1

Integrating wisdom and sustainability: Dealing with instability

Ali Intezari (PhD)

UQ Business School

University of Queensland

Brisbane QLD, Australia

a.intezari@uq.edu.au

Intezari, A. (2015). Integrating wisdom and sustainability: Dealing with instability, Business

Strategy and the Environment, 24(7), pp. 601-687

The published version of the paper can be found on Wiley Online Library: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bse.v24.7/issuetoc

Integrating wisdom and sustainability: Dealing with instability

2

Short Title: Integrating wisdom and sustainability

Abstract

A thorough review of the literature reveals that there is a paucity of studies on

integrating wisdom and sustainability disciplines. This paper investigates the role of

sustainability in fostering wisdom in the interaction between businesses and their

surrounding environment. Wisdom has recently attracted a lot of attention in both the

academia and the practical world. However, despite the strong emphasis that is put on

the necessity of incorporating wisdom into business practices, there is little on how

wisdom can be practically integrated in the real business world. To address this issue,

this paper draws a linkage between wisdom and sustainability by noting the

assumptions that the concepts of wisdom and sustainability share in respect to human

flourishing, environmental preservation and economic growth. It is concluded that

wisdom manifests through organizational sustainability, and that wisdom promotes

organizational sustainability capacity. A model of the interaction between the two

practices is proposed.

Keywords

Practical wisdom, Sustainability, Sustainability strategies, Sustainability capacity,

Instability, Knowledge fallibility

Received – 14 February 2014; Revised – 22 August 2014 ; Accepted – 13 March 2015

3

Introduction

A thorough review of the literature reveals that there is a paucity of studies on

integrating wisdom and sustainability disciplines. Taking an interdisciplinary approach

provides a unique real-world problem-solving framework that may add to both the

theoretical and practical development of corporate sustainability (Schaltegger,

Beckmann, and Hansen, 2013; Shrivastava, Ivanaj, and Persson, 2013). This article is to

the best of my knowledge one of the pioneer studies drawing a conceptual linkage

between wisdom and sustainability based on their common ground.

The volatility of the business world, the exponential growth of (and the demand for)

information, ever-increasing rates of technology changes and inventions, and the

complexity derived from the mutually drastic impacts of the challenging and mostly

conflicting political, social, economic and environmental aspects of life, have made

uncertainty and ‘instability’ distinctive characteristics of the world today (Buckley and

Carter, 2004; Intezari and Pauleen, 2012). The instability of the business environment,

the cognitive inconsistency of decision makers, and knowledge fallibility as the

inherent characteristics of the key elements of the business world (i.e. the

environment, human, and knowledge) require practitioners to look beyond their

knowledge and experience to wisdom. As Pantzar (2000) asserts; “the world appears

to have a deep lack of wisdom that could ultimately provide a means of solving the

issues most significant to people” (p. 231). Similarly, Clarke and Clegg (2000)

emphasize that “sustainability is becoming a key business imperative, as the eternal

search for domination over nature is replaced by the challenge of achieving

4

environmental balance” (p. 46). Lafferty and Langhelle (1999) suggest that

sustainability is on a par with such other high-minded concepts as freedom and

democracy, and therefore must be treated as an ethical code. Wisdom is essential for

human ‘good life’ and ‘happiness’ (Small, 2011), and if we want to have a better future

than the one resulting from relying completely on limited cognition, relative

knowledge, perception and truth, we have to look “beyond the accumulative

assumptions about knowledge (and technology) to wisdom” (Rooney, McKenna, and

Liesch, 2010, p. 17).

Despite the strong emphasis that is put on the necessity of incorporating wisdom into

business practices (Rooney et al., 2010; Rowley and Gibbs, 2008; Small, 2011), there is

little on how wisdom can be practically integrated in the real business world (c.f. Melé,

2010 for wisdom and managerial decision making). To address this issue, this paper

draws a linkage between wisdom and sustainability by noting the assumptions that the

concepts of wisdom and sustainability share in respect to human flourishing,

environmental preservation and economic growth, and suggests that wisdom

manifests through and promotes organizational sustainability, and that wisdom

promotes organizational sustainability capacity.

