Where
Do
We
Go
From
Here?
Is
Responsibility
Sustainable?
Craig
L.
Pearce,
Ju
¨rgen
Wegge
In this special issue we have brought together a veritable ‘‘dream team’’ of thought leaders, and rising stars, from academia,consultingandthec-suitetoaddressthe ‘‘Leader-shipImperativeforSustainabilityandCorporateSocial Respon-sibility.’’Clearly,thedecisionsandactionsofindividualleaders mattertothesocialperformanceand long-termviabilityof theirorganizations.Ultimately,activitiessuchasformulating sustainabilitypolicies,engagingincommunityoutreach pro-grams,supporting social causes, or seeking alternatives to disruptivelayoffsaretheresultofmanagerialdecisions,and soareactivitiesthatarewidelyconsideredunethical,suchas bribery,fraud,environmentalpollution,andemployment dis-crimination.While corporate executives are constrained in theirabilitytoengageintheseactivitiesbycorporate govern-anceregulations,company policies,andthelaw,they have somedegreeofdiscretionintheirchoices.DavidWaldman,a notedleadershipscholar,putitsuccinctly:‘‘Firmsdonotmake decisionspertainingtoresponsibilityorCSR;leadersdo.’’
Itisstriking,then,thatrelativelylittleisknownaboutthe ethicaldilemmasandleadershipchallengesfacingbusiness leadersin theCSRandsustainabilityarenas aswell asthe factors that promote and constrain their decision-making withregardtoCSR,sustainability,andorganizationalethics. Thegoalofthisspecialissueistofillthisvoidbyexploring sustainability and responsibility at multiple levels (indivi-dual,group,organization,aswellasthenationaland supra-nationalcontext)andfromvarious angles (e.g.,corporate governance, organizational ethics, and shared leadership perspectives). The topics addressed range from how to structurevolunteerismprogramstoshiftexecutivemindsets, tohowtodesignorganizationsforsustainableeffectiveness, togroundingourcurrentthinking inthehistorical rootsof CSR,tobestpracticegovernancemechanisms,tothespecial needs of emerging markets. The common theme that emergedisthatitallboilsdowntoleadership.Butthisbegs thequestion,‘‘whatisleadership?’’
WHAT
IS
LEADERSHIP?
Historicallyleadershiphasbeenperceivedas arole occu-piedbyanindividualwhoprojectsdownwardinfluenceon subordinates orfollowerstoachieveorganizationalgoals. For certain, this perspective is critical when it comes to sustainabilityandresponsibility.Therehasbeenagrowing recognition,however,thatinfluenceisthecoreof leader-shipandthatinfluencecanbeexerteddownward,upward or horizontally both inside and outside organizational boundaries. This new perspective has typically been described as shared leadership, denoting the shared imperative we all have for the sustainable responsibility of organizations.
Inaddition,therehasbeenrecognitionthatpartofthe responsibilityofbeingaleaderistoshowconcernforthe needsofvarioustypesofstakeholdersofthefirm,including employees, consumers, the environment and so on. This requires a deep understanding of the complexity of the economic,social,andenvironmentalissuesfacingtoday’s corporations,aswellasanabilityonthepartoftheleaderto build and cultivate sustainable,trust-based relationships withadiverserangeofstakeholders,toemotionallyconnect tothesestakeholdersandunderstandtheirneedsand expec-tations and to effectively respond to their legitimate demandsand,ultimately,tocreate‘‘sharedvalue.’’
Therearemanyreasonsfortheshiftinthinkingof leader-shipsolelyasaroletoleadershipasanencompassingsocial process. First, the populace is ever more educated and preparedtolead,whereasinthepasteducationwassimply for the elite. Second, information is much more readily availableforindividualsandgroupsbothinsideandoutside of formal organizations to enable them to have informed opinionsinordertoexerciseleadershipandinfluence.Third, there is agrowing awarenessthatthere is a real tradeoff between short term survival and long term sustainability. Availableonlineatwww.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
j ou rna l hom e pa ge : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c om/ l o ca t e / org dy n
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.02.010
Attheheartofresponsiblesharedleadershipisthematterof whohasavoiceversuswhoissilent.
