studies could examine how the idea of a leader as a role model, may be affected by the organizational structure.
The findings above show how research participants in the study make sense of leadership and how this affects the way they develop their organizations to be sustainable. I have argued for the three core categories, by giving insights into the connection with their 2nd order concepts that emerged through the axial coding. Having gained an understanding of the internal dynamics of each core category, the following section is designed to offer an understanding of how certain elements of the core categories are linked together.
5.4 Towards a tentative model for understanding how regenerative leaders perceive the role
Figure 3. Regenerative leaders sensemaking of the role of leadership in developing sustainable organizations.
There was a general perception amongst the research participants that their capacity to work committedly was enabled by personal well-being and an inner sense of meaning. However, on a strategic level it was noted that the combination of personal well-being and working for a higher purpose could be hard to integrate since it required the organization to think in ways that challenged traditional thinking. The sense of meaning came from (a) working for a cause that transcends self-interests and (b) wanting to a part of the solution rather than the problem. While it can be argued that the meaning in some cases was managed by the organizations via the internal communicative framing around the purpose, the data suggested that the feeling of meaning came from internal stakeholders realizing their individual deeper purpose, which gradually was developed through their personal growth (Lips-Wiersma & Morris, 2009).
The data suggested that there existed an iterative feedback loop, with potential mutual positive benefits between the core concepts. When internal stakeholders experienced prosperity in their lives, they also felt that their intrinsic motivation for working increased. If they experienced an alignment of their deeper personal purpose with the higher organizational purpose, the result was likely a gradual elevated sense of meaning, which again added to their prosperity. The alignment of the deeper and higher purpose also added to personal prosperity by giving internal stakeholders a feeling of
belonging, which also had a positive effect on motivation and well-being. The data further seemed to suggest that the longer the informants were in this positive feedback loop, the stronger their understanding of sustainability became. However, if internal stakeholders struggled personally or if they didn’t resonate with the organizational way of engaging with the purpose, this could break the positive cycle and potentially lead to a negative cycle that decreased their sense of motivation and meaning. The data thus suggest that internal motivation for a higher societal purpose may be one of the key internal drivers that can enable organizations to align with a strong notion of sustainability.
A perceived barrier for the positive feedback loop to continue was top-level actors in the organization that didn’t commit authentically to the purpose, while the lack of explicit communication on the strategy and purpose was seen as an intervening condition that made alignment of personal and organizational purpose less likely. The findings also showed how a high degree of leadership commitment was an insufficient driver for developing a sustainable organization if (a) the leader neglected to listen to and include internal stakeholders in the process and (b) if the shareholders or owners weren’t committed.
5.4.2 The relation between personal prosperity and rethinking structures and leadership roles in organizations
The second connection is between personal prosperity and rethinking structures and leadership roles in organizations. Firstly, the data analysis shows how research participants view the leadership role as multidimensional, and not merely about getting the organizational machine to operate effectively.
Rather, the responsibility of the leader was by many perceived to permeate the personal lives of internal stakeholders and to create conditions for internal well-being and personal growth. For this to be achieved successfully, the leaders needed to function as a role model while at the same time distributing leadership and agency, so that other internal stakeholders could take more ownership of the internal processes. However, the data also showed that the distributed level of independence varied across organizations and that too much independence could be perceived as a barrier for developing a sustainable organization, which was why some viewed a framework to guide work processes as important to avoid a negative impact on personal prosperity. Rather than a one-size-fits-all solution, the research participants indicated that leaders need to understand the appropriate level of distributed leadership within their organization, to ensure that it functions as a positive driver of personal prosperity and to avoid internal conflict.
Secondly, by rethinking organizational structures and working interdisciplinary across teams, research participants in leadership positions attempted to encourage an organizational culture of informal communication that valued talking about personal topics. The organizational spaces designed for non-judgmental self-expression was perceived to assist the personal growth of participating stakeholders but was also indirectly seen as a way of proactively dealing with conflicts and increasing the feeling unity within the organization. Multiple informants in leadership positions expressed how they utilized safe spaces to articulate their own shortcomings, rather than appearing as the all-knowing leader at the top of the organization. In this regard, the leaders were seen as more than a role model on how to pursue the higher purpose of the organization, but also as an authentic role model that should embody intangible values such as diversity, trust, and transparency, which further helped break the stereotypical perception of a leader. Whilst most research participants expressed support for this approach, it was also made clear that forcing participation in anyway was advised against, since this only seemed to generate resistance.