The discussion is mainly developed based on Intezari and Pauleen’s (2014) model of

the contribution of wisdom to the business world. The model argues that there are

three main elements involved in the business world, which include the human, the

environment, and knowledge. Each of these three pillars has distinctive characteristics

that together greatly increase instability of the business environment. They argue that

5

wisdom acknowledges these characteristics and offers guidance on how to handle the

congruence in order to make appropriate responses to unpredictable situations. This

paper draws on and extends the model by further underpinning the interconnection of

sustainability and wisdom and their contribution to the business world.

The paper commences with a literature review of wisdom, followed by a description of

the work assumptions underlying the discussion of the need for wisdom in an unstable

world is developed. The paper then goes on to explain sustainability and discuss the

interrelationship between wisdom and sustainability. The paper concludes by

highlighting the contribution of the paper to both academia and the practical world.

Wisdom

Despite the growing body of knowledge in the wisdom literature in the fields of

philosophy, psychology and more recently in management and organization studies

(c.f. Intezari and Pauleen, 2013, 2014; Mckenna and Rooney, 2012; Pauleen, Rooney,

and Holden, 2010; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 2011; Pauleen et al., 2010; Rooney and

McKenna, 2008; Sternberg, 2004; Baltes and Kunzmann, 2003), no globally-agreed

definition of wisdom exists. An exhaustive review of the relevant literature reveals that

wisdom has been examined from different perspectives and articulated in various

ways, and that numerous qualities have been attributed to the concept of wisdom. In

the literature, wisdom is argued to be associated with qualities such as knowledge

(Walker, 2005), experience (Baggini and Fosl, 2007), judgment (Pasupathi and

Staudinger, 2001), ethics (McKenna, 2005), emotions (Tredget, 2010), and practice

(Birren and Fisher, 1990). Accordingly, an apt description of wisdom would be that

6

wisdom is “the optimum, ultimate expression of a blend of human qualities” (Birren

and Fisher, 1990, p. 323), that engages both correct insight and action (Strijbos, 1995).

Sternberg (2004) defines wisdom as “the use of one’s intelligence and experience as

mediated by values toward the achievement of a common good through a balance

among (1) intrapersonal, (2) interpersonal, and (3) extrapersonal interests, over the (1)

short and (2) long terms, to achieve a balance among (1) adaptation to existing

environments, 2) shaping of existing environments, and (3) selection of new

environments” (p. 164). By emphasizing that wisdom is a type of knowledge, Baltes

and Kunzmann (2003) conceptualize wisdom as “expert knowledge and judgement

about important, difficult and uncertain questions associated with the meaning and

conduct of life” (p. 131). Similarly, Nonaka and Takeuchi (2011) assert that wisdom is

an experiential knowledge that helps people make sound judgments.

What the aforementioned conceptualisations and other perceptions of wisdom in the

literature commonly share about wisdom is the underlying assumption that wisdom

concerns the well-being of oneself and others. Transcendence or self-transcendence,

among others, is a critical component of wisdom (Baltes and Kunzmann, 2003;

Pasupathi and Staudinger, 2001). In wise decisions and practices, both individual and

communal concerns are brought into consideration. The possible consequences and

impacts on others, including the environment and society, are considered, and

accordingly a decision is made and a course of action is taken, that from both short-

and long-term perspectives leads to flourishing human. Maxwell (2012) highlights the

7

point by defining conceptualizing wisdom as “the capacity (and perhaps the active

desire) to realize what is of value in life, for oneself and others” (p. 165).

Current unstable business world urges for wisdom

Egoistic and power-seeking choices of individuals and businesses have led to and

further complicated the socio-environmental challenges in today’s world (Pantzar,

2000). The recent financial crises and environmental disasters have proven that the

increasing sheer deluge of information, ubiquitous knowledge, and substantial

advances in technology (to aid managing the information and knowledge effectively),

have not only failed to enable societies, governments and businesses to prevent and

handle the turbulence of the world, but also dramatically increased the instability of

the business world. Management and business decisions have become extremely

complex because of the increasing number of the socio-political, environmental and

economic factors involved in decision making, and a high level of instability is now the

distinctive characteristic of the contemporary business world (Buckley and Carter,

2004).

