descriptions of what both a leader and a person committed to sustainability looked like. Reflecting on the immediate differences between the new and former CEO, an employee at Merkur said:”
Charlotte wears a woman’s blazer, has her hair tied up and lives in Hellerup [..] and does not look like a hippie, but Lars [former CEO] does. [..] Maybe it is one of those things where we need to realize that it has different forms and expression” (Appendix J, 44:10). The quote supports broader findings in the data that indicated how leaders found value in including diverse stakeholders in their organization, as it was perceived as beneficial to the ability to think critically and in new ways. While acknowledging how he saw the new types of people coming into the organization as a good thing, CI also noted that an intervening condition was the need for their values to be in alignment with that of the organization, which can lead to a potential paradox (Appendix B).
Since expressing support for embracing diversity in organizations can be view as socially desirable, it would be relevant for further studies to examine to what extend diversity is a prominent feature in the organizations and which felicity conditions ensure that diversity talks become formative. Supporting the need for such an investigations is the fact that only one informant in an established organization was female, mirroring a general tendency of a lack of female CEOs in Danish organizations (Jeppesen, 2019).
function was seen to center around distributing responsibility and encouraging internal co-creation.
Reflecting on how his organization makes decisions, NA said “we have gone over to something that is called co-creation. It is fundamentally different mechanisms that are in play than what we know from the past” (Appendix G, 06:21). Instead of micro-managing, multiple informants felt it important to create an organizational framework that enabled employees to make their own decisions and to work independently. This was not seen as leaving employees to their own devices, but rather that employees were encouraged to engage with other stakeholders in what can be called an advice process when making decisions. The leader then sought to be available to collaborate as a knowledge-agent in the capacity that was needed to elevate the rest of the organizational team members (Appendix A, B). Although sharing this philosophy, CS acknowledged how time restraints could function as a barrier for this approach, and how it sometimes resulted in her forgetting to collaborate and instead stressed her to get the job done herself (Appendix B). Nonetheless, the lack of a team player mentality was by many seen as a barrier for collaboration, but also as a challenge for creating long-term solutions, since it often meant not utilizing all the internal skills and resources (Appendix B, D). An element that had a negative effect on leadership oriented at developing sustainable organizations, was an asymmetrical power relation between internal stakeholders. Some informants felt that when high ranking actors had too much influence over the general decisions, it created an organizational culture that favored status-quo rather than seeking to proactively deal with internal sustainability issues (Appendix B, C, L).
In three cases the rethinking of the organizational structure was extended to the actual ownership structure, with multiple employees being given the opportunity to own a share of the organization. In one case this also meant that all employees, from the CEO to the employee working in customer service received the same wages (Appendix E). The democratization of the organization was perceived to be an effective way of distributing agency whilst showing an authentic commitment to the vision. By democratizing the organization, the informants believed that the likelihood of having owners and investors that sought short-term profits were diminished in favor of actors who were driven by a long-term purpose. While the data shows that distributed leadership and democratization of the workplace was viewed as an important component in developing sustainable organizations, further studies are needed to examine how this rethinking of traditional organizational structures affect internal stakeholders in the short and long term.
5.3.2 Holistic and interdisciplinary approach
Besides including stakeholders in many of the organizational decisions, a shared belief amongst the leaders that supported the distributed leadership approach, was that leadership should attempt to encourage interdisciplinary collaboration between different departments. Working holistically and getting rid of internal silos was by many seen important. As CS explains: “I made an organizational change when I arrived where I tore down the silos. Today we work interdisciplinary, and it is one of the undisputed biggest successes that has made us more efficient” (Appendix A, 25:45). As part of the focus on working connected throughout the organization rather than in silos, the data showed that the leaders sought to develop knowledge sharing communities within the organization. In some cases, this was implemented by creating weekly meetings where one department at a time would share their newest projects and latest knowledge (Appendix B, E), while other leaders took a more informal approach by encouraging employees to seek advice from many different sources before making decisions (Appendix A). Reflecting on barriers for sustainability, CI expressed how he had previously worked in organizations that neglected the internal collaboration across teams which is why “it needs to be integrated in a way where it [sustainability] does not end out in a silo, but in the core in an interdisciplinary way so that everyone knows what is going on” (Appendix B, 40:32). The data thus show that the informants perceive working in separated silos as a direct intraorganizational barrier for integrating sustainability within the organization.
