When examining the codes and the data, one of the most crucial elements in developing a sustainable organization was perceived to be authentic commitment to a societal higher purpose with a global perspective. There seemed to be a consensus amongst all informants that this element was of fundamental importance as a source of motivation for working, but also to ensure that the organization moved from communication to more tangible actions.
5.1.1 Working for a higher purpose
The data suggests that a defining aspect for organizations working with sustainability, is that leadership is about articulating a clear vision that is connected to a higher purpose about making a positive change in the world “The purpose [of our organization] is to make a global sustainable difference” (Appendix K, 13:45). While this purpose revolved around environmental aspects of sustainability, in many cases it simultaneously meant that leaders sought to improve social conditions
3 The reader may note that the subheadings in the findings, differ slightly from the 2nd order concepts. This was a conscious choice to make the sections easier to read and does not mean that the 2nd order concepts have been discarded or mixed
both in- and outside the organization. Regardless of the scope of the organizational purpose, the data suggest that leadership should prioritize embedding sustainability within the core operations of the organization: “It is essential that it [sustainability] is an integrated part of your business. It will not be authentic if it is not written in your business model” (Appendix A, 25:45). To show their commitment to a sustainable business approach, two leaders in for-profit organizations had implemented sustainability considerations as a legal requirement in their business model. Other informants further argued against isolating sustainability in a single CSR department, and instead advocated that it should be implemented across the organization. However, it was also noted that long-term commitment to a higher purpose could be challenging, resulting in some leaders considering if the organizational ambitions to sustainability should be lowered (Appendix B, L).
Further studies could investigate how explicit sustainability obligations in the business model could function as a felicity condition for making CSR communication formative of more actions, and how auto-communication potentially could ensure that ambitions are not lowered.
Another thing that characterized the responses in the data, was that the leaders felt that the organizational purpose should be inspired by global macro-level conditions, such as CO2-emissions and resource scarcity. Reflecting on how his company impacted the planet, MB noted “We have become to many people that use to many resources. We use around four globes each year and that is just too much” (Appendix F, 04:44). According to CI, putting operations in a global perspective is the only way to ensure that leadership can avoid oversimplifying challenges such as climate change and take the actual necessary measures (Appendix, B). However, at the same time both he and others acknowledged how climate dominated the agenda and that other considerations often were overlooked (Appendix H). Nonetheless, thinking of the planetary conditions and proactively attempting to make a difference gave multiple informants the feeling of being part of the solution rather than the problem, which was a great source of motivation for them and an essential part of their view on leadership. The discussion section will examine to what extend the informants view and understanding of sustainability aligns with the urgent call to overcome The Big Disconnect (TBD) (Dyllick & Muff, 2016). The way the informants sought to combine visionary ideas with a sense of responsibility, suggests a merging of ideas from the transformational and responsible leadership approach.
According to the data, the leaders in this study didn’t perceive money as an end goal, but rather as a resource that would assist in realizing the higher organizational purpose. Two CEOs said
“Money is a super effective and good resource, but you need a plan for what you want to do with it.
That is why you have the sustainable vision” (Appendix G, 19:20) and “It is not about if we get more customers. It is about how we can better achieve that which is our mission” (Appendix E, 35:04).
Acknowledging the explicit benevolence articulated in these comments, it is simultaneously valid to point out how both the organizations these CEOs represent are financially dependent on a continuous cash-flow. It nonetheless represents a sensemaking that diverges from a more traditional business approach where the fundamental purpose of the organization is profit maximization and gaining market share (Friedman & Friedman, 1990). The more traditional business perspective was evident in one organization that failed to transition towards a long-term sustainability focus, because the owners weren’t willing to sacrifice short-term economic gains but demanded that the business placed primacy on profit generation (Appendix, F, L). This suggests that ownership support may be an important intraorganizational condition for leadership practices to be able to successfully develop a sustainable organization.
