Regenerative leadership
How progressive leaders make sense of organizational sustainability
Master thesis
Cand.merc.(kom.) Thesis supervisor: Dennis Schoeneborn
Regenerativt lederskab
Hvordan progressive ledere skaber bæredygtige organisationer
Resumé
Formål
I disse år opleves et stigende behov for at organisationer tager aktiv del i udviklingen af en mere bæredygtig fremtid. Med udgangspunkt i at etableret akademisk ledelseslitteratur ikke i nødvendig grad formår at forholde sig til globale bæredygtighedsudfordringer, forsøger denne kandidatafhandling at undersøge den organisatoriske ledelsesforståelse blandt ledere der aktivt forsøger at bringe en stærk tilgang til bæredygtighed ind i deres organisationer.
Metode
Med afsæt i en pragmatisk og hermeneutisk videnskabsteoretisk forståelse, forsøger specialet induktivt med en Grounded Theory tilgang at undersøge udvalgte informanters forståelse og iscenesættelse af organisatorisk ledelse. På baggrund af 12 semistrukturerede interviews foretages en iterativ kodningsproces for at analysere den indsamlede kvalitative empiriske data.
Resultater
Studiets resultater viser at informanternes forståelse af ledelse kredsede omkring tre komponenter, som de oplever som vitale for at ledere kan være i stand til at udvikle bæredygtige organisationer: (a) at interne interessenters personlige trivsel bliver prioriteret, (b) at der målrettet bliver arbejdet med et autentisk samfundsmæssigt formål, og (c) at lederens rolle og de organisatoriske strukturer bliver gentænkt. Studiet finder at disse komponenter er gensidigt afhængige og at de tilsammen udgør hvad der kan betegnes som en regenerativ ledelsestilgang.
Konklusion
På baggrund af en komparativ analyse af studiets resultater med de herskende progressive ledelsesdiskurser, kan det konkluderes at den regenerative ledelsestilgang bør betragtes som en ny ledelsesform, der særligt finder anvendelse i organisationer der proaktivt ønsker at tage hånd om globale bæredygtighedsudfordringer. I kræft af at studiet fokuserer på informanternes subjektive opfattelse af, hvordan organisatorisk ledelse bør praktiseres, er der behov for fremtidige studier, der undersøger eventuelle diskrepans med de reelle ledelsespraksisser. På baggrund af den ambivalens der opleves i både den akademiske verden og blandt informanterne omkring bæredygtighedskonceptet, afsluttes specialet med at foreslå en ny metode til at vurdere organisatorisk bæredygtighed.
1 Table of Contents
2 INTRODUCTION... 6
2.1 THE PRELIMINARY PROBLEM FOCUS ... 7
3 LITERATURE REVIEW ON PROGRESSIVE LEADERSHIP FOR SUSTAINABILITY ... 8
3.1 EXAMINING DIFFERENT FORMS OF PROGRESSIVE LEADERSHIP ... 8
3.1.1 TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP ... 10
3.1.2 ETHICAL LEADERSHIP ... 11
3.1.3 RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP ... 13
3.2 TOWARDS A STRONG NOTION OF SUSTAINABILITY ... 14
3.3 A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO RELEVANT NEIGHBOURING LITERATURE ... 19
3.3.1 CSR COMMUNICATION LITERATURE ... 19
3.4 SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESEARCH QUESTION20 3.4.1 RESEARCH QUESTION ... 21
4 PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE AND METHODOLOGY ... 22
4.1 PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE ... 22
4.1.1 HERMENEUTIC APPROACH ... 23
4.1.2 PRAGMATISM ... 23
4.2 METHODOLOGY SECTION ... 25
4.2.1 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS ... 25
4.2.2 INTERVIEW GUIDE ... 26
4.2.3 SAMPLING AND RECRUITMENT ... 27
4.2.4 CROSS-CHECKING THE RELEVANCE OF THE IDENTIFIED INFORMANTS WITH THE REGENERATIVE CAPACITY INDEX (RCI) ... 29
4.2.5 SOCIAL DESIRABILITY BIAS ... 30
4.2.6 INTERVIEW PROCESS ... 31
4.2.7 TRANSCRIPTION ... 31
4.3 DATA ANALYSIS:GROUNDED THEORY APPROACH ... 31
4.3.1 THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF GROUNDED THEORY ... 32
4.3.2 OPEN LINE-BY-LINE CODING ... 32
4.3.4 AXIAL CODING ... 34
4.3.5 SELECTIVE CODING ... 35
4.4 METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS... 36
4.4.1 HOW THE COVID-19 SITUATION HAS AFFECTED THE DATA COLLECTION... 36
4.5 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY ... 37
5 FINDINGS ... 39
5.1 AUTHENTIC COMMITMENT TO A HIGHER SOCIETAL PURPOSE. ... 39
5.1.1 WORKING FOR A HIGHER PURPOSE ... 39
5.1.2 PERSONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL ALIGNMENT ... 41
5.1.3 SUSTAINABILITY UNDERSTANDING AS AMBIGUOUS AND DYNAMIC ... 42
5.1.4 TOP-LEVEL COMMITMENT ... 43
5.1.5 DECISION-MAKING RATIONALE ... 44
5.2 PRIORITIZING PERSONAL PROSPERITY ... 45
5.2.1 ACTIVE LISTENING ... 45
5.2.2 ORGANIZATIONAL SPACES FOR INFORMAL TALKS ... 46
5.2.3 TAKING CARE OF INTERNAL STAKEHOLDER’S PERSONAL WELL-BEING ... 46
5.2.4 EMBRACING DIVERSITY ... 47
5.3 RETHINKING STRUCTURES AND THE ROLE OF LEADERSHIP IN ORGANIZATIONS ... 48
5.3.1 DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP ... 48
5.3.2 HOLISTIC AND INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH ... 50
5.3.3 INDIVIDUAL INDEPENDENCE ... 51
5.3.4 A LEADER OF LEADERS ... 52
5.4 TOWARDS A TENTATIVE MODEL FOR UNDERSTANDING HOW REGENERATIVE LEADERS PERCEIVE THE ROLE OF LEADERSHIP ... 53
5.4.1 THE RELATION BETWEEN PURPOSE AND PERSONAL PROSPERITY ... 53
5.4.2 THE RELATION BETWEEN PERSONAL PROSPERITY AND RETHINKING STRUCTURES AND LEADERSHIP ROLES IN ORGANIZATIONS ... 55
5.4.3 THE RELATION BETWEEN RETHINKING TRADITIONAL STRUCTURES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PURPOSE 56 6 DISCUSSION ... 58
6.1 EVALUATING RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS UNDERSTANDING OF SUSTAINABILITY ... 58
6.2 JUXTAPOSING THE FINDINGS WITH PROGRESSIVE LEADERSHIP DISCOURSES. ... 61
6.2.1 CENTRAL POINTS OF CONVERGENCE BETWEEN THE FINDINGS AND PROGRESSIVE LEADERSHIP ... 61
6.2.2 CENTRAL POINTS OF DIVERGENCE BETWEEN THE FINDINGS AND PROGRESSIVE LEADERSHIP ... 62
6.2.3 EVALUATING MY FINDINGS AGAINST THE EMERGING NOTION OF REGENERATIVE LEADERSHIP ... 64
6.3 ESTABLISHING REGENERATIVE LEADERSHIP AS A DISTINCT TYPE OF LEADERSHIP ... 65
6.3.1 BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES WITH THE NEW NOTION OF REGENERATIVE LEADERSHIP ... 66
6.4 TOWARDS A NUANCED UNDERSTANDING OF SUSTAINABILITY ... 68
7 CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK ... 72
7.1 CONCLUSION ... 72
7.2 IMPLICATIONS... 73
7.2.1 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS ... 73
7.2.2 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS ... 74
7.3 FURTHER RESEARCH ... 74
7.4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ... 75
8 REFERENCES ... 76
Appendix overview
Interview transcripts ………A – L Interview guides ……….……M - N Regenerative capacity index (RCI) scores………. O