5.4.3 The relation between rethinking traditional structures and organizational purpose
Examining the data of the last connection, reveals how rethinking internal structures and the role of leadership was seen as an integral dimension for organization with an ambition to authentically commit to a higher purpose and develop sustainable organizations. Firstly, as leaders sought to rethink traditional hierarchies and distribute leadership throughout the organization, a central part of leadership was providing strategic clarity to ensure that the organizational purpose was kept intact.
The strategic clarity was further perceived to decrease internal conflicts, by providing a frame for the alignment of personal and organizational purpose. Through the development of learning communities, leaders attempted to create drivers that allowed internal stakeholders to contribute to the constant development of the organization, while supporting a gradual transition towards a deeper personal understanding of sustainability. Enabling internal stakeholders to share knowledge and engage across teams, both personally and professionally, was viewed as an effective way of ensuring that the ambitions regarding the purpose continuously were raised. This was perceived tied to (a) heightened feeling of shared ownership and (b) a sense of pride in the organizational success. An interdisciplinary approach that spurred co-creation and knowledge-sharing by including more internal stakeholders in the process was thus viewed as a intraorganizational condition for the development of a purpose centered around sustainability.
Secondly, the data shows that the notion of the leader as an internal role model is closely connected with the perceived importance of top-level commitment. Leaders are seen as sources of inspiration and often function as an example of how personal purpose could be aligned with the organizational purpose, but only if there was a high degree of mutual trust, and if the internal stakeholders could mirror themselves in the leader. The sense of leaders as role models is extended to include leaders talking openly about personal topics, as it enables employees to be more authentic and more willing to co-create with other team members. This was supported by data that suggested how leaders who failed to act as role models or who neglected to support internal initiatives, were viewed as unauthentic or less committed. This was often seen to result in decreased motivation for the organizational purpose and acted as a barrier for the continuous focus on sustainability. The notion of leaders functioning as a role model is perceived across organizations, whether the leader was the founder or hired (Appendix B, C, E). While the leader functioned as a role model for the higher purpose, the data clearly shows how no leader is able to develop a sustainable organization without having support or trust from the remaining internal stakeholders, regardless of their level of commitment to the higher cause.
Thirdly, as the organizational purpose in many cases concerned building a flourishing future where resources were utilized for multiple stakeholder groups rather than to create myopic value for a few shareholders, the democratization of the ownership structure is seen as a strong indicator of authentic commitment. In democratized organizations research participants explicitly stated how they felt it had a direct influence on the way they experienced the organizational commitment to sustainability (Appendix I, K). A lack of authentic commitment from the owners was likewise seen as one of the biggest challenges for developing organizations with a sustainable purpose. A noteworthy point that emerges from the data is how informants in leadership positions with high ambitions seemed to be engaged in a more critical rethinking of organizational structures.
It is worth noting that the figure 3 is designed using a primarily inductive grounded theory approach based on first-hand empirical data. Therefore, further research would be relevant to (a) check to what extend the findings represent the reality in the organizations which the leaders represented and not only the leader’s perceptions, (b) to test the findings against a larger sample of leaders and (c) to see to what extend the identified components converge and diverge with existing discourses on leadership. The following discussion section will attempt to accommodate point c, by comparing the findings and the proposed model to the leadership concepts from the literature review.
6 Discussion
As this study aims to understand the sensemaking amongst leaders that have the ambition of developing sustainable organizations, the discussion section will start by comparing the understanding of sustainability amongst informants in leader positions with the notion of strong sustainability (Dyllick & Muff, 2016; Landrum, 2018; Sjåfjell, 2018). Secondly, I will juxtapose the main findings to progressive leadership discourses and discuss potential benefits and challenges.
Lastly, having recognized how the ambiguous nature of the concept of sustainability is causing exhaustion and resistance of its widespread use, the discussion will end by proposing a new way of assessing organizational sustainability.