However, the data also showed that maintaining internal alignment while simultaneously giving employees more independence was perceived as a barrier when implementing this leadership approach, especially as the organization grew (Appendix B, E). Although noting that it was easier said than done, frequent internal coordination and building personal relation across departments was believed to be one of the most effective ways to overcome this challenge (Appendix B, K). The notion of an interdisciplinary approach mirrors a current organizational tendency where CSR departments are closed in order to integrate it throughout the organization (Rangan et al., 2015). As this study does not investigate the actual organizational output but focuses on the sensemaking of the leaders, further studies could examine how organizations that restructure their sustainability approach by closing the CSR department to integrate it throughout the organization, compares with organizations that are founded with an interdisciplinary approach.
5.3.3 Individual independence
The preference for distributed leadership with a high level of employee independence was further exemplified in the way that multiple informants directly criticized a more hands-on management approach. As one CEO formulated it “It is about working based on values and a vision rather than command and control. This change has been coming for some time, but it has come way, way too late” (Appendix B, 06:33). Although the leaders that shared this view seemed genuine in their responses, it is worth noting that it is unlikely that a leader openly would talk about controlling employees, due to the SDB against such an approach.
Despite the focused codes showing a tendency for distributed leadership, homing in on the data behind the codes revealed how the characteristics of independence was enacted differently in the organizations. Two major differences concerned: a) the degree of employee independence and b) where the responsibility lay when things didn’t go according to plan. Reflecting on the first aspect, the difference in the degree of independence varied from some leader giving employees extreme freedom, to leaders creating a guiding framework for them to structure their work around. Supporting the former viewpoint, the CEO of Greenspeak said “Nobody decides when you come to work or when you leave. They [the employees] need to feel they if they don’t do their work no one will, everything falls apart. With this in mind I give extreme freedom” (Appendix E, 19:57). However, in other organization the approach based on extreme freedom had been discarded, because it was seen as having a negative impact on the personal well-being of employees which hindered pursing a sustainable strategy: “It ends with not being freedom because of the way were are raised. Therefore, it becomes more like a prison for us” (Appendix G, 42:12). Instead, they supported the more structured approach, where it was seen as the leader’s role to set up an overarching framework that could guide the employees work.
Concerning where the ultimate responsibility rested, three approaches were identified: (a) distributed leadership meant that the employees who took the decisions also carried the responsibility for their consequences (Appendix J), (b) final responsibility was viewed as staying with the leader, since the employees were seen as the ones doing the job, and therefore also the ones that could make mistakes (Appendix H) and (c) responsibility was seen as shared by everyone involved in the decision-making process. Reflecting on the final approach (c), regardless of how they articulate responsibility internally, the ultimate responsibility and decision-making can be assumed to reside with the CEO, and it is thus likely that they are talking about the feeling of responsibility, indicating that their responses could partially be influenced by SDB. Building on the seemingly contrary finding
regarding the ideal level of employee independence, further studies could investigate how giving employees’ different degrees of independence impact their satisfaction and efficiency.
5.3.4 A leader of leaders
A noticeable point that emerged from the data, was how research participants expected the leader to function as a role model for employees, primarily through leading by example. The informants expressed how they saw this in relation to formal work and the everyday tasks, but also how to embody the more intangible values that permeated the organization. This was explicitly stated by CI:
“I believe that leaders need to be a beacon that others wish to follow” (Appendix B, 06:33). Having reflected on the importance of breaking with stereotypical descriptions of what both a leader and a person committed to sustainability looked like, CS expressed how she perceived her authenticity to be a crucial factor for employees to mirror themselves in her, something that she found very important for her leadership approach to be successful (Appendix A). Noting the importance of having a leader to look up to, one informant noted how his former CEO was too different from the remaining internal stakeholders and how this ultimately led to him being as foreign and non-relatable, which had a negative effect on his ability to inspire and motivate (Appendix L). These perspectives on how leaders are perceived by internal stakeholders would suggest that although an element of challenging status-quo may be present by breaking with certain stereotypes, a level of conformity is needed to ensure that the leader does not become alientated to the employees.
Having built an organization that focuses on giving more people the chance to contribute with the green transition by emphasizing the importance personal growth, NA said “I believe that leadership is about showing the way, to fail and to handle it in a constructive way” (Appendix G, 33:58) a perspective that was shared by the co-founder of Learning Mission: “I use my time to engage and inspire and of course be open about my own [personal process] and everything I do [..] openness and honesty is contagious” (Appendix D, 20:51). These quotes highlight an interesting pattern that emerged in the axial coding of how the element of leading by example often appeared when leaders also spoke about making their vulnerabilities and shortcomings explicit to their internal stakeholders.
This could suggest that while leaders saw the value in internal employees having them as role models, the leaders were simultaneously aware not to create an unrealistic persona that was beyond emulating.
By combining the view of distributed leadership with the notion of the leader as a role model, the data suggests a new perspective of leadership that envisions a leader of leaders rather than a leader of followers. With the increased focus on stakeholder inclusion and increased employee agency, future
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