This paper articulates ‘instability’ as the situation replete with emergent phenomena

and events, where the future is not easily and perfectly predictable, the causality of

events is non-linear, and the interrelationship among phenomena is complex and

multidimensional. Instability leads predicting future trends and events to be, if not

impossible, challenging. Decision making in these circumstances is extremely complex

and the likelihood of reaching unintended outcomes is high.

8

The discussion of instability in this paper is based on the working assumptions that

organizations as interpretation systems involve three key factors: human,

environment, and knowledge (Daft and Weick, 1984), and that each factor has

distinctive characteristics that profoundly impact their interactions. The characteristics

include respectively ‘cognitive inconsistency and cognitive limitations’, ‘turbulence and

unpredictability’, and ‘fallibility’ (Intezari and Pauleen, 2014). The concurrence of these

characteristics leads confrontation of the key factors to result in unintended outcomes

in the business world, and consequently increase instability. Intezari and Pauleen

(2011) argue that the interaction of the factors can be effectively managed by

incorporating wisdom into management practices, where wisdom, according to Awad

and Ghaziri (2004), is considered as “the highest level of abstraction, with vision,

foresight, and the ability to see beyond the horizon” (p. 40).

Daft and Weick (1984) argue that organizations as interpretation systems operate

based on the interpretations that organizations build up about the environment. The

strategic actions that organizations take are based on the interpretations of the

organizations, the strategic issues and the environment (Schneider and DeMeyer,

1991). Research shows that businesses’ mental models of corporate sustainability

varies depending on their perception of corporate sustainability performance

(Hockerts, 2014). When human (i.e. managers and organizations) perception and

interpretation of a particular event or phenomenon at a given time does not accurately

reflect the reality, and when the information and knowledge at hand are more likely to

fall short in dealing with circumstances, the likelihood of unintended consequences

and the level of instability increase. In this sense, instability may not be necessarily the

9

result of external factors (i.e. the environment), rather it could be the result of the

internal elements, such as wrong interpretation or knowledge fallibility (Intezari and

Pauleen, 2014). It is more likely that the decisions that are made based on inaccurate

perceptions lead to unintended consequences.

So, if we accept that cognitive inconsistency, the environment’s unpredictability, and

knowledge fallibility are inherent characteristics of human, the business environment,

and knowledge, respectively; and that the confrontation of these characteristics in

today’s world is inevitable, it would be vitally important for us, as managers and

organizations, to be able to manage our interaction with the surrounding environment

more effectively and ethically, to prevent unintended outcomes, to minimise the

negative impacts of our decisions and actions on stakeholders, and ultimately to

survive and succeed.

Intezari and Pauleen (2011) argue that wisdom (prudence) as a practical and moral

virtue provides a critical consideration of human cognitive inconsistency and

environmental turbulence; and underpins the holistic approach and the consideration

of ‘self and other well-being’ in business goal-settings. In this regard, wisdom

manifests as an unselfish and other-regarding quality (Prewitt, 2002). Practical wisdom

is “a reasoned and true state of capacity to act with regard to human goods” (the

Nicomachean Ethics 1140b, 20), and, therefore, as a moral virtue and unselfish quality

is implicit in organizational sustainability, which requires wise actions at both

individual and communal levels. Marker (2013) writes: “because long-term health and

survival are implicit in organizational sustainability, it is reasonable to say that

10

organizational wisdom requires that organizations adopt sustainable business

approaches. It is also reasonable to say that for organizations to become sustainable,

their leaders and employees need to act wisely” (p. 12).