2 Introduction
Although the modernisation of society has resulted in a relative increase in the standard of living for most western people in the 21st century (de Jong, 2015), it can be argued that the linear business model of take-make-use-waste that has enabled this development, is having a devastating effect on our planet (Downs & Acevedo, 2019). In an attempt counteract the destruction of human activity on the environment, the Brundtland report was issued in the 1980’s and with it, the mainstream introduction the concept of sustainability (Brundtland et al., 1987). In both academic literature and business practise, this ignited a shift away from a Friedman type of businesses ideology with the sole focus on profit maximisation (Friedman & Friedman, 1990), towards a multi-stakeholder orientation with recognition of a broader triple bottom line (Freeman, 2015; Norman & MacDonald, 2004).
Communicating about corporate social responsibility (CSR) and connecting business operations with the UN’s sustainable development goals (SDG’s) has been adopted by many organisations, as a way to mitigate their environmental impact, or at least make it seem so.
However, despite organizations increasingly becoming more sustainable oriented, the environment continues to decline (Landrum, 2018; Sjåfjell, 2018), evident in the fact that the earth overshoot day is happening earlier and earlier every year (Mailhes, 2020). The somewhat contradictory finding that the focus on sustainability is increasing at the same time as the health of the planet is deteriorating, raises questions regarding the usefulness of such an ambiguous concept (Metcalf & Benn, 2013). One reason for this may be a result of a lacking definition for what the concept sustainability entails (Montiel & Delgado-Ceballos, 2014).
Going forward, instead of an instrumental approach to CSR where sustainability becomes an optional add-on so that organisations can continue with business as usual (Banerjee, 2008; Schultz et al., 2013; Sjåfjell, 2018), it is worth investigating the micro-level drivers that can help organizations engage with sustainability in a way that has a positive effect on the planet. While changing stakeholder demands, scarcity of natural resources, governmental regulations and the quest for social legitimacy are but few of the external pressures that push organizations towards change (Lozano, 2013, 2015), multiple studies point to organizational leadership as being one of the key determinants of the organizational sustainability approach (Boiral et al., 2014; Du et al., 2013; Knight & Paterson, 2018; Metcalf & Benn, 2013). While different types of progressive leadership forms have been studied rigorously for many years, studies of leaders that actively seek to adapt organizational sustainability to the planetary boundaries seem largely missing (Latour, 2018; Raworth, 2017).
Recognizing this lacuna, this thesis will seek to examine the cross-section between contemporary understandings of sustainability and organizational leadership. By collecting empirical data from purposefully chosen leaders in Danish organizations as well from their internal stakeholders, I hope to shed light on the sensemaking that underpin the leadership approach amongst progressive leaders within the field of sustainability. Noting the novelty of such a research in a Danish context, I approach the subject with an inductive research approach letting the knowledge of the informants guide my findings.
The study aims to contribute to the urgent need for understanding how organizations can orient themselves towards a stronger and more integrated notion of sustainability, and thus contribute to reducing the negative impact that human activity has on our planet. By investigating new approaches to leadership and looking at intraorganizational conditions for organizational sustainability, this thesis hopes to have both theoretical and practical implications for scholars and practitioners interested in this field.
To do this, the thesis is structured as follows: Having proposed a preliminary problem focus, I will engage in a comprehensive literature review pertaining to relevant leadership discourses and contemporary understandings of sustainability. From the findings of this secondary data, a sharpened research question is developed, which will guide the further empirical data collection. Having argued for the underlying philosophy of science and the methodology of my data treatment and analysis, I will present my findings by offering insights into the three main categories that were identified as key components in the informants sensemaking of leadership. A subsequent discussion will link the findings back to existing notions of leadership and sustainability, firstly arguing for the adoption of regenerative leadership as a new leadership approach, and secondly proposing a tentative framework that may assist leaders getting a nuanced understanding of organizational sustainability. The thesis concludes by summarizing the results, highlighting certain theoretical and practical implications, and presenting new avenues for future research.
2.1 The preliminary problem focus
The introduction above leads me to the following preliminary problem focus:
I am interested in studying how leaders that are committed to sustainability approach leadership, what rationale lays behind their decisions and how they attempt to build organizations that have a contemporary focus on sustainability.
3 Literature review on progressive leadership for sustainability
To uncover the current state of knowledge that can help answer the preliminary problem focus, this literature review will firstly deal with different understandings of progressive leaders, namely ethical leadership, transformational leadership, and responsible leadership. Through a systematic review of key leadership literature streams, I will examine the merits of the existing notions, as well as highlight the areas where current leadership discourse is underdeveloped. Secondly, this literature review will focus on the contemporary understanding of sustainability, which proposes a significant rethinking of what it means to deal with sustainability in a strategic sense and what is required for something to be considered sustainable. Although the focus of this literature review primarily will focus on different notions of progressive leaders, I acknowledge that other related streams of literature potentially could help answer the preliminary problem statement. Thus, I will also briefly highlight the merits of neighbouring literature.
