The Concept of Sustainability - Term Paper Example

Will the organisational changes which are necessary for companies to become more sustainable actually happen and will they benefit the environment? Introduction Many business organizations have been publishing Sustainable Development Reports to show that they are concerned of parallel positive developments in this particular front along with organizational changes. For example in its global SDR for 2006 Unilever Company presents an overview of its activities’ impact on the society and its environment. It also sets out in detail what business practices it would adopt in order to ensure its commitment to meeting the requirements. The report extensively presents the entire Group’s operations in the world and an assessment of their impact on the society. The concept of sustainability is a modern equanimity based principle related to the material environment and development. While it has many ramifications including corporate ones that need a greater degree of focus and analysis within the socio-economic environment in which the company operates, there is also the need for a more practical view of the challenges faced by the society. It’s here that Unilever has succeeded. Many writers have defined the concept of sustainability in a variety of ways. However the definition given by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) is considered to be of prime importance – “Sustainability represents forms of progress that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs”. Big organizations meet most of these constituent elements in its efforts to sustain the very environment in which they operate. Both the production process and the consumption process in the economy of a country are shaped by the innovative strengths and the subsequent summation of the “five basic sustainability principles” as enunciated by Buckminster Fuller (Dresner, 2002, p.37). They are the material domain, the economic domain, the domain of life, the social domain and the spiritual domain. According to Fuller the material domain is the central principle necessary for the regulation of the mobility of materials and energy that help to sustain life as it’s. The economic domain serves as a main mechanism to husband wealth. On the other hand organizational change and sustainable development refers to a process in which individuals, processes, practices and whole organizations are transformed from their current position to a new desired position. According to Warren Bennis organizational development and sustainability is a complex strategic process in which attitudes, values, beliefs and the organizational structure are subject to change through adaptation to new challenges and techniques in equally new market segments. In other words it’s a dynamic process intended to bring about systemic improvement and change. Thus organizational response to sustainability issues plays a very significant role here. The process of transformation from what an organization now is to a new dimensional growth trajectory is determined by how best change is accepted by the staff. Analysis During the past two decades organizational change and sustainability has become a very important aspect in the modern day management practice. Change is more appropriate when everything else has failed to ensure the continuous survival of the business (Clark, 1999). However change and sustainability in itself might not be desirable when the degree of resistance to change becomes stronger because when resistance gathers momentum that in itself is an indicator of the existence of other solutions. If organizational change and development were focused on improving critical success factors related to financial management, Human Resource Management (HRM), employee relations, supply chain management, quality management, marketing and corporate social responsibility (CSR), then the organization would have to face considerable resistance. In the first instance when change involves people it is all the more difficult to manage the process of change smoothly because employees depending on their attitude to change would not remain silent. Thus as much as the active management of the change and development process involves attitudinal changes, there are predefined objectives that would require far reaching changes at each level before a final change is brought aboutAlbert Breton (Author) › Visit Amazons Albert Breton Page Find all the books, read about the author, and more. See search results for this author Are you an author? Learn about Author Central . Organizational development also requires a far greater commitment on the part of management to initiate staff development practices (Kawalek, 2006). However once it is initiated the degree of participation by other employees alone would determine the success or the failure of the development program. Thus organizational change and sustainability theories have evolved overtime with particular emphasis on the change and sustainability process of employees in general. The following theoretical analysis shows how historically organizational change and sustainability concept has been evolving. 