Prudence is concerned with the ability to discern what is good not only for him- or her-

self but for mankind (the Nicomachean Ethics 1140b, 8), and organizations with

practically wise decisions and actions look beyond self-interests and egoism to

sustainability, which brings together corporate profitability and human concerns

(Intezari and Pauleen, 2014). Accordingly, sustainability is indicative of wisdom, in that

it is about the prudent use of resources. Going further, Viederman (1994) defines

sustainability as a participatory process that creates a vision that encourages and

respects prudent use of natural, social, cultural, and human resources. In the following

section the concept of sustainability is discussed. Then wisdom and sustainability are

argued to overlap, which facilitates the manifestation of wisdom in practice through

sustainability and helps organizations boost their sustainability.

Sustainability

As with wisdom, sustainability is multi-dimensional in nature (Dow, 2006; Fortuin and

Bush, 2010), and includes ethical, philosophical, aesthetic, economic, social, ecological,

technological, social, political, and cultural dimensions (Selby, 2006). Sustainability

engages multiple perspectives and emerges in various fields such as, supply chain

management (Colicchia, Marchet, Melacini, and Perotti, 2013), corporate sustainability

or corporate social responsibility (Eweje, 2006), entrepreneurship (Hansen and

Schaltegger, 2013), strategic management (Parnell, 2008), quality management

11

(Svensson, 2006), and ecology (Stead and Stead, 2000). For example, Reefke and

Trocchi (2013) propose a balanced scorecard design, as well as development and

implication processes for performance assessment in supply chains. Rathviboon et al.

(2013) develop a model and introduce an analytical and multiple-criteria decision-

making approach to evaluating how business enterprises address sustainable concerns.

Similarly, Epstein and Roy (2001) suggest a framework that helps managers identify

drivers of corporate social performance, as well as the actions that can be taken to

affect the performance.

Defining sustainability

Sustainability can be defined as the “relationship between dynamic human economic

systems and larger, dynamic, but normally slower-changing ecological systems, in

which (a) human life can continue indefinitely, (b) human individuals can flourish, and

(c) human cultures can develop; but in which effects of human activities remain within

bounds, so as not to destroy the diversity, complexity, and function of the ecological

life support system” (Costanza, Daly, and Bartholomew, 1991, p. 8). Sustainability

takes account of economic, social, and environmental aspects, in that it embodies an

agenda that goes beyond environmental and economic viability, reaching deeply into

the structure of social organization, by maintaining the key component of social equity

and justice (Blauert and Zadek, 1998).

The underlying concept behind the term of sustainability is an implicit measure of

economic capacity towards economic well-being over time (Weitzman, 1997).

Sustainability deals with the combination of economic, ecological and social concerns

12

(Schneider and Meins, 2012), and addresses the issues concerning the impacts of

economic development on other aspects of life including the existing physical and

intellectual structure of society. Khalili (2011) asserts that “sustainability, by definition,

addresses these impacts by defining and formulating the relationship between

dynamic human economic systems and slower-changing ecological systems, in which

human life can continue indefinitely, human individuals can flourish, and human

cultures can develop, while the diversity, complexity, and function of the ecological

life-support system are protected” (p. 6). Accordingly, when talking about

sustainability, the concerns about the natural, economic, and social systems are all

together brought into consideration.

The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (also known as

Brundtland Report) provides a description of sustainable development: “development

that meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of

future generations to meet their needs and aspirations” (WCED, 1987, p. 43). The

definition stands in the middle ground between economic growth and environmental

protection (Collins, Roper, and Lawrence, 2010), and appropriately underlines the

fundamental objectives of sustainable development, i.e. considering others and the

next generation. The WCED statement, however, does not provide a very clear

perception of the linkage between the objectives of sustainable development and the

operational objectives of sustainability (Lélé, 1991), and therefore it does not offer

guidance on how to develop a strategy that can help put sustainability into practice at

the organizational level (Epstein and Roy, 2001). The operational objectives that the

WCED (WCED, 1987) provide in relation to sustainability include “reviving growth,

13

changing the quality of growth, meeting essential needs for jobs, food, energy, water,

and sanitation, ensuring a sustainable level of population, conserving and enhancing

the resource base, reorienting technology and managing risk, merging environment

and economics in decision making, and reorienting international economic relations”

(p. 49).