3.1 Examining different forms of progressive leadership
Although a complete review of all progressive leadership types would be relevant in answering the preliminary problem focus, it is beyond the scope of this thesis to engage in such a comprehensive literature review. While acknowledging the relevance of leadership concepts such as authentic leadership, spiritual leadership, and servant leadership, works regarding these understandings of leadership have been omitted from this thesis, as they can be considered elements that appear in other forms of leadership, rather than a separate stream of leadership literature (Brown & Treviño, 2006;
Luthans & Avolio, 2003). Going forward, it is important to note that leadership is a blurred concept (Wittgenstein, 1953), that describes a quality that can be attributed to other stakeholders than the formal leader. Thus, leadership in this thesis will be used refer to individuals that actively engage in leading others through a process of influence within an organization (Yukl, 2008). The word leader is primarily used to refer to an individual actor holding the formal position of CEO within an organization
Despite their seemingly perfect fit with the preliminary problem focus, the notion of sustainable leadership and regenerative leadership will only receive a fleeting glance, as they both lack the academic rigor, empirical foundation, and widespread adoption to provide a solid academic foundation.
Although relevant in a corporate perspective, the notion of Sustainable Leadership (SL) has primarily been studied in an educational context (e.g. Davies, 2007; Hargreaves, 2007) with only a
handful of authors gaining a foothold in the academic literature (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011;
Hargreaves & Fink, 2012; Tideman et al., 2013). However, one notable element of SL is that it starts with recognising the disruptive changes that occur in the context of business and society today (outside-in), while many other leadership approaches start from the viewpoint of the leaders and the current status quo of their organisation (inside-out) (Tideman et al., 2013).
The concept of Regenerative Leadership has only risen to the surface in the last few years but is nonetheless showing promising signs, albeit only in managerial literature. Like SL, it focuses on sustainability by promoting the alignment of leadership practises with the actual context of society.
A key difference however, is that it argues the elevation of the human consciousness as a vital antecedent of sustainability (Hardman, 2013; Hutchins & Storm, 2019), by building on other managerial ideas such as Theory U (Scharmer, 2018) and Spiral Dynamics (Beck & Cowan, 1996).
While the references used in regenerative leadership literature for claiming consciousness as an important antecedent lacks scientific validation, other academic studies have in fact suggested that higher levels of consciousness may have a positive impact on the sustainability orientation of the organisation (Boiral, 2009; Boiral et al., 2014). Although advocating for an organisational vision similar to Transformational Leadership (see forthcoming section) and aligning with an Earth-systems approach (Hutchins & Storm, 2019) similar to that of Kate Raworth (2017) (see forthcoming section) the managerial character, the lack of peer-reviews and the reoccurring tenant of unsubstantiated claims makes it unsuitable as the foundation for an academic study.
Despite not having permeated the academic literature, these perspectives on leadership are briefly included to indicate that new perspectives on leadership are emerging. Going forward, this review will focus on the notions of (a) Transformational Leadership (e.g., Bass & Riggio, 2006), (b) Ethical Leadership (e.g., Brown & Treviño, 2006) and (c) Responsible Leadership (e.g., Pless &
Maak, 2011), in particular. While these three approaches to leadership can be viewed as separate theoretical concepts, they simultaneously represent different forms of sensemaking that underpin how organizational leadership is enacted (Weick et al., 2005; Western, 2008). The notion of sensemaking is interesting, because it can be seen as the primary site where the meaning that informs action and behaviour is determined (Helms-Mills, 2019; Weick et al., 2005). Looking at the progressive leadership approaches can help understand the cognitive structures that guide how leadership is enacted within organizations and the different components that are perceived to enable leadership to be effective. Studying the sensemaking of leaders in relation to sustainability thus answers the call by Basu and Palazzo (2008) to investigate the internal organizational drivers of CSR.
3.1.1 Transformational Leadership
Starting with Transformational Leadership (TL), García-Morales et al., (2012) defines it as “the style of leadership that heightens consciousness of collective interests amongst the organisations members and helps them achieve their collective goals” (p.1: italics added). One of the central elements of TL is that the leader attempts to inspire his/her followers by developing a clear vision, that builds a sense of purpose around a shared mission (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Cardona et al., 2019; García-Morales et al., 2012; Singh et al., 2020). Looking at the emergence of TL, Western (2008) and García-Morales et al., (2012) claim that this form of leadership is especially relevant in volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) environments. This may explain why this approach gained attraction in the aftermath of the Cold War, where many people lacked a sense of belonging and where organisations needed a new sense of direction in an increasing global free-market economy (Western, 2008).
Furthermore, scholars suggest that TL is often found in leaders that have charisma and use inspirational motivation to pursue this vision (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Cardona et al., 2019), and bears strong resemblance to both the therapist- and messiah leadership discourse suggested by Western (2008). Based on these traits, transformational leaders often function as “role models” for their followers, and through emotional links (García-Morales et al., 2012) they mentor their followers to pursue their own capacity to lead (Bass & Riggio, 2006). In this way, TL is not only found in top management, but can be found throughout an organisation, which sets it aside from the traditional top-down approach to leadership (García-Morales et al., 2012).
Looking at how TL influences organisational performance, a number of studies has found a positive relation between TL practises and both organisational learning (García-Morales et al., 2012), image and reputation (Bass & Riggio, 2006) and innovation (Singh et al., 2020). Studies have further shown that visionary leaders can create financially successful organizations, but that an intervening condition is the value of their stakeholder relations (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008). This is supported by studies that suggested that TL cannot stand alone and that a supportive organizational culture is needed if the leadership practises are to be successfully implemented. It is suggested in the literature, that the TL influence on organisational performance also comes from leaders empowering their followers which subsequently gives them authority (Bass & Riggio, 2006). This is however highly criticised, as empowerment can also be seen as self-evidently disempowering, since it implies that the leader gives the follower something they do not already have, and thus TL rests on a unidirectional premise (Western, 2008). Beyond this, Brown and Treviño (2006) distinguish between
authentic and pseudo TL, and Bass & Riggio (2006) suggest that a lack of authenticity may result in leaders becoming manipulative of their followers.
Although noting the potential of TL to have a positive influence on organisational performance, the missing element of moral and ethics (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Brown & Treviño, 2006;
Western, 2008), and a lack of focus on sustainability and planetary considerations (Bass & Riggio, 2006) raises doubts if the TL approach is the most suitable to handle many of the complex global challenges facing leaders today. Therefore, it becomes relevant to expand the literature review on progressive leaders to adequately tackle the problem focus. Ethical Leadership (EL), which Brown and Trevino (2006) notes have some similarities but also noteworthy differences with TL. EL can be seen as an expansion of TL, since it tries to go beyond inspiring ideas in followers, to including a transactional element that holds followers accountable for their actions
3.1.2 Ethical Leadership
Noting the increasing scandals surrounding corporate leaders and the way they conducted their business (Brown et al., 2005; Brown & Treviño, 2014; Eisenbeiss, 2012), Ethical Leadership emerged as a way to tackle the question “What is wrong with our leaders?” (Brown & Treviño, 2006, p. 1).