1) Lewin – Schein Theory Lewin’s theory of organizational change rests on a change management process of three tiers in which a system of continuous replacement is adopted (Lewin, 1968). Thus it is known as unfreeze-change-refreeze model. For example in the first stage the existing organizational setup is unfrozen or dismantled. In the second stage changes are introduced. In the third stage those changes are cemented. The assumption that Lewin makes about the power structure of the organization is basically related to an autocratic or bureaucratic organization and therefore the top management of the company will assume all the powers, be they concerned with day-to-day management decisions or organizational change. This is rather simplistic in the modern day organizational context where power relations between managers and subordinates are much more complex. However Lewin was the first author to identify a process of collaborative effort at the organizational level concerning development and progress. Schein suggested a far reaching model that includes even cognitive behavioral patterns of change agents (Schein, 1993). Schein felt that cultural influences came from past experiences and therefore any changes in these cultural attitudes would have to be brought about by removing those undesirable behavioral patterns. However such a cognitive redefinition of human behavior and motivation behind change and development cannot be presented in a tightly controlled preposition because human attitudes to change cannot be articulated in this way. Schein suggested that cognitive behavioral response of the individual employee to survival related contingencies would be characterized by the acceptance of change (Pasmore, & Fagans, 1992). Thus in the second stage change is adopted and accepted as the inevitable outcome. In the third stage yet again the change has to be made permanent. So refreezing those initiated changes is essential within the organization to make sure those employees and managers have realized the relative significance of those changes against the backdrop of an evolving paradigm both within the organization and without. 2). Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s Theory According to Kanter power is not predetermined and organizational change comes from the participation of employees at all levels (Kanter, 2009). It is a collaborative approach that recommends change to subordinates who otherwise would have doubts about the sincerity of their superiors. According to her the manager is the conductor of an orchestra and those employees are the musicians. While individual musicians have their own personal goals, the conductor himself has to make use of those individual’s skills of the musicians. In other words it is a horizontal process and a not a top-down process of change. According to her managers have to work closely with employees to achieve management goals and any change. Kanter’s theory has become very popular with all varieties of organizations including the bureaucratic, entrepreneurial and autocratic. This success has been attributed mainly to the democratic principles that underlie change. According to her theory perceptions of managers and Subordinates do not differ much. In fact they have the same perception of what others would think of their position and power. As a result those at the top would not know exactly how those at the bottom would respond to change but nevertheless they know for sure that resistance to change comes from their individual perceptions of power relations and structures (Beer, & Walton, 1987). If those at the bottom feel that those at the top are more authoritative the degree of hesitation to accept change will be greater. However neither group has a clearer perception of but the other things and how the other interprets change. Kanter’s theory has acquired a new dimension in many subsequent writings by equally influential intellectuals. For instance management gurus like Peter Drucker and Philip Kotler have accepted the norms associated with Kanter’s theory. However some critics have pointed out that within the organizational context power structures and relations do not tend to be so fluid as Kanter has suggested. In fact it is not necessary for managers to depend on their subordinates for change. They can if they want bring about meaningful change without the participation of subordinates in change and development programs. They further argue that managers often have a relatively superior perception of their abilities to force change on unsuspecting subordinates because the latter would come to know about change only during the implementation process. The extent to which modern organizations have been successful in integrating change and sustainability Methods adopted by a number of big business organizations at present are basically modeled on these two theories. However Kanter’s theory is much more influential in the modern business world than Lewin’s theory. For instance Microsoft, Accenture, Google and IBM all have adopted some methods that are either directly or remotely based on Kanter’s theoretical approach to organizational change and its sustainable development process. Particularly her emphasis on co-opting subordinates effective participation in the development and accomplishment of the sustainability process is very important for the overall success of the efforts. In other words organizational change has to come from the bottom level of employees because it is they who have the ultimate say in the success or the failure of organizational change and effectiveness related programs. Methodology and principles associated with organizational change and environmental sustainability have received much less attention in the current literature on organizational change and sustainability. As a result such critiques become skewed in favor of either totally democratic or autocratic organizational and management structures (Bass, 1983). Change management and organizational development theory is basically influenced by the empirical evidence prevailing at big business organizations and therefore it is essential to identify learning outcomes of organizational change and sustainability theories for a convincing analytical discussion of a model. In fact the theoretical and conceptual frameworks of analysis based on contingency models of organizational change and sustainable development have failed