Key Aspects of Human Sustainability - Essay Example

Human Sustainability Human Sustainability Sustainability refers to handling the needs of the present in a way that will not challenge the competence of the forthcoming generations to meet their own needs (Wilkinson, Hill and Golan, 2001). The aspect is becoming a significant business imperative, and managers must regularly confront the issue of aligning the needs of their business with those of their employees. In so doing, the company will attain, maintain productivity and competitive advantage (Wilkinson, Hill and Golan, 2001). In the context of human sustainability, the issue has become the center of debate (Liebowitz, 2010). This is because human sustainability is essential in the sense that it enhances the survival of a corporation. In this regard, the firm shifts its focus from short-term financial profit to a long-term view of returns. On the other hand, evolution of social norms, practices and attitudes within an organization is one of the ways to improve human sustainability (Benn and Baker, 2009). In such a way, staff in an organization will be in a position to adapt to the subsequent changes, which will in turn influence sustainability (Daily and Huang, 2011). This will influence environmental, human and the organization’s sustainability. In order for structural adjustment to take place, the managers are to promote employee empowerment, and increase communication throughout the firm (Daily and Huang, 2011). There are organizational architectures, which aim at improving and upholding human sustainability. Some of the architectures in place include network organizations, virtual organizations and communities of practice. Human sustainability is central to development, organizational change, and overall satisfaction, which includes improved performance. When firms pay devotion to human sustainability, the firms, when they opt for organizational change, they will achieve the change (Read, n.d.). This is because such firms meet the needs both socially, and financially of their employees. Human sustainability is a healthy practice as it is a means of showing appreciation to the firm’s services (Spreitzer et al., 2012). The organization at whole plays an important role in initiating and sustaining change. Currently, it is the trend that firms are hiring a multicultural workforce. Such a workforce includes both men and women and some come from different ethnicity. Each employee, both subordinate and management has a role to play in maintaining and advocating for change. The management can create a participative workplace (Liebowitz, 2010), whereby, views of the employees are important. In this regard, the management plays the most important role in enhancing sustainability, when compared to employees of the organization (Daily and Huang, 2001). On the other hand, employees both male and female have to accept fundamental changes (Benn and Baker, 2010), which will allow for human and organizational sustainability. However, the management has to communicate the change to the employees for them to evaluate the benefits. In addition, Griffiths and Perrick (2001) suggest that human factors, which in this case refer to the employees, play an important role during the transformation and changing of a firm. When employees feel that an organization has met their needs, they will respond positively to change, and will welcome the change. Such will enhance employee engagement, which will in turn make the implementation of sustainable change easy (Stubbs and Cocklin, 2012). Therefore, staff will play a role, regardless of gender, in initiating and sustaining organizational change. In business, many firms recognize the importance of employees because the staff has become a strategic human resource tool. For instance, the sustainability coordinator plays an important role in initiating change (Tripoli, 2010). Such an employee has the capacity to influence the management, managers and employees to conform to a particular change, especially those that focus on sustainability (Leibowitz, 2010). In a case situation when the organization’s practices do not comply with best practices, which result to environmental degradation, low quality of products, or pollution, employees can lobby for change in the firm’s policy (Benn and Baker, 2010). This means that the employees have the capacity to initiate change within the organization, and they should not depend on the intercession of the management (Huang and Daily, 2001). When an organization opts to implement change, it is important to engage the employees. In so doing, the employees become aware of the intention and embrace the change. The firm should recognize the multicultural workforce, and empower its employees to accept the change(Tripoli, 2010). However, the firm should give the employees time to adapt to the change. On the other hand, employees are important assets for the organization. Therefore, the organization should always allow them to participate in the change process. This may include taking their views about the change because it will influence the way they work. Daily and Huang (2001) suggest that employees who have autonomy and decision-making power can effect organizational change. In addition, employees can contribute through their skills to enhance organizational change. This will make it smooth and encouraging for the firm to implement the change. Also, workers should have the right to evaluate the intended change, and offer their views. This will include both negative and positive views, which will help the firm evaluate the benefits of the change. Most importantly, the employees are part of the firm, and they have a role to play if the firm requires the change to be a success. the employees have substantial influence in the change process (Read, n.d.). In this regard, it is imperative for the organization to provide a participative