Looking at the most widespread definition, EL can be seen as ‘‘the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication reinforcement, and decision-making”
(Brown & Treviño, 2014, p. 2: italics added). Thus, EL deals with how leaders ought to behave but also to ensure that this behaviour is replicated in their followers. Going beyond the charisma found in the TL approach, ethical leaders have to be honest, caring and trustworthy (Treviño et al., 2000) and above all else practise what they preach (Brown & Treviño, 2006). Thus, ethical leaders function as role models for their followers through their everyday behaviour and traits, while at the same time breaking away with the visionary approach found in TL. To be considered EL, Trevino et al., (2000) argues that two central elements must be present: the leader must be seen as a moral person and the leader must act like a moral manager. While the moral person aspect is reflected in their traits and behaviours, ethical leaders act as moral mangers through a proactive effort to influence their followers ethical and unethical behaviour (Brown & Treviño, 2006; Treviño et al., 2000). This is done via explicit communication on high ethical standards (Brown & Treviño, 2006), but also by rewarding ethical behaviour and disciplining unethical behaviour (Metcalf & Benn, 2013; Treviño et al., 2000).
Thus, contrary to TL, EL is almost always found at the top of the organisational hierarchy and
exercised in a top-down fashion and is consistent with the idea of a transactional leadership style with its focus on communication and accountability (Brown & Treviño, 2006).
Challenging the either-or notion of ethical behaviour and economic performance, Eisenbeiss et al., (2015) found that both can exist simultaneously, but that EL is dependent on a corporate ethics program and an organisational culture in order to be economically effective. In another study, researchers found EL to be a driving influence for organisational citizen behaviour (OCB) focused on internal initiatives (Eisenbeiss, 2012). Brown & Treviño (2006) also suggest that the explicit focus on the right ethical behaviour from leaders, increases the likelihood of followers taking more responsibility for their actions, which might also diminish counterproductive behaviour.
Despite the positive outcomes that EL can yield, a growing number of scholars are noting the limitation with the vague notion of what can be considered normatively appropriate (Eisenbeiss, 2012; Eisenbeiss et al., 2015; Voegtlin, 2016). The definition of EL does not take into account which norms are regarded as appropriate, nor how to behave when norms are inadequate, but rests on an implicit assumption that may very well vary depending on the context (Brown & Treviño, 2006;
Voegtlin, 2016). Bies et al., (2007) goes on to argue that since EL is about adhering to the prevailing norms, it does not allow for a critical evaluation of these norms, which can limit the possibility of creating positive social change. Furthermore, critics of EL note that it has a clear focus on the internal dimension of ethical behaviour but has so far neglected to deal with the external and social dimension (Eisenbeiss, 2012; Frisch & Huppenbauer, 2014; Voegtlin, 2016). A further point of criticism is the highly leader-centric premise (Eisenbeiss, 2012), which assumes that only the leader has the power to engage in problem-solving (Voegtlin, 2016), which by default neglects the meaning negotiation that takes places with stakeholders. The lack of an external focus and the omittance of stakeholders in decision-making processes, makes EL inadequate to deal with broader questions of responsibility and sustainability. To overcome this limitation, Eisenbeiss (2012) suggests adding a responsibility and sustainability orientation to EL, which she argues brings an important long-term view of success.
However, Voegtlin (2016) argues that this addition is insufficient if leaders are to be able to tackle global “wicked problems”, and instead argues for a bigger shift towards the study of responsible leadership. Wicked problems are complex global grand challenges with several unknown causal connections (Reinecke & Ansari, 2016). This renders simple solutions inadequate and despite careful planning, wicked problems may cause adverse consequences (Batie, 2008).
3.1.3 Responsible leadership
Rather than seeing responsibility and sustainability as an add-on to EL, Voegtlin (2016) suggests studying the concept of Responsible Leadership (RL) as a distinct sensemaking of leadership.
According to a number of scholars, RL takes the extended social and natural environment into consideration, by shifting the focus towards an inclusive two-way communication that acknowledges shared responsibility and the potential of collective problem solving with the participation of stakeholders (Du et al., 2013; Pless & Maak, 2011; Voegtlin, 2016). In the most widespread definition, Pless & Maak (2011) define RL as a “values-based and thorough ethical principles-driven relationship between leaders and stakeholders who are connected through a sheared sense of meaning and purpose through which they raise one another to higher levels of motivation and commitment for achieving sustainable values creation and social change” (p.5: italics added). RL thus differentiates itself from previous notions of leadership by extending the stakeholders from followers to a multiple societal stakeholder, which also indicates a shift away from a myopic focus on shareholder value (Freeman, 2015). This means that internal stakeholders (i.e., followers and employees) no longer are seen as a resource that can be exploited to improve effectiveness, but rather to use the relation between leader–stakeholders to support objectives tied to a higher social purpose at organisational or societal level (Pless & Maak, 2011).
Although still being seen as a role-model within the organisation (Marques & Gomes, 2020), RL is less about being a “great man” and more aboutcoordinating and cultivating relationships (Pless
& Maak, 2011), by judging decisions from a morally impartial view that takes the arguments of those possibly affected into consideration (Voegtlin, 2016; Voegtlin et al., 2012). With its focus on stakeholder networks and an emphasis on sustainability, it bears resemblance to Western’s (2008) idea of eco-leader. In order to assist the study of RL, researchers have developed a number of frameworks which places responsible leaders into sub-categories based on a number of different variables (Pless et al., 2012; Stahl & Sully de Luque, 2014; Western, 2008). Several of these frameworks propose a matrix with one of the axes differentiating between a responsible leader having either a reactionist (doing less harm) or proactive (doing good) approach to CSR and sustainability, and can therefore be categorised as either having a limited economic view or an extended stakeholder view (Stahl & Sully de Luque, 2014).
One of the interesting developments in the literature is an expansion of leadership from being reserved to top management teams as seen in EL to being more about the agency which different actors can embody regardless of their formal and informal position in the organisational hierarchy
(Fairhurst & Connaughton, 2014; Ferdig, 2007; Strand, 2014). However, despite the idea of distributed agency, a number of scholars have found the formal position to be highly influential, as higher positions facilitates resource mobilisation and the scope of decisions (Maak et al., 2016;
Voegtlin, 2016; Voegtlin et al., 2012). Answering the call from Aguinis and Glavass (2012) to focus on micro-foundations of CSR, Maak et al., (2016) studied the impact of RL from a CEO perspective, and found two overarching approaches: an instrumental and integrative approach, which was based on the perceived moral obligation towards shareholders or stakeholders. They found the instrumental approach to focus on organisational performance through business case rationale that had limited effect on CSR and included only powerful stakeholders, whereas the integrative approach sought to mobilize stakeholders through more interaction and to consider strategic choices beyond the business case of a proactive CSR nature. The authors Pless and Maak and (2011) found the CEO’s value orientation to be a significant antecedent that influences difference in orientation, mirroring findings that suggest sensemaking (Basu & Palazzo, 2008; Fairhurst & Connaughton, 2014) and that leader consciousness (Boiral, 2009; Boiral et al., 2014; Boiral & Paillé, 2012) has a high impact on the environmental orientation of the organisation.