Despite some clarification issues revolving around the WCED’s definition of

sustainability, the definition provides a good starting point to understand the term of

‘sustainability’. That is, sustainable development highlights the need for a mutually

beneficial balance between environmental and economic issues. For the purpose of

this paper, I avoid getting involved in a lengthy discourse of the conceptualization and

articulation of ‘sustainability’, and by assuming that the WCED definition provides a

fundamental understanding of the term of sustainability, I go on to concentrate more

on the discussion of the interrelationship between sustainability and wisdom.

In the following section, the interrelationship of wisdom and sustainability are

discussed.

A common ground of wisdom and sustainability

Sustainability “embodies the promise of societal evolution towards a more equitable

and wealthy world in which the natural environment and our cultural achievements

are preserved for generations to come” (Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002, p. 130). Gladwin

et al. (1995) characterize sustainability as a process that is inclusive (human and

environmental development, over time and space), connected (world’s problems are

14

systematically interdependent), equitable (fair distribution of resources;

intergenerational and intergenerational), secure manner (protection from harmful

disruption, safety from chronic threats), and prudent. The explanation that

sustainability provides for prudence is similar to the meaning that the contemporary

philosophical and psychological wisdom studies offer. Prudence is concerned with

action in association with what is good and bad for human beings (Melé, 2010), and

harmonizes reasoning and facts with emotions and values (Roca, 2007). According to

Gladwin et al. (1995) prudence connotes “duties of care and prevention:

technologically, scientifically, and politically” (p. 878), which requires a holistic

approach to integrate economic, environmental, social, and ethical values (Dyllick and

Hockerts, 2002; Wilkinson and Hill, 2001).

From this perspective, wisdom and sustainability stand on the same ground, as both

offer the same understanding of the relationship between human and the surrounding

environment. Sustainability is based on the recognition that the world’s problems are

systematically interdependent and interconnected (Gladwin et al., 1995), and

therefore enterprises and organizations are required to take an integrated and holistic

approach to people management and environmental concerns (Wilkinson and Hill,

2001). Along these lines, the World Resources Institute (1994) aptly concludes that “a

nation cannot reach its economic goals without also achieving social and

environmental goals” (p. 43).

As discussed earlier in this paper, uncertainty and instability is more than a lack of

knowledge and information; rather it involves the absence of the ability to anticipate

15

and envisage the nature of the changes (Buckley and Carter, 2004). Hence,

incorporating wisdom into organizational practices is not just a matter of effective

management and implementation of any knowledge and information; but pursuing

what guarantees human flourishing in the present and future. Aristotle (the

Nicomachean Ethics 1140a, 25-35) asserts that practical wisdom involves knowing

what is good for human beings, as well as the ability to apply that knowledge to

situations.

Wisdom serves as a means to make decisions and take actions based on communal

shared values and the awareness that actions have social consequences; decisions on

which course of action must be taken for the enhancement of the well-being of all.

Miller et al. (2011) argue that in order to contribute to sustainability, our knowledge

(that is produced in academic institutions) must be based on and allow the recognition

of system complexity and uncertainty, social robustness, acknowledgement of multiple

ways of knowing and the incorporation of normative and ethical premises. These

capabilities i.e. recognizing and handling ambiguity, and considering normative aspects

of circumstances, are among the critical aspects of practical wisdom (Roca, 2007;

Rowley and Slack, 2009). Practical wisdom forms sound judgements based on deep

understandings in conditions of uncertainty (O’Sullivan, 2005, p. 222), facilitates

organizational decision making towards the soundness of the choice of ends, means,

and corresponding actions (Arnaud and LeBon, 2000), and enhances organizational

capacity for coping with ambiguity, and for implementing sustainability. Accordingly,

Wisdom may provide a foundation for developing sustainable frameworks, strategies,

indexes, and guidelines.