SILENCE
VERSUS
VOICE
Whenitcomestosustainableresponsibilitywecanextractone essential feature from all of the lessons from the various contributorsto thespecialissueinto thatofsilenceversus voice.Table1highlightssomeofthekeydriversofbothsilence andvoicefromindividual,socialandstructural characteris-tics.Thekey,however,isthatformalleadersareinaposition toleverageeachofthesecomponentstoenableorganizational voicefromthemyriadorganizationalconstituentsinorderto facilitate sustainable organizational responsibility. Accord-ingly,Table1andthetextbelowaremeanttobeillustrative, rather than exhaustive, whenit comes to mechanisms for discouraging inappropriate organizational silence while encouragingappropriateorganizationalvoice.
IndividualCharacteristics
Theindividualcharacteristics’underpinningsofsilencerange fromprofoundandnearlyinsurmountableissuestorelatively straightforward solutions. The profoundpsychological rea-sons for silence concern personal characteristics, such as severefearor timidity.Itseemsabitbeyondthescopeof mostorganizationstodirectlyaddresssuchprofoundissues, as they are most likely best left to professionals who are expertsonsuchmatters.Nonetheless,leadersdohaveaduty toreducefearofspeakingupifsomeoneseessomethingthat jeopardizessustainableresponsibility.
Otherpsychologicalreasonsforsilenceincludesuchthings asself-confidenceandlackofcommunicationabilities.These arequiteeasilyaddressedthroughtrainingforskillsdirectly
relatedtotaskresponsibilitiesorspecifictocommunication skills.PandaExpress,forinstance,hascreatedacorporate university–—University of Panda–—to provide education to employeeson howto confidently andcompetently express theirvoices,inorder tobeheard.The programhasledto innumerablepositivechangesfortheorganization.
Someindividualcharacteristicscanalsoformthebasisof selection criteria. For example, people high on intrinsic motivationandcognitivemoraldevelopmentaremorelikely toexertappropriate voicethan thosefocusedon extrinsic motivationandlowoncognitivemoraldevelopment, espe-cially whenit comes to issues of responsibility. Take Tom Davin,theCEOof5.11Tactical,highlightedintheWassenaar, DillonandManzarticleinthisspecialissue.Heisaleaderwho is very high on intrinsic motivation and cognitive moral development.Ray Anderson,the founder andchairman of Interface,Inc.,featuredinthearticlebyHernandez,Noval andWade-Benzoniinthisspecialissue,isanotherexemplar of high intrinsic motivation and cognitive moral develop-ment.Thelist ofleaders whoare much moreextrinsically motivated andquite low on cognitive moral development include such people as Bernie Madoff, of the Wall Street investmentfirmthatborehisname,KennethLay,theformer CEOofEnronandJohnRigas,theformerCEOofAldelphia Communications.Theselatterleadersscammedpeopleout ofbillionsofdollars.Intheend,Madoffsimplystated‘‘Ihave leftalegacyofshame.’’