Although the study of RL builds valuable insights on previous notions of leadership such as TL and EL, scholars still have a limited understanding of the exact responsibilities of leaders, of the stakeholders’ expectations of a responsible leader, and of the challenges of behaving responsibly as a business leader. For example, while some leaders align with the RL approach, their incorporation of sustainability within the organisation only includes stimulating internal recycling (Kalshoven et al., 2011). While technically dealing with socio-environmental problems advocated by Maak and Pless (2009), this form of engagement does preciously little to deal with the present global challenges that organisations must help address (Voegtlin et al., 2012), and would potentially fall into the instrumental category (Maak et al., 2016). This may result from a lack specification in the RL definition of what values and ethical principles that should followed (Voegtlin, 2016). Recognizing the instrumental sustainability approach that may underpin RL, it becomes interesting to investigate the concept of sustainability, to examine what potential effects an instrumental approach has.
3.2 Towards a strong notion of sustainability
Sustainability as a concept has slowly but surely gained ground since it was put on the global agenda in 1987 by the Brundtland commission, and in last decade its popularity and wide-spread adaptation has increased significantly (Dyllick & Muff, 2016; Landrum & Ohsowski, 2018). Making sure that
things are sustainable is the new norm, regardless of whether it is a change of business operations (Dyllick & Muff, 2016), the political budget for the coming years (e.g., O’Riordan, 2013), the educational curriculum (e.g. Moore, 2005) or the consumption of ordinary households (e.g., Noorman
& Uiterkamp, 2014). Recognizing that it is possible to discuss sustainability in relation to various systems, this thesis will be limited to sustainability as it relates to corporations, business, and organisations.
Whilst there is a growing integration of sustainability in most aspects of human lives, many different reasons for engaging in sustainable practises simultaneously exist. A sustainability focus may be adopted by organizations due to a perceived benefit of the image and the reputation amongst stakeholders, cost-savings from using resources more effectively or enhanced competitiveness (Hawken et al., 2013; Lovins, 2009). Contrary to the business case for sustainability, the scientific call for sustainability is based on the realisation that human activity is causing severe climate change and global environmental degradation (Landrum, 2018; Sjåfjell, 2018). Since there are multiple motivations for engaging in a sustainable way, it can come as no surprise that variety of definitions of what sustainability is and what it entails also exist.
The lack of a clear consensus around the term sustainability was highlighted in a study by Montiel and Delgdo-Ceballos (2014), who examined 24 renowned academic journals between 1995 and 2013 and concluded that no standardized definition of sustainability can be found, and that the discussion is still at a very early stage. In a review of different streams of literature, Landrum (2018) notes that despite a variety of different concepts (corporate social responsibility (CSR), environmental management, corporate sustainability (CS) and corporate social performance) the majority of them are used fairly interchangeably (e.g., Ormazabal et al., 2017; Winn & Angell, 2000). Supporting this claim, Schwartz and Carroll (2007) observe that a commonality amongst these concepts is that they all advocate for a generation of value for people, profit and planet (also known as the Triple Bottom Line (TBL)).
Although there undoubtedly was an understanding of sustainability prior to the release of Our Common Future by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (Brundtland et al., 1987), the Brundtland commissions notion of sustainable development as the “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Kono, 2014) has stood the test of time. Despite the widespread adoption of this notion of sustainability, authors such as Sjåfjell (2018) and Landrum (2018) note that it is based on two core beliefs: that human needs must be satisfied first and that humans control nature.
Furthermore, the Brundtland commissions definition also employs a scarcity approach, as it assumes that once a resource is used it is turned to waste, and the exhaustion of natural resources can be offset by gains to human-made capital (R. Solow, 1974; R. M. Solow, 1986).
Sjåfjell (2018) and Landrum (2018) have categorised this as weak sustainability since it leads to little more than accommodating the demands of a few external stakeholders while allowing for business-as-usual to continue. This perspective can be classified as technocentric or egocentric and the central to this idea is the conflict of indefinite economic growth and planetary boundaries, which stems from a giving primacy to the economic dimension of sustainable development. Rather than reshaping markets and production processes to fit the logic of nature, sustainable development uses the logic of markets to determine the future of nature (Banerjee, 2008). Despite sustained economic growth featuring prominently in the SDG´s1, not a single mention of planetary boundaries is mentioned in the SDG framework. According to Kate Raworth (2017) and Sjåfjell (2018) the lack of planetary boundaries is not only found in the SDG framework, but highlights a larger problem in the mainstream understanding of economic systems and sustainability. On top of this or maybe exactly because of this narrow approach to sustainability, the mainstream understanding of sustainability is about reducing the harm and destruction, rather than reaching a balance where we don’t consume the planets resources faster than they can be replenished. With Denmark having already used more resources than can be replenished in 2021 (Nielsen, 2021), and the Global overshoot day falling earlier and earlier (Mailhes, 2020), there is surmounting evidence that significant changes are needed.
On the other end of the spectrum there is “strong sustainability”, which emphasizes the need for preserving natural resources and natural systems, and that these never can be substituted for technological and human-made resources (Landrum, 2018; Landrum & Ohsowski, 2018; Sjåfjell, 2018). This perspective can subsequently be classified as eco-centric, and what is fundamentally different about it is, that it recognises that micro and meso-level activities of organisations cannot be seen in isolation from the macro-level conditions that happen on a global scale. Dyllick and Muff (2016) call this discrepancy between organisational sustainability efforts and the actual state of the planet for The Big Disconnect (TBD), and they argue that the major companies that act sustainably do so in a disconnected way. Intrinsically connected to the idea of strong sustainability, is a paradigm shift away from a Milton Friedman notion of business (Friedman & Friedman, 1990), towards purposefully creating value for both future generations, the planet and all living beings (Glauner,
1 See UN’s SDG 8 - Decent work and Economic growth: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal8
2019; Sternad et al., 2017), which means it goes beyond Porter and Kramer´s (2019) idea of Creating Shared Value (CSV) (Dyllick & Muff, 2016). Although CSV advocates for businesses to address societal challenges (Porter & Kramer, 2019), it is limited to issues and concerns that yield economic return and can be measured in monetary value (Crane et al., 2014), and thus the integration of planetary boundaries is still missing, which may be a result of incorporating a wider systems approach (Metcalf & Benn, 2013). Rather than being business-oriented and limiting the focus to trying to mitigate the negative effects of organisational practises, the strongest notions of sustainability, also referred to as Regenerative Sustainability, has a focus on creating thriving conditions for all living stakeholders affected by the organisation’s operations, repairing damage done by earlier activity and restoring the natural environments (Landrum, 2018; Melissen & Moratis, 2016). Thus, the strong notion of regenerative sustainability goes beyond the general idea of value generating for a triple bottom line, to a focus on generating value that benefits all of society and the planet as a whole, also known as an outside-in perspective (e.g., Dyllick & Muff, 2016). While regenerative sustainability is still in its infancy in academic literature pertaining to business and organisations, it is gaining popularity within corporate practises and in managerial literature (e.g., Sanford, Hardman, Storm etc), and in academic literature focused on development and design (du Plessis, 2012; Mang & Reed, 2012;
Robinson & Cole, 2015).