environment, which allows for the inclusion of employee in the change process. Organizations should align the interests and needs of their organizations, with those of their employees. In so doing, the employees will show loyalty and increased engagement. Once the organization achieves this, it is possible that the organization will experience smooth transitions (Wilkinson, Hill and Gollan, 2001). In addition, improving the workplace and social environments is an important contributor to increased staff satisfaction, commitment, productivity and engagement. For true sustainability, the organization must show value to their employees. Such value is apparent when the firm takes in the views of their employees in important organizational decisions(Speitzer et al., 2012). When organizations fail to consult the employees concerning organizational changes, the employees perceive themselves as less important, and stagnant. This makes them perceive the organization as not growing because they cannot take part in the changes, or development agendas (Speitzer et al., 2012). On the other hand, consulting with the employees, by making them know the intentions of the firm, especially concerning changes, will give the employees trust the change process. Therefore, they will embrace change because the change will influence them and the organization positively (Aras and Crowther, 2007). In most cases, changes in the organization result to acquired knowledge. This is because the firm exposes their employees into training, which will help them adapt to the change. In addition, change will affect human sustainability positively. Change may influence the way the employees perform their work (Aras and Crowther, 2007). In this perspective, it is likely that the change will favor individual performance, or team-based performance. Therefore, the company awards their employees by following a performance-based approach. This is a constructive result because it will result in the firm achieving strategic objectives while rewarding employees (Daily and Huang, 2001). In addition, change contributes to employee engagement, and devotion, especially when the change increases the responsibilities of such employees. In some instances, the organizations fail to uphold some of their policies, especially those that may affect the community. Some firms are manufacturers, and may, therefore, harvest more resources from the community, which may lead to degradation of the resources. In such a situation, it is feasible that the community can lobby other members of the community to protest against such policies (Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008). In so doing, the community can influence the firm into changing the policy permanently. There are many cases whereby the customers boycott firm’s products, customers suggesting their preferences and requirements as a way to show their dissatisfaction with the firm. On the other hand, activist groups have come out to protest against environmental pollution, which has seen to the firm’s management evolving from pollution control to pollution prevent (Daily and Huang, 2011). This means that companies are aligning their objectives towards environmental performance and subsequent sustainability. Currently, managers perceive human sustainability as central to the growth of the firm. It is because firms are recognizing the importance of human factors, and their contribution to the growth of the firm. Therefore, managers and management have shifted their focus from short-term benefits to long-term business success through human sustainability. This means that firms are pursuing human sustainability as a strategic move to reinforce and achieve corporate profitability in the end (Wilkinson, Hill and Gollan, 2001 Alternatively, when organizations consult their employees on issues concerning the organization, the employees perceive that the management values them. With such a perception, employees show loyalty, increased performance, which in turn enhances the sustainability of the organization. Moreover, they are likely to support organizational change. On the other hand, when customers, employees including other stakeholders do not boycott, or protest against the organization, the management perceives itself as sustainable. This is in reference to social, financial, human and environmental sustainability (Daily and Huang, 2001). Bibliography Aras, G., &Crowther, D. (2007). An investigation into the relationship between corporate governance and corporate sustainability. Management decision, 46(3), pp. 433-448. Benn, S., & Baker, E. (2009). Advancing sustainability through change and innovation: A co- evolutionary perspective. Journal of change management, 9(4, pp. 383-397. Daily, F. B., & Huang, S. (2001). Achieving sustainability through attention to human resource factors in environmental management. International journal of operations and production management, 21(12), pp. 1539-1552. Griffiths, A., Petrick, J. (2001). Corporate architectures for sustainability.International journal of operations and production management, 21(12), pp. 1573-1585. Liebowitz, J. (2011). The role of HR in achieving a sustainability culture.Journal of sustainable development, 3(4), pp. 50-57. Spreitzer, G., Porath, L. C., & Gibson, B. C. (2012).Toward human sustainability. Organizational dynamics, 41, pp. 155-162. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.01.009 Read, V. (n.d.). technologies and processes for human sustainability. Stubbs, W., &Cocklin, C. (2008). Conceptualizing a “sustainability business model.” Organization and environment, 21(2), pp. 103-127. Tripoli, L. (2010). Sustainability for the rest of us, Sustainability: The Journal of Record, 3(3), pp. 152-156. Wilkinson, A., & Hill, M. (2001).The sustainability debate.International journal of operations and production management, 21(12), pp. 1492-1502. Read More