SocialCharacteristics
Someofthemostimportantoverarchingsocial characteris-ticsthatrelateto silenceversusvoicearecultural charac-teristics–—thevaluesofthegroupororganization.Ontheone hand,itissimplythestrengthofthevaluesthatdetermines thepotentialforvoicetobeexerted.Forexample,themore
Table1 SomeoftheKeyDriversofSilenceVersusVoice
Silence Voice
Individualcharacteristics
Fear Courage
Taskincompetence Taskcompetence
Timidity Confidence
Communicationawkwardness Communicationskill Externallocusofcontrol Internallocusofcontrol
Unclearaboutownvaluesandpredominantlyextrinsicallymotivated Deepinnerconvictionsandintrinsicmotivations Lowlevelofcognitivemoraldevelopment Highlevelofcognitivemoraldevelopment Socialcharacteristics
Weakcorporateculture(lackofsharedvalues) Strongcorporateculture(sharedvalues)
Culturalvalues Culturevalues
Facesaving Trust
Uncertaintyavoidance Openness
Highpowerdistance Lowpowerdistance
Unclearorganizationalvision/mission Clearorganizationalvision/mission Structuralcharacteristics
Informationasymmetry Informationtransparency
Roleambiguity Roleclarity
Tenuousperformancemanagementsystems Clearperformancemanagementsystems
sharedthevaluesaretheclearerthesignalstoallregarding whenandhowtoexpressthemselves,incontrastto ambig-uoussituationswhereappropriatebehaviorisunclear.Take the Mayo Clinic, for example. They focus on three core values;patientcare;research;andeducation.Thesevalues arefirmlydevelopedandwidelyshared,andtheMayoClinic isgenerallyregardedasthebesthospitalintheworld:they aretheleadersinbothqualityandcostofpatientcare;the leadersincuttingedgeresearch;andtheleadersineducating boththemedicalcommunityandthepublicatlarge.Theyare anorganizationthatisdrivenbytheircorevaluesandthey exemplifythenotionofsustainableresponsibility.
Beyondhavingsharedculturalvalues,however,thetype ofvaluesan organizationholdsalso matters.Forinstance, culturesthatemphasizestatusdifferences–—whatistypically termed power distance–—are likely to encourage silence, whilethose that deemphasize statusdifferences are more likely to encourage voice. Similarly, cultures that value avoidinguncertaintyandarehighlyconcernedwith‘‘saving face’’ are likely to experiencesilence from organizational members,whilethosethatembraceopennessandemphasize trustencouragetheexpressionofvoice.
Finally, clarity of organizational vision and mission are importanthere.Visionandmissionprovideasenseof mean-ingaswellasgeneralguidanceonhowtomakemeaningful contributions.Thelessclearthevisionandmission,themore likelypeoplearetobesilent,whereastheclearerthevision andmission,themorelikelypeopleareabletospeakupand share their voice regarding how to attain the vision and missioninresponsible,effectiveandsustainablemanners.
Thesearebutafewofthemoreimportantaspectsofthe socialsituation thatbecomeimportant leversofsilence or voice. Clearly, there are other components of the social milieu that are important. The purpose here, however, wastohighlightsomeofthemoreimportantitemstowhich
executivesshouldattendinfacilitatingappropriatevoicein organizations.
StructuralCharacteristics
Organizationalstructuresarealsoimportantinsuppressingor activating appropriate voice. This was, for example, the fundamentalthesisoftheLawlerandCongerarticleinthis specialissue.Fourstructuralcharacteristicsthatare parti-cularly important areinformation(a)symmetry; role ambi-guity/clarity;performancecriteriaandcodesofconduct.
Whenthere isinformationasymmetry–—orlack of trans-parency–—itisdifficultforpeopletoknowwhenandhowto participateeffectively.Conversely,broadaccessto informa-tionenablespeopleto knowmorepreciselyhow theirown knowledgefitsintothelargerpictureandhowtovoicetheir opinionsandsharetheleadmoreappropriately.
Roleambiguityisoneoftheprimarycausesofwithdrawal behavioratwork.Infact,ifyouhaveanemployeewhoisnot performingthefirstthingyoushoulddo,insteadofblaming the individual, is work on developing role clarity for the person.Askthemabouttheirrole.Probeforunderstanding. Help them identify exactly how they fit into the larger picture.Itissurprisinghow‘‘deadwood’’cometolifewith thissimpleinterventionandbecomeactivesourcesofvoice formovingtheorganizationforward.Likewise,havingclear performancemanagementsystemscanyieldsimilarresults. Finally,especiallyinrespecttosustainableresponsibility, codesofconductareimportant.Ifthereisnocodeofethical conductorit issimplyaperfunctorydocumentinthe file drawerorsub-pageofthecorporatewebsite,itisnotworth thetime tocreate. Onthe otherhand,organizations like Patagonia,discussedinthearticlebyCrooke, Csikszentmi-halyiandBikelinthisspecialissue,orJohnson&Johnson, areexamplesofcompaniesthattakeethicsveryseriously.