Building on the work of scholars such as Landrum (2018), Sjåfjell (2018), Dyllick (2016) and Marrewijk (2003), table 3.1 seeks to synthesize the contemporary perspectives that are emerging on the nuances of sustainability, and aims to highlight the most important distinctions between Weak, Intermediate and Strong forms of sustainability. It features the general terminology used to describe the different forms of sustainability as well as emphasize the prevailing views that underpin their respective approaches to economic growth, value creation and the relation to the natural world. In line with the academic work this figure is built upon, it is important to note that none of these three approaches to sustainability represent a static idea or a fixed state that an organization or individual may achieve. Rather, it can be seen as a continuum that can illustrate some of the central tenants that enable a move from one approach to sustainability to another, and some of the intraorganizational conditions needed to overcome TBD.
Table 3.1: contemporary perspectives on sustainability
Instead of a clear definition of strong sustainability, multiple authors (Mang & Reed, 2012, 2019; Sjåfjell, 2018) argue that the value of this terminology lies in its procedural characteristic.
Instead of being an end-state, it is a social process of dialogue and negotiation that is founded on a normative assumption that all different perspectives should be integrated, and that the nature of the world should be taken into consideration in the decision-making process. To avoid the negotiation- process being co-opted by a specific agenda, du Plessis (2012) includes three simple but fundamental key assumptions that must be recognized: (a) the decision must be based on how nature works, not how humans would like it to work, (b) that we live in an ever-changing, impermanent and interconnected world and (c) that humans produce, transform and affect the evolution of the ecosystems in which we operate. With and awareness of these principles, strong sustainability goes beyond harm reduction as seen in business-as-usual, and instead recognises the possibility of net- positive outcomes, where human activity contributes to environmental and human well-being and thriving, now and in the future. If we don’t address the big disconnect and continue to fly into the
sunset of mass consumerism with a business-as-usual mentality (Raworth, 2017), we are on a certain path towards a very uncertain future (Sjåfjell, 2018). Thus, if progressive leaders are to take the notion of sustainability serious within their organisation, they may need to align themselves with a regenerative approach to sustainability, as anything less may risk making decisions on an outdated logic of yesterday.
3.3 A brief introduction to relevant neighbouring literature
Whilst the review of the different leadership discourses and the elaboration of different understandings of sustainability are important in answering the tentative problem focus, this section will briefly include a literature review on CSR communication.
3.3.1 CSR communication literature
Another potentially relevant stream of literature in tackling the problem focus comes from the study of formative CSR communication (Christensen et al., 2013, 2020; Morsing & Spence, 2019;
Schoeneborn et al., 2020; Schultz et al., 2013), which focuses on how communication can be conducive for the development of CS and CSR. A formative understanding recognises the complexity and ambiguity that happens within the communicative process and argues that communication is inherently about meaning negotiation and that it helps shape the social realities of organisations and society (Schoeneborn et al., 2020; Weick, 1979). As noted by Schoeneborn et., al (2020) employing a formative perspective opens the possibility for studying the interactive processes that happen between leaders and their stakeholders, and how communication can be the medium that drives organisations towards stronger sustainability practices. Similar to the literature on organisational change (Lozano, 2013, 2015), there is a tendency within these streams to focus on how external pressure can lead to internal action (Haack et al., 2012). Concepts such as aspirational talk (Christensen et al., 2013, 2020) and auto-communication (Christensen, 1997; Morsing, 2006) deal with how strategic communication of corporations expressed via external media becomes influential internally in the organisational context. Corporate messages from leaders expressed explicitly in a public medium means a higher degree of accountability and can thus be used as a way of strengthening the internal commitment to CS and CSR, due to assumed external pressure that follows (Christensen, 1997; Christensen et al., 2013; Schoeneborn et al., 2020). However, the study of CSR communication has a tendency to be highly theoretical and sometimes lacks empirical evidence, leading a number of scholars to call for further study into a broader understanding of the conditions
that influence when communication, e.g. from progressive leaders, becomes performative of action (Christensen et al., 2013, 2020; Girschik, 2020; Schoeneborn et al., 2020; Stahl & Sully de Luque, 2014).
Furthermore, there is a tendency in this literatures to challenge the negative view of hypocrisy (Brunsson, 1986) and instead argue that ambiguity can be a condition that allows organisations to move towards CS, as it allows for a decoupling of current practices and a future desired state (Christensen et al., 2013, 2020; Eisenberg, 1984). While it is recognized that consensus from multiple stakeholders on how to deal with wicked problem such as sustainability is not likely to exist in practise (Schoeneborn et al., 2020), allowing ambiguous understandings that are based on outdated perceptions may function as a critical barrier for developing a strong sense of sustainability within an organisation. While it undoubtedly takes time for talk to become action (Eisenberg, 1984), the macro- level conditions facing the earth imposes an urgent time-frame that we cannot talk ourselves out of.
As global CO2-emissions have continued to rise continuously in recent times (e.g., Raupach et al., 2007), authors argue it is relevant to doubt if a myopic focus on communication can help leaders build a strong sense of CS (Banerjee, 2008). While CSR communication can help gain a more nuanced understanding of “greenwashing”, it fails to address when organisational communication strategically becomes decoupled from core activities and neglects that some companies engage in eco-talk as a form of non-consequently window-dressing (Lunheim, 2005). Even though this stream of literature can shed some light on how progressive leaders can use communication to steer the organisation towards increased CS, it cannot help us understand the role of leadership in turning communication into practices, nor does it allow for rethinking what a contemporary understanding of sustainability might mean for organisations.
