20 - Changing organizational ethics and practices toward climate and environment  pp. 303-318

Changing organizational ethics and practices toward climate and environment

By Keith James, April Smith and Bob Doppelt

Image View Previous Chapter Next Chapter



Introduction

Business organizations play an increasingly important role in the world … Companies that win the public's confidence and trust are open, visible, engaging and create business value while delivering benefits to society and the environment.

William Ford, Chairman and CEO Ford Motor Company

Rapid technological changes, pressures created by globalization, competition, and increasing resource constraints make the management of organizational change a critical issue for organizations of all types. The scientific study of organizational change is an interdisciplinary endeavor and it has grown in step with the practical importance of change to organizations. Only a limited part of the science of change literature has, however, directly addressed how to change organizations in ways that would benefit the natural environment, in general, or the Earth's climate, in particular. Changing organizations to help address climate change is the focus of this chapter.

The force-field model of change

At any given time, any mature organization is in reality an epiphenomenon of a dynamic balance between its connections to the outside world and its internal components, processes, and functions. For any attempted organizational change, there will be internal and external forces that both support the change, and ones that push against it. For a change to occur, therefore, something must move an organization from its current state of balance to a desirable new and relatively sustainable dynamic balance. We will argue that achieving new and environmentally friendly (hereafter “green”) organization states requires broad and deep change in organizations' culture and systems.

Bass, B. M. (1996). A New Paradigm of Leadership: An Inquiry into Transformational Leadership. Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., and Kirkpatrick, S. A. (1998). A longitudinal study of the relation of vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 43–54.
Bono, J. E. and Judge, T. A. (2003). Core self-evaluations: A review of the trait and its role in job satisfaction and job performance. European Journal of Personality, 17 (Suppl. 1), S5–S18.
Doppelt, R. (2003). Leading Change Toward Sustainability: A Change Management Guide for Business, Government, and Civil Society. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.
Farey, K. and Lingappa, V. R. (1996). California's proposition 186: Lessons from a single-payer health care reform ballot initiative campaign. Journal of Public Health Policy, 17, 133–52.
Frost, P. J. and Egri, C. P. (1991). The political process of innovation. In Research in organizational behavior, eds. Staw, B. M. and Cummings, L. L. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press: pp. 229–95.
Fry, L. W. (2005). Toward a theory of ethical and spiritual well-being, and corporate social responsibility through spiritual leadership. In Positive Psychology in Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility, eds. Giacalone, R. A. and Jurkiewicz, C. L. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, pp. 47–83.
Howell, J. and Higgins, C. (1990). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 317–41.
Hummel, R. P. and Stivers, C. M. (1998). Government isn't us. In Government Is Us: Strategies for an Anti-Government Era, eds. King, C. and Stivers, C. M. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
James, K. (1993). Perceived self-relevance of technology as an influence on attitudes and information retention. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 29, 56–75.
King, N. (1990). Innovation at work: The research literature. In Innovation and Creativity at Work, eds. West, M. A. and Farr, J. L. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, pp. 15–59.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper & Row.
Maslennikova, I. and Foley, D. (2000). Xerox's approach to sustainability. Interfaces, 30, 226–33.
Nadler, D. A. and Heilpern, J. D. (1998). The CEO in the context of discontinuous change. In Navigating Change: How CEOs, Top Teams, and Boards Steer Transformation, eds. Hambrick, D. C., Nadler, D. A., and Tushman, M. L. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Ogbonna, E. and Harris, L. C. (2001). The founder's legacy: Hangover or inheritance? British Journal of Management, 12, 13–31.
Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., and Dzindolet, M. T. (2001). Creativity in groups and teams. In Groups at Work, ed. Turner, M. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 319–38.
Rajagopalan, N., Rasheed, A. M. A., and Datta, D. K. (1993). Strategic decision processes: Critical review and future directions. Journal of Management, 19, 349–84.
Rivera, J. and de Leon, P. (2004). Is greener whiter? Voluntary environmental performance of western ski areas. Policy Studies Journal, 32, 417–37.
Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
Senior, B. (2000). Organizational change and development. In Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: A European Perspective, ed. Chmiel, N. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 347–83.
Sheffrin, S. M. (2000). Regulation, politics, and interest groups: What do we learn from an historical approach? Critical Review, 14, 259–69.
Sutton, P. (1997). The Sustainability-Promoting Firm: An Essential Player in the Politics of Sustainability. Paper presented at the Ecopolitics Conference XI, Melbourne, Australia, October.
Tilson, D. J. (1996). Promoting a ‘greener’ image of nuclear power in the US and Britain. Public Relations Review, 22, 63–79.
Weick, K. E. and Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. In Annual Review of Psychology, eds. Spence, J. T., Darley, J. M., and Fos, D. J. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc., 50, pp. 361–86.
Zwiebel, J. (1995). Corporate conservatism and relative compensation. Journal of Political Economy, 103, 1–25.