaching)
EEnnggaaggeemmaanngg(Commitment)
SSaammhhäällllsseennggaaggeemmaanngg(CommunityInvolvement)
MMeeddlliiddaannddee(Compassion)
SSjjäällvvbbeellååtteennhheett(Complacency)
KKoonnttrroolllleerraa(Control)
KKoorrrruuppttiioonn(Corruption)
KKrreeaattiivviitteett(Creativity)
KKuunnddnnööjjddhheett(CustomerSatisfaction)
MMeeddaarrbbeettaarrnnööjjddhheett//AArrbbeettssttiillllffrreeddssssttäälllleellssee(EmployeeFulfilment)
AAnnssttäällllddaasshhäällssaa(EmployeeHealth)
BBeemmyynnddiiggaa(Empowerment)
8Actualnameoforganizationwasreplacedforconfidentiality.
MMiilljjöömmeeddvveetteennhheett(EnvironmentalAwareness)
EEttiikk(Ethics)
VVäännsskkaapp(Friendship)
FFrraammttiiddaaggeenneerraattiioonneerr(FutureGenerations)
MMåålleennrriikkttaadd(GoalsOrientation)
GGiirriigghheett(Greed)
ÖÖddmmjjuukkhheett(Humility)
IInntteeggrriitteett(Integrity)
LLåånnggssiikkttiiggttppeerrssppeekkttiivv(Long-termPerspective)
LLoojjaalliitteett(Loyalty)
MMaanniippuullaattiioonn(Manipulation)
ÖÖppppeennkkoommmmuunniikkaattiioonn(OpenCommunication)
ÖÖppppeennhheett(Openness)
FFöörreettaaggssttiillllvvääxxtt//OOrrggaanniissaattoorriisskkttiillllvvääxxtt
(OrganizationalGrowth)
PPaassssiioonn(Passion)
PPeerrssoonnlliigguuttvveecckklliinngg(PersonalGrowth)
PPrreessttaattiioonnssssttoolltthheett(PrideinPerformance)
PPrroocceesssseerr(Processes)
KKvvaalliitteett(Quality)
SSääkkeerrhheett(Safety)
GGeemmeennssaammvviissiioonnoocchhvväärrddeerriinnggaarr(SharedVisionandValues)
AAkkttiieeääggaarrvväärrddee(ShareholderValue)
SSoocciiaallttaannssvvaarr(SocialResponsibility)
SSyysstteemm(Systems)
LLaaggaarrbbeettee(Teamwork)
GGeennoommssyynnlliigghheett(Transparency)
FFöörrttrrooeennddee(Trust)
69
B. FocusGroupOutcome,descriptionof“TheHeart”aspects
WWhhaattddooeesstthhiissmmeeaann?? WWhhaatt’’sswwoorrkkiinnggnnooww?? CCuurrrreennttcchhaalllleennggeess??
Humbleness • Takestime• Understandeach
other• Culture• Realism• Trust• Infrontofchange• +/-
Inspiration • Loyalworkers• Culture
• Lackoftime
Compassion1. Interestinpeople,
work2. Time3. Listening4. Communication5. Individualsituation
Interestinothers 6. Closelyconnectedwiththoseattributesofcompassion
Coaching • Employeestofeelenabled
• Shouldbebydefault
• Employee-to-employee
• Tryingtocoach • Notenoughtimetocatchleadertoemployeetime
• Notdeliveringtocustomers
Openness • Trust• Waytothink,
believethem• Transparency• Whattotell
employees• Dependson
individual,situation
• Timing,delivery• Respectwhenyou
haveavoice
• Staffmtgs,afterwork
Honesty1) Tellingthetruth2) Integrity,“walking
thetalk”
70
Culture1. Howweactvs.
behave2. Corporateculture3. “Inthewall”;
behavior4. Externaland
internal5. Values6. Everyonehasabig
role
7. Changevaluewords;howwewantthemtowork
8. Howtobe9. Usedtohavelots
ofworkshops
10. Peoplehaveleftthecompany
71
C. FocusGroupOutcome,descriptionof“TheBrain”aspects
WWhhaattddooeesstthhiissmmeeaann?? WWhhaatt’’sswwoorrkkiinnggnnooww?? CCuurrrreennttCChhaalllleennggeess??
Structure1) Tools,givesmore
time,allowsforcompassion
2) Predictability3) Clarity4) Senseof
direction
ClearDirection Clarity Meetings 1) New2) Loosenedup
structure,transitionperiod
3) Uncertainperiods
4) Stoppingalongtheway
5) Unstructured=frustration
6) Putinmoretime
Translation/Knowledge
1. Learningcommunity
2. Coaching3. Investingin
everyone;changeifneeded
4. Translateintopractice
5. Teachoneanother
6. Clarity
7. Obvious8. Customers9. Howdowecatch
theideas?
10. Stoppingalongtheway
11. Coaching12. Connectswith
challengesfromcleardirection
72
D. BVCModelJustification
Level Term Ecological Well-being Economic Societal
7:ServicetoHumanity&the
Planet
Long-TermPerspective (i) (III) Humility Ethics (IV)SocialResponsibility (i) (II) (III) (IV)Compassion FutureGenerations (i) (III)
6:MakingaDifference,
StrategicAlliances&Partnerships
EnvironmentalAwareness (i) (III) CommunityInvolvement (II) EmployeeFulfilment (II) Coaching/Mentoring (IV)
5:InternalCohesion,
BuildingInternalCommunity
Commitment (i) (IV)SharedVisionandValues (i) Trust (II) (IV)Integrity Creativity (II) Transparency (IV)Passion (II) Openness
4:Transformation,
ContinuousRenewal&
Learning
Teamwork Accountability (i) (IV)Adaptability (III) (IV)GoalsOrientation PersonalGrowth (II) (IV)Empowerment (IV)
3:Self-esteem,HighPerformance
Processes (i) (III) (IV)Quality (i) (III) (IV)PrideinPerformance BestPractices (i) (II) (III) Complacency Bureaucracy Systems (i) (III) (IV)
2:Relationship,Harmonious
Relationships
CustomerSatisfaction (III) (IV)Loyalty (i) OpenCommunication Friendship (II) Blame Manipulation
1:Survival,FinancialStability
EmployeeHealth (i) (II) (IV)Safety (II) (IV)ShareholderValue (II) (III) OrganizationalGrowth (III) Corruption (IV)Control (IV)Greed (II)
73
E. 2016CohortChallengeLabThesesHowdodifferentfactorsshapethedesignofcombinedgoodsandwastetransportationinurbanwaterwaysupplychains?
WhataretheimplicationsofSustainabilitycriteriaforurbanfreightsystemsinanurbandistrict?AcasestudyofFrihamnen
WhatsustainabilitycriteriaenableguidanceintheassessmentoftheplanningproposalsforJubileumsparkeninGothenburg?
HowcanamobilityservicelooklikeinafutureDenCityareatoactasanalternativetothecar?
Howtodevelopacitystrategyforscalingupelectro-mobilityinGothenburg?
Howcanasustainablerenovationofmulti-dwellingsbeensuredformtheinventory(pre-design)phaseon?AcasestudyinGamlestaden
Whatarethedriversandbarriersforimplementinginnovativesustainablematerialsintoconstructionprojects?
Whyisdialogueimportanttotranslatesustainabilitygoalsintoaction?