J&J, forinstance, hasan ethical ‘‘credo’’that guides all behaviorintheorganization.Thecredoiswhatexecutivesin J&JcreditwiththeireffectiveresponsetotheTylenolcrisis the companyfaced inthe 1980s. Sucha codeof conduct facilitates the appropriate activation of voice from all cornersofanorganizationtofacilitatesustainable organi-zationalresponsibility.
TheVoice–—SharedLeadership–—Sustainable
ResponsibilityModel
Fig.1providesanewmodelthatlinkstheappropriateuseof voicewithsharedleadershipandsustainableorganizational responsibility.Themodelismeanttoillustratehowcritical eachoftheseconceptsisinultimatelyleadingtothetriple bottomlinefororganizations.Fig.1graphicallydisplaysthis model, demonstrating the natural flow from appropriate organizationalvoice,toeffectivesharedleadership,to sus-tainableorganizationalresponsibility.
Silence,weshouldnote,doesnotmeanthatapersonor groupdoesnothaveanopinion.Itdoesnotmeanthatthey agreewithacourseofaction.Itdoesnotmeanthattheylack leadership capability. Silence is greatly misunderstood. Silencedoesnotequatetocompliance.
Thereare manyindividual,socialandstructuralreasons whyapersonorgroupmightbesilent,asdiscussedabove.As an executive, it is your duty to understand these and to determine how to create appropriate avenues for silent constituents,betheyinsideoroutsideofyourorganization, toexerciseappropriatevoice.Wedo,importantly,wantto emphasizethewordappropriatehere.Thereareappropriate timesforbothsilenceandvoice.
Sharedleadership isalso a termthat canbe misunder-stood.Sharedleadershipdoesnotmeanabdicationof respon-sibility for leadership from above. Indeed, for shared leadershiptothrive,moreleadershipisrequiredfromabove. Similarly,sharedleadershipdoesnotmeanthatyoushould
simplyencourageacacophonyofimmobility.Wecertainlydo notadvocatethat.Hierarchicalleadersarestillthestewards oftheoverarchingorganizationalvisionandmission. Accord-ingly,hierarchicalleadersneedtohelpthoseinother posi-tionsdevelop theirappropriate voice to contributeto the effectivesharedleadershipoftheorganizations.
Organizationsgenerallybenefitfrom greatervoicefrom widerquartersandgreaterengagementinsharedleadership fromdeeperpocketsoforganizations.Afterall,thepeople confrontingtheday-to-dayrealitiesoftheirspecificpositions arefarmoreinformedandinafarbetterpositiontoprovide guidanceandleadershipregardinghowtoattainsustainable organizationalresponsibility.Theevidenceonshared leader-shipisoverwhelminglypositiveregardingawide varietyof organizational outcomes across the globe, from China, to Korea,toGermany,totheU.S.A.,toSwitzerland,toTurkey. In2014,forexample,severalmeta-analyseswerepublished thatdemonstratetheclearaddedvalueofsharedleadership aboveandbeyondtraditional,hierarchicalleadership.The clear scientific message is that shared leadership is an imperativewhenitcomestocreatingsustainablyresponsible organizations.
THE
BOTTOM
LINE(S)
The bottom line is thatthere are multiplebottom lines–— economic,environmentalandemotional.Itisthe fundamen-talresponsibilityofhierarchicalleaderstoattendtoeachof thesebottomlineissueswithbothaconcernforthepresent andasense ofstewardshipforthefuture.Afterall,itisa moralimperativethatweleadsustainablyresponsible orga-nizations.