3.4 Summary of the literature review and development of the research question
The literature review above indicates how progressive leadership discourses each has a distinct way of making sense of the leader’s role in developing and operating an organization. However, despite a gradual shift towards increased stakeholder involvement, only responsible leadership seems to deal actively with the notion of sustainability. Therefore, further research seems to be needed on leadership that recognize TBD and actively seek to align their organizational micro activities with the global macro conditions. This is relevant as such leaders’ sense-making of their leadership role may hold key insights for how other organisational leaders can enhance their internal understanding of sustainability and contribute to overcoming TBD, which seems urgently needed. In this regard it
simultaneously becomes relevant to study the conditions within the organization, that leaders perceive necessary for their leadership approach to successfully integrate a strong notion of sustainability.
As mentioned, the notion of regenerative leaders is slowly emerging as a conceptual way of understanding leaders that seek to build thriving conditions for both their organisation and the environment in which it is embedded, and the terminology encapsulates the needed transition towards a stronger notion of sustainability. However, due to the novelty of the concept there is no coherent understanding of what the term covers, and it ranges from being a way of describing a radical shift in the purpose, form and function of organisations (Hutchins & Storm, 2019) to being about ensuring sustainability is integrated in organisational operations (Hardman, 2013). Nonetheless, going forward, this thesis will use regenerative leadership as a tentative concept, as a way of combining the broad notion of progressive leaders with the urgent societal need to overcome TBD from an organizational perspective (Dyllick & Muff, 2016). Building on the idea of regenerative leadership, it becomes possible to engage in an empirical study of how hitherto unstudied organizational actors perceive leadership when developing sustainable organizations. This leads to the following research question:
3.4.1 Research Question
How do regenerative leaders with the ambition of developing a sustainable organization make sense of the role of leadership and which intraorganizational conditions are perceived to be significant for their leadership approach to be successful?
A structural overview of how this thesis will attempt to answer these questions can be found in figure 1, on the following page.
4 Philosophy of Science and Methodology
To answer the above-mentioned research question, it is important to clarify the methodological approach and the theoretical underpinnings of the data collection. The empirical data is primarily of a qualitative nature, as the thesis aims to understand the subjective beliefs, experiences and meaning systems of regenerative leaders (Brink, 1993). First, this section will elaborate on the philosophies of science that serve as the foundation of the data collection. Secondly, the methodological approach will be elaborated on the use of semi-structured interviews as the primary source of data for this study and explain how the data collection proceeded. Thirdly, the data analysis section will explain the grounded theory research approach and how it was used to process the empirical data. Lastly the limitations will be discussed as well as a reflection on the validity and reliability of the overall study.
Figure 1 is designed to give the reader a structural overview of the thesis.
Figure 1: Structural overview of the thesis
4.1 Philosophy of Science
The philosophy of science refers to the beliefs and assumptions that underpin the methodology and the creation of knowledge (Sonne-Ragans, 2012). The two philosophies of science (PoS) that that are present in this thesis are (a) hermeneutics and (b) pragmatism. As this study aims to understand the sensemaking amongst regenerative leaders and the intraorganizational conditions they perceive important when developing sustainable organizations, the overall ontology is relativistic as it varies from each of the informants that takes part in the study. The two PoS share the idea that the human experience and understanding of life is highly complex and ultimately based on the individual’s
perception, meaning that the epistemology is subjective (Levers, 2013). Whilst the writing process primarily has been hermeneutic of a nature, the knowledge generated from the collected data is grounded in the pragmatic perspective. A further elaboration of how the two PoS has impacted this study can be found below.
4.1.1 Hermeneutic approach
The hermeneutic philosophy has played a big part in the writing process of this thesis, as the status quo understanding continuously has functioned as the foundation of new insights, which in turn has led to a new status quo understanding. This process is also known as the hermeneutic spiral, and according to Gadamer (2004) is not something that researchers can or should dispose of. Rather, it is important to recognize how prejudices form our understanding, and that understanding is created in a reciprocal process of interpretation based on the life world of the researcher (Dowling, 2004). The overall approach to writing this thesis has thus been contingent on my personal experiences and formal education. As new insights have arisen from gathering secondary data from literature and primary empirical, my horizon has simultaneously expanded, leading to a wider understanding of the subject field. The implication of the hermeneutic spiral is that throughout the writing of this paper, knowledge generated in each section has resulted in a reinterpretation of the section in relation to the whole thesis, exemplified in a reinterpretation of the research question and how to answer it most adequately. In this iterate process, the researcher’s horizon starts to fuse with the horizon of the subject field (Dowling, 2004), a process that in theory could continue indefinitely. Amongst other places, this is evident in the data analysis which is based on a Grounded Theory approach (see forthcoming section), where the data is coded and compared in an iterative process and in the way the findings influence the research question, indicated with a dotted arrow in figure 1.
4.1.2 Pragmatism
The pragmatic philosophy of science is evident in the research design, as the guiding question resolves around how leaders can help organizations answer the urgent call for more sustainable practices. Pragmatism as a post-positivistic philosophy was conceived in America in the late 19th hundred by Charles Sanders Pierce, and centres around the idea that the most relevant approach depends on the usefulness in the specific context (Elkjaer & Simpson, 2011). In organizational studies, pragmatism seeks to understand how people conduct themselves in organizations and how they account for their lived experiences of organizational life (Elkjaer & Simpson, 2011). Pragmatism
aligns with the notion of sensemaking, as it is through action that knowledge and understanding is generated (Weick et al., 2005). By studying informants in relation to how they perceive the role of leadership when developing sustainable organizations, it becomes possible to understand how past experiences form current understanding and how it is likely to influence future actions. However, it is important to note that as the underlying pragmatic idea is evaluated based on utility, the retention of past experiences may not always predict on future situations (Elkjaer & Simpson, 2011; Weick et al., 2005). Therefore, it can be expected that a divergence exists between the informants understanding of leadership and how it is enacted in practice. Although sensemaking happens reflexively (Weick et al., 2005), the idea of imagining the future means it can be seen as process that creates meaning in the present by drawing on the past and the future simultaneously (Elkjaer &
Simpson, 2011). Because of this, the data collection will seek to uncover the history of informants as well as their ideas about the future.
The introduction of macro-level considerations for organizational leaders can in this perspective be viewed as being pragmatic, since neglection of such considerations no longer are useful but in fact may be self-damaging. Rather than an individual notion of pragmatism, relevance and usefulness is developed in a dialogue with stakeholders (Marshall et al., 2005). Like social constructionists, the pragmatic approach views knowledge as situational, relativistic, and provisional (Elkjaer & Simpson, 2011), resulting in a commitment to seek out many different perspectives, giving it an ethical dimension (Marshall et al., 2005). This is reflected in the data collection for this thesis (see forthcoming section), where multiple informants were included, each having their own understanding of the interview questions subject field based on their own perspective, which served the give nuance to the findings. Furthermore, it is important to note, that I as a researcher also play an active part in constructing the knowledge generated, by unconsciously evaluating the utility of the findings that emerge through my position, privileges and perspectives (Charmaz, 2006).