to factor in some very important variables including those related to motivation and organized resistance. There has been a perceptive increase in organizational change and performance related methodology in the recent past. For instance the psychological aspect of methodology was ignored in the past. However with Edgar Schein’s suggestions mentioned above, the scenario has changed. Despite an ever increasing interest in the psychology of resistance to change by subordinates at different levels of the organization, very few critical works have come out on the subject. A very recent perspective on organizational change and sustainable development identifies some critical success factors as the essential elements on which organizational effectiveness and performance must be focused so that methods would not be so divergent. Such a well coordinated convergence in methodology on organizational change and development has to come from the entrepreneurial or the democratic organizational or management structure and therefore it is essential that the relationship between managers and subordinates should be determined by a comprehensive approach to perform and develop as suggested by Philip Kotler. On the other hand cognitive behavioral tendencies as suggested by Schein might play a very significant role in both influencing and accepting or rejecting change. On the part of subordinates resistance to change is much less if their participation is fully sought by managers. This is one of the principles enunciated by Kanter. While it can be said that Kanter’s theory places much less emphasis on methodology as against Lewin’s theory there is still a much clearer perception of subordinates expectations in the former. Margaret J. Wheatley in her influential writings on organizational change has suggested that almost 75% of efforts to bring about organizational change and sustainability fail due to poor manager subordinate relations (Wheatley, 2008). In other words the-hoped-for results do not materialize and managers are compelled to manage something that has never been planned for. Subordinates tend to become a group of demoralized survivors with little or no motivation to achieve organizational goals. All the more they resist change because it is unrewarding. Wheatley’s theory is nothing new. In fact it is a variant of Kanter’s theory. Organizational change according to Wheatley has to begin with contemplation of changes at each and every level. According to Wheatley there is something philosophical about organizational change. For instance every individual desires some freedom to create and preserve himself or herself. In other words individuals prefer to have the freedom to perpetuate their own identities. She has used the word auto-poiesis as found in poetical writings (Roberts, 2007). If this idea of organizational change and sustainability were accepted, the concept would become rather spiritual because at the organizational level change is intended for continuous survival. Such change is rooted in acceptance and not rejectionKaren L. Newman (Author) › Visit Amazons Karen L. Newman Page Find all the books, read about the author, and more. See search results for this author Are you an author? Learn about Author Central . The biological principle of life is based on continuity of the self and thus Wheatley projects organizational change under the light of biological evolution. Her objections to forced obedience on the part of subordinates typify the Kanter’s theoretical postulate. Finally a synthesis between Kanter’s theory and Wheatley’s theory can be drawn on the following assumption. If as Wheatley assumes participation is not a choice then what Kanter says is true that subordinates resist change because they do not know how powers are dispensed within the organization. In other words the methodological approach has suggested by Wheatley depends on two factors. In the first place it is essential that subordinates have to adjust themselves to the changing organizational change environment. Secondly they have to accept incentives even if they do not like change. This is because compliance increases the chances of survival. Many big organizations like Wal-Mart, Unilever and McDonald’s put out regular sustainability reports which essentially capture the above elements though they are treated in isolation with little regard for the practical constructs of sustainability. The most important practical constructs are not incorporated into their reports due to an oversight perhaps though their absence can be seen as a big vacuum. Therefore besides the whole system of principles for sustainability and its efficient conveyance to the people, the economically viable execution of development associated with sustainability looks at the regulatory and strategic phases of it to achieve what’s known as the “environmental compatibility”. Sustainability evaluation requires metrics or such quantifiable measures to sum up important values contained in the process even though qualitative aspect also is important. Environmental Sustainability as a social responsibility parameter is practiced by corporate bodies with emphasis on the preservation of the environment. For example Unilever in its 2006 Report exemplifies this principle though there is no evident reference to British environmental degradation or such probabilities in the future. Unilever expresses its concern over “Sound environmental management” and focuses on climate change and its impact as well. The Report calls on the responsible citizens to be aware and the conduct themselves in a manner that environmental destruction will not come too soon if at all. Such reports have the following socially and economically desirable outcomes. Firstly they create an awareness among people as to how and why