5.1.2 Personal and organizational alignment
Furthermore, the data showed how alignment between the personal purpose of internal stakeholders and organizational purpose, was interpreted as a crucial factor by leaders that wished to develop a sustainable organization. As one informant expressed it “Firstly the leaders need to create a mission that resonates with their employees. It needs to be more than a job. I find that fundamental”
(Appendix E, 19:57). One way the leaders attempted to ensure this alignment, was by explicitly communicating about what the organizational values and purpose, so that the internal stakeholders easily could sense if it resonated with them. That may be why the CEO of Merkur during the early stages of her appointment spent time to reformulate the values, ambitions, and mission of the company “[so that] both the old and the new employees at Merkur are totally aware of what it is Merkur stands for” (Appendix A, 22:52). However, there was also room for a degree of ambiguity as multiple informants raised the point that some internal stakeholders had different personal drivers of meaning within the purpose. Putting this in relation to sensemaking, the explicit communication can be seen as the leaders enactment of their environment and their attempt to get internal stakeholders to move in the same direction (Weick, 1979, 1987).
Rather than leaders constantly having to motivate people to work, the data indicated that employees were intrinsically motivated to work proactively with sustainability if there was an alignment between their personal values and the organizational purpose. As one employee said “we are in it for a greater cause. I would say that being driven by motivation and having a leader that
understands that is alfa omega” (Appendix H, 13:50). Supporting this perspective, NA noted that he felt communication about the sustainable purpose was important to get employees and external stakeholders to support his work (Appendix G, 19:20). In this regard the data indicated how research participants tended to favor a collaborative framing around the issue of sustainability, which focused on the positive change that was possible by working together, rather than the negative consequences of continuing with unsustainable practices (Appendix B, D, E, F). The data further showed how the lack of explicit communication, e.g., written documents about the purpose, was interpreted as having a detrimental effect on the success on the organizations attempt to implement sustainability, as leaders felt it could lead internal stakeholders to be confused about the overall direction of the organization (Appendix A, B).
These findings mirror the debate on unified diversity vis-a-visa strategic clarity brought forward by Eisenberg (1984). Although he argues that strategic ambiguity could be a strong driver of organizational change, the findings indicate that despite a certain level of ambiguity, the informants primarily saw explicit communication as a contributing factor for their ability to align their personal with the organizational purpose. Further studies could therefore investigate how the use of strategic ambiguity varied from organizations committed to a higher purpose vis-à-vis more traditional organizations. An intraorganizational condition that had a potentially negative impact on this alignment was organizational growth, as it was perceived to be harder to keep a shared culture and interpersonal contact with most of the internal stakeholders (Appendix B, E, K). It was also noted that the implementation of internal changes without a transition period could lead to internal resistance to sustainability initiatives (Appendix F, L)
5.1.3 Sustainability understanding as ambiguous and dynamic
Going forward, the data suggested that personal purpose and the underlying motivation for working with sustainability was a dynamic concept that changed over time and which could be affected by external factors. While speaking about antecedents for their work with sustainability, few of the informants noted how their motivation for protecting the environment originated in their childhood and how it had been a driving factor throughout their lives. As NA explains “there came a time relatively early in my life where I saw how nature was the most supreme thing, our basis for existence and the thing we needed to protect to ensure our future” (Appendix G, 06:21). Whilst it is important to note the social desirability connotations connected with this quote and the general bias towards remembering things as we want them to be (Watson et al., 2005), the quote may also represent the
way the informant makes sense of his world and course-map that informs his work (Weick et al., 2005).
Other informants felt that it was the meeting with the organizational culture that gradually directed them towards thinking more about sustainability, in relation to both their work and personal lives. As one CEO said: “When you arrive in an organization like Merkur you become exposed to so many good ideas, analysis, facts, knowledge and opportunities. It [sustainability] starts to grow on you and I am without a doubt more sustainable that I was six months ago” (Appendix A, 05:27).
With the use of in-vivo coding, it became apparent that this gradual transition towards a stronger and more encompassing understanding of sustainability, often was experienced as a journey by the informants. As one employee aptly put it: “It has been a journey and I don’t believe in any way that I am done with, but I think I have a found a good place to be for the moment” (Appendix K, 09:50).
It can be argued that this enactment may be influenced by a form of identity bias that is produced by their professional career (Weick, 1979). This seems to suggest that when the organizational culture is strong and there is an authentic commitment to the purpose, it becomes easier for new internal stakeholders to align with the overall purpose and to develop a sense of intrinsic motivation.