SELECTED
BIBLIOGRAPHY
For moreinformationon taking abalanced viewof stake-holdersfromstrategic,humanresourcesandorganizational behaviorpoints ofviewplease seeA.B. Carroll andA. K. Buchholtz,Business andSociety:Ethics,Sustainability and StakeholderManagement,9th ed.(Stamford,CT: Cengage Learning,2015);J.Slocum,D.Lei,andP.Buller,‘‘Executing Business Strategies through Human Resource Practices,’’ OrganizationalDynamics,2014,43,73—87;andF.Luthans, ‘‘The Need for and Meaning of Positive Organizational Behavior,’’ Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2002, 23, 695—706.
Forrecentworkontheeffectsofsharedandhierarchical leadership on important organizational outcomes such as performance and health see I. Zwingmann, J. Wegge, S.Wolf,M.Rudolf,M.Schmidt,andP.Richter,‘‘Is Transfor-mational Leadership Healthy for Employees? A Multilevel Analysis in 16 Nations,’’ German Journal of Research in HumanResource Management, 2014, 28,24—51;D. Wang, D.A.Waldman, andZ. Zhang, ‘‘A Meta-Analysisof Shared
Leadership and Team Effectiveness,’’ Journal of Applied Psychology,2014,99,181—198.
Formoreinformationontheroleofleadershipincreating responsibility and sustainability see C. L. Pearce, C. L. Wassenaar, andC. C.Manz,‘‘Is SharedLeadershiptheKey to Responsible Leadership?’’Academy of Management Per-spectives,2014,28,275—288;C.L.PearceandJ.A.Conger, SharedLeadership:ReframingtheHowsandWhysof Leader-ship (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2003); D. A. Waldman,‘‘BridgingtheDomainsforLeadershipand Corpo-rate Social Responsibility,’’ in D. Day, ed., Handbook of LeadershipandOrganizations(NewYork:OxfordUniversity Press,2014),541—557;C.L.PearceandC.C.Manz, ‘‘Leader-shipCentralityandCorporateSocialIr-Responsibility(CSIR): ThePotentialAmelioratingEffectsofSelfandShared Leader-shiponCSIR,’’JournalofBusiness Ethics,2011,102,563— 579;andC.L.Pearce,C.C.Manz&H.P.Sims,Jr.,Share, Don’tTakeTheLead(Charlotte,NC:InformationAge Publish-ing,2014).
CraigL.PearceisUniversityDistinguishedProfessoratMEFUniversityinIstanbul,TurkeyandManagingDirectorof CreativeLearningPartners,amanagementconsultingfirm,basedinLosAngeles,whichfocusesonexecutiveand organizationdevelopment.Hisresearch,writingand consultingencompassleadership, responsibility/sustain-abilityandinnovation.Heisbestknownforhisworkondevelopingsharedleadershipinorganizations.Hislatest book,Share,Don’tTaketheLead,ispublishedbyInformationAgePublishing(MEFUniversity,Ayazag˘a Cad.No.4, 34396Maslak,Sarıyer,I˙stanbul,TurkeyTel.:+19094408990;e-mail:Craig.L.Pearce@gmail.com).
Ju¨rgenWeggeisafullprofessorofworkandorganizationalpsychologyattheTUDresden(Germany).Heearnedhis Ph.D.(1994)inindustrial-organizationalpsychologyfromtheTechnicalUniversityofDortmund.Hisresearchinterests areinthefieldofworkmotivation,leadership,demographicchange,andoccupationalhealth.Hehaspublishedfive books,fivespecialissues,72journalarticlesand96bookchaptersrelatedtothesetopics(TUDresden,ZellescherWeg 17,01062Dresden,Germany.Tel.:+4935146333784;e-mail:wegge@psychologie.tu-dresden.de).