sustainability of environment and resources thereof could be of great importance to societies. The emergence of a consumerist class of people that thinks very little of the rate at which resources are being consumed on a daily basis has forced companies like Unilever to refocus attention on the very problem that resources need to be replaced as fast as or faster than the rate at which they are consumed. But nevertheless many resources are non-renewable and therefore there must be some highly developed strategic initiatives on the part of companies like Unilever and Wal-Mart to carry out R&D on alternative forms of energy for example. Secondly these reports are intended to redirect resource utilization and consumption. For instance these reports on environmental sustainability draw attention of policy makers to redirect resources to those who require them the most. Thus the economic principle of meeting the demand of consumers who are able to pay for goods and services is nullified to a certain extent here. It’s not socialist theoretical construct either. When sustainability of the environment or resources therein becomes an issue, both political and economic, there is very little that individuals can do. Redirection of scarce resources is an essential element of the process if not integral. Thirdly social policy of the government needs to be refocused on those who need sustenance at some cost. Socially responsible governments do not behave in the same manner as those economically responsible ones do. However economic sense denies that resources need to be redirected by policy initiatives of the government. Individual companies do not publish reports to force governments to redirect policy but they do so with a view to changing attitudes of policy makers. This is a very important aspect of these reports. Finally these additional reports have been used by numerous companies and researchers to identify what’s known as the most persuasive force of the society, i.e. the corporate entity coming to the aid of both policy makers and subject people at a time when scarce resources are being consumed at such an unsustainable pace. This aspect of the reports needs to be judged from the viewpoint of education that they impart to the society. The social dimension of them is far greater than it’s assumed by the external world. Conclusion Today’s organizations operate in a rapidly changing environment. Thus organizational change and sustainable development have been one of the most discussed topics in the modern business world. Beginning from Lewin’s theory based on the two forces of drivers and restrainers to modern day variants as those of Wheatley’s organizational change and development has become a central issue in not only changing structures, people, processes and organizations but also the very methodology of constructing models. In fact Lewin’s theory was associated with autocratic and bureaucratic organizational and management structures, though Edgar Schein introduced some modifications. However many business organizations in the world have a creditability deficit with regard to their response to environmental sustainability concept. These shortcomings have come in to light while those social and environmental projects were being implemented. Many environment sustainability reports published by big business organizations in the world claim on sustaining the environment by sourcing agricultural produce and farm products from a variety of suppliers the utmost concern for environment related issues. However some critics have pointed out that many such claims cannot be substantiated practically. For example modern organizations depend on cheaper sources of supply. Recent reports on Wal-Mart suggest that naturally what the Company buys from its agricultural suppliers tend to be organic produce and they (the suppliers) use a lot of chemicals to grow and preserve their produce. Thus organic apples and potatoes might contain more chemicals than could be tolerated by the body organs. REFERENCES 1. Bass, M 1983, ‘Issues involved in relations between methodological rigor and reported outcomes in evaluations of organization development’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 68, pp.197 – 199. 2. Beer, M & Walton, AE 1987, ‘Organization Change and Development’, Annual Review of Psychology, vol.38, pp. 339-367. 3. Bennis, W 2000, Managing the Dream, Perseus Publishing, Massachusetts. 4. Clark, E 1999, Organizational Change in Post-Communist Europe: Management and Transformation in the Czech Republic (Routledge Studies of Societies in Transition), Routledge, London. 5. Dresner, S 2002,The Principles of Sustainability, Earthscan Publications, Ltd, London. 6. Kawalek, JP 2006, Organisational change through management development: A case study of GW Power Utilities: International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, Netherlands. 7. Lewin, K 1968, The Conceptual Representation and the Measurement of Psychological Forces, Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York. 8. Pasmore, WA & Fagans, MR 1992, ‘Participation, individual development, and organizational change: A review and syntheses’. Journal of Management, vol.18, pp.375 – 397. 9. Roberts, JT & Hite, AB 2007, The Globalization and Development Reader: Perspectives on Development and Global Change, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. 10. Schein, E 1993, Organizational Culture and Leadership in Classics of Organization Theory, Harcourt College Publishers, Fort Worth. 11. Kanter, RM 2009, SuperCorp: How Vanguard Companies Create Innovation, Profits, Growth, and Social Good, Crown, New York. 12. Wheatley, MJ 2008, Finding Our Way: Leadership for an Uncertain Time, Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc, San Francisco. Read More