The data also shows how multiple informants perceived the concept of sustainability as a floating signifier, as it was used in so many ambiguous ways that they felt it ended up lacking any real meaning. As ML noted: “The concept of sustainability is totally watered down and we have often thought about using a different word because it just gets misused and is never really says what we want to say” (Appendix D, 12:21). This mirrors the findings of Montiel and Delgdo-Ceballos (2014) that found multiple different definitions of sustainability in academic literature. Noting the frustration that a lack of a common understanding causes scholars and business practitioners’, this thesis will conclude by proposing a new way for leaders to assess organizational sustainability.
5.1.4 Top-level commitment
The data further indicates that leadership behavior and the top-level commitment was perceived by informants as an essential factor when developing sustainable organizations. When talking about how to create organizations that aligned with a strong notion of sustainability KS said that “If you want to create regenerative organizations you need to start with leaders that are aware of the principles and live it themselves” (Appendix C, 01:34). This was echoed by MR who believes that “You cannot fake or bluff your way to it [sustainability]. You simply need to embody it and live it” (MR, 2021, 57:42).
CI likewise repeated that the top leaders in organization and the owners need to live and commit to
sustainability, because internal and external stakeholders constantly evaluate if their efforts seem sincere (Appendix B).
Likewise, the data shows that when internal stakeholders sense that leaders fail to practice what they preach, it may have a damaging effect on employee motivation. As one informant put it “If you [the leader] don’t do it than you are teaching your employees that it really doesn’t matter, that it’s all just for show” (Appendix E, 19:57) and another saying, “If there isn’t support from the leaders then nothing will happen” (Appendix G, 31:10). This seems to indicate that even with an organizational purpose that guides the organizational operations, the way leaders interact and engages with internal stakeholders was experienced to play a crucial role in avoiding a discrepancy between talk and the actual practices.
Nonetheless, while top-level commitment was seen as an integral part of proper leadership, isolated it was seen as an insufficient intraorganizational condition for sustainability initiatives to be implemented in the organization. Despite having an authentic passion for transitioning his business towards a stronger focus on sustainability, the data revealed how MB ultimately failed in his endeavors, due to lack of commitment from the remaining owners (Appendix F) but also because his commitment wasn’t matched by employees that didn’t perceive sustainability as salient for the organization (Appendix L). A former employee of his noted that although MB’s commitment was felt as authentic, the proposed changes were too drastic and didn’t invite participation from anyone, making it a one-man project (Appendix L).
5.1.5 Decision-making rationale
While the research participants had distinctive ways of working with sustainability, the data interestingly showed how the sensemaking behind the leaders’ decision-making varied. Although the research participants in leadership positions engaged in a high degree of stakeholder inclusion (see forthcoming section), the informants seemed to make decisions on either a knowledge or emotional and intuition-based rationale. While presented here as either-or, it can be assumed that both elements play a part in actual decision-making processes, and that the way in which the question was posed in the interview may have affected the informant’s interpretation and subsequent response.
Nevertheless, it is interesting to note how it was generally the informants from bigger organizations who favored a knowledge-based approach (e.g., appendix A, B) and the informants from smaller organizations who made decisions that included a higher degree of emotional sensemaking (e.g., appendix C, F, G). As one leader expressed it: “The rational mind can do a lot of things, but there is
also a lot that it cannot. And that’s where I use the emotional intelligence because it can embrace more complex thinking” (Appendix G, 23:10). However, multiple informants who made sense of their decisions from an emotional standpoint also noted that the need for data and facts was an important dimension that sometimes was forgotten. As MB explained: “People love numbers and that was one of the things I didn’t manage to do. I had to much philosophy and to little facts. While it makes sense that this is something that we need to do something about [making their operations more sustainable], I now see that people want something measurable” (Appendix F, 48:50). This may suggest that actors who are very passionate about wanting to make a difference, sometimes favor a pathos-based appeal and neglect the use of logos-based appeal, which can decrease their ability to gain support for their views. The data samples are insufficient to make any general claims, and further studies are needed to examine how argumentation and communicative framing of sustainability may vary across different types of organizational leaders.