Whereas natural sciences seek to confirm and support findings through falsification (Tanggaard & Brinkmann, 2010), this is not possible in social sciences as the ontology and epistemology are in the subjective domain. Therefore, to increase the credibility and trustworthiness of this thesis, the forthcoming methodology section is designed to give the reader a comprehensive understanding on the underlying how, what, and why of my research design.
4.2 Methodology section
The following section is designed to showcase the methodology used throughout this thesis, argue for the relevance of the used methodology as well as give descriptive examples of how it was used in practise. The overall objective of this section is to increase transparency of the research process and show the way from design to results, analysis and discussion (Brinkmann & Tanggaard, 2010). Since the research question aims to add knowledge on a subject on which only sparse literature exists, primarily an inductive research approach is applied, as new concepts are expected to be generated from the empirical data. For the same reason, the research strategy relies almost exclusively on primary data collected through semi-structured interviews. To ensure that I work in a structured way with the data, the grounded theory approach has been used, which has led to the development of a conceptual framework.
4.2.1 Semi-structured interviews
Individuals working in the organisations can be seen as knowledge informants whose interpretations are a valid source of empirical data (Gehman et al., 2018; Gioia et al., 2013). Therefore, a set of qualitative semi-structured interviews (n = 12) have been conducted with leaders and employees of different danish organisations. The semi-structured interview has been chosen as the primary method, as it allows the researcher to gain an in-depth understanding of the informants life world pertaining to a certain topic, as well as to follow up on interesting aspect that arise in the interview situation (Brinkmann, 2013). As the purpose of the semi-structured interview is to produce knowledge for the researcher, it differs from an everyday conversation, while at the same time maintaining an conversational character rather than being about closed questions that produce yes/no answers (Brinkmann, 2013).
The interview style used in the semi-structured is primarily receptive, as mostly open-ended questions were posed to the informants, which empowered them to have a large measure of control over what they said. While being semi-structured, the interviews also contained a narrative element, as some questions asked the informant to relay their experiences in situations related to the research area (Brinkmann, 2013). This was evident in the interview with CI, when he was asked to share how he attempted to bring sustainability into the core of his former workplace, a question to which he started narrating how he had worked with different departments, but ultimately failed due to lack of motivation from the top-management (Appendix B, 38:21)
In the end two types of semi-structured interviews were conducted: one set with relevant leaders that aligned with the target group (group 1), and another set with employees from the leader’s organisation (group 2) to get a secondary and nuanced perspective on how the management practices were perceived internally in their organisation. Although the focus is on understanding how group 1 operates, group 2 was included as a way of complementing and cross-checking these findings, which can help gain a more in-depth understanding of the research area (Brinkmann & Tanggaard, 2010).
4.2.2 Interview guide
To successfully facilitate the semi-structured interview, separate interview guides were developed for group 1 and group 2 (Appendix M, N). The interview guides contained both research questions and interview questions, the former being the broad questions that the research centres around. The latter was a translation of the research question into laymen terms that where easier to understand for the informants (Brinkmann, 2013; Tanggaard & Brinkmann, 2010). While the terminology of regenerative leadership was used in the research questions, the interview questions refrained from using this terminology. This was done in an attempt to avoid influencing the informants answer and because the idea of regenerative leadership and regenerative sustainability are still a niche concepts that most business professionals seem unfamiliar with.
Furthermore, rather than a rigid set of questions that had to be answered, the interview guide served to ensure that the conversation stayed within relevant themes, and thus a mixture of open- ended questions that encouraged reflexive, descriptive and in-depth answers were asked (Brinkmann, 2013). Depending on the informant’s responses in the interview situation, a variation of direct, specifying, probing, follow-up and interpreting questions were then asked to encourage the informant to go further in-depth or to ensure that the researcher understood what was being talked about (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2018). An example of a probing question can be found in the interview with MR where he was asked to critically reflect on what internal stakeholders saw as a potential limitation in their work with sustainability (Appendix E, 46:44).
While the interviews were conducted based on an inductive approach, there were instances where follow-up questions were of a suggestive character based on pre-existing theory and knowledge, thus giving it a deductive aspect. An example of a deductive question that was influenced by the concept of TL, was the question that asked informants how they perceived that a shared vision could affect the organization’s ability to work efficiently with sustainability.
4.2.2.1 Interviewing experts
Since the informants in group 1 primarily consisted of high-level leaders and CEOs, a separate interview guide was developed for each of the interviews within the same overall theme, but with specific details tailored to their organisation and their experience. This was done since this form of elite or expert informants are more used to responding strategically to questions but also because it is advised not ask questions to answers that can be found elsewhere (Littig, 2009; Zuckerman, 1972).
In line with the hermeneutic approach, multiple revisions of the interview guide for each informant occurred, and the experience from one interview influenced how certain questions were posed and which questions the informants encountered difficulty in responding to. This is evident when comparing the prepared interview guide for the talk with CS and MR, and the questions pertaining how they include internal stakeholders. For MR the question revolved around how he expects their practices will change in their current growth phase, whilst it to CS centred around how she interacts with a diverse set of new and unfamiliar internal stakeholders, given her short time as CEO in the company.
4.2.3 Sampling and Recruitment
Sampling deals with determining which subset of the selected group is most relevant (Brinkmann, 2013). Purposive-sampling (Hoyle et al., 2002) also known as an information-oriented sampling (Flyvbjerg, 2006) has been employed in this thesis, as the purpose is to “maximize the utility of information from small samples and single cases” (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p. 34: italics added). In order for this sampling strategy to work, it is important that the researcher has some knowledge of the subject field (Brinkmann, 2013), which in this case was achieved by combining the researchers knowledge of the topic with doing extensive desk-research. The potential informants were identified based on perceived maximum variation on different variables, in order to obtain significant information while keeping the sampling group relatively small (Brinkmann, 2013; Flyvbjerg, 2006; Hoyle et al., 2002).
The different variables the desk-research studied and screened for, is shown in table 4.1.
Several different methods were used in the desk-research process to ensure that as high a proportion as possible of the selected target group was screened. Besides organisations that I had prior knowledge of (see section on conflict of interest), the desk-research was done by conducting online searches with relevant tags such as: progressive leaders in Denmark, sustainable leadership in danish organisations, most sustainable organisation etc., and cross-checking if there were any people who featured in multiple searches.