16

Integrating wisdom and sustainability: A conceptual model

Wisdom engages an integrative and holistic understanding of the surrounding

environment and world around us (Lombardo, 2010), and capitalizes the

interconnectedness of social and environmental systems. So, in the midst of wisdom

and sustainability is a strong emphasis on considering the well-being of oneself and

others, which requires a self-transcendence approach to the human and surrounding

environment as an integrated whole.

With the preceding discussion of the common ground of wisdom and sustainability,

the interconnectedness of wisdom and sustainability can be outlined as follows (Figure

1):

1. Wisdom promotes the integrative, holistic and self-transcendence approach,

which is implicit in organizational sustainability strategies, by embedding

critical thinking about core assumptions and integrating cognitive, affective and

reflective aspects in decision making and strategies;

2. Sustainability leads wisdom to find expression in practice through sustainable

frameworks, guidelines and strategies. Sustainable practices represent wise

practices;

3. Wise practices enhance the organizational sustainability capacity by providing

practical reflection on the organizational performances. These reflections can

be implemented in formulating more effective sustainable strategies in the

future;

17

4. The future strategies foster organizational wisdom by engaging wisdom further

in developing sustainable frameworks and guidelines.

---------------------------

Insert Figure 1 about here

---------------------------

Sustainability concerns extend beyond the organizational boundaries (Searcy, 2014).

Therefore, the need for an integrative, holistic, and self-transcendent approach in the

business world implies that managers will not be able to make effective decisions

unless they consider the impacts of their products, services, and activities on the

internal and external stakeholders, the company and the surrounding environment

(Epstein and Roy, 2001). Wisdom promotes this holistic integrative approach in

organizational sustainability frameworks and strategies, as it comprises “critical

thinking skills (or strategies), the disposition to use these skills, and metacognitive

monitoring of the critical thinking process” as well as “a way for deciding which goals

should be desired, a way that is based on a balance among self and other interests and

short- and long-term goals” (Halpern, 2001, p. 255).

There is evidence that corporates’ environmental strategies evolve by incorporating

feedback from the outcomes of the corporates’ earlier environmental decisions

(Papagiannakis, Voudouris, and Lioukas, 2014). Wisdom embeds reflexivity into

organizational sustainability strategies. Reflexivity refers to an insecurity and unsettling

regarding the underlying assumptions, discourse and practices that are used to

18

describe reality (Pollner, 1991). Wisdom is an attitude “toward the beliefs, values,

knowledge, information, abilities, and skills that are held, a tendency to doubt that

these are necessarily true or valid and to doubt that they are an exhaustive set of

those things that could be known” (Meacham, 1990, p. 187). By questioning underlying

assumptions, thought processes and habitual actions in relation to the organizational

strategies, wisdom engages reflexivity and promotes even more integrated and holistic

sustainability strategies.

While wisdom works with the underlying assumptions of sustainability by focusing

close attention upon feelings and actions involved in formulating sustainability

strategies and the effects of the strategies on others, sustainability provides practical

frameworks and guidelines that facilitate practicing and operationalizing wisdom.

Global benchmarks for sustainability such as Dow Jones Sustainability Group Index

(DJSGI) (Knoepfel, 2001), Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI) (a common framework and

a set of guidelines for producing sustainability reports) (Willis, 2003), and the Balanced

Scorecard (a multi-perspective measure: measuring organizational performance from

financial, customer, internal business processes, and learning and growth perspectives)

(Kaplan and Norton, 1996), are examples of the practical frameworks and guidelines

through which sustainability sets the stage for wisdom to find expression in practice at

the organizational level1.

1

The interrelationship between wisdom and sustainability is discussed in this paper at the organizational level. At the individual level, wisdom may be argued to be developed, for example, through habituation (the Nicomachean Ethics 1103a, 15-25) and/or mindfulness (c.f. Case, 2013).

19

Sustainable practices are based on a self-transcendence approach. Self-transcendence

as a developmental process that leads to the development of wisdom (Levenson et al.,

2005). An organization learns how to set strategies and goals that promote the

sustainability of future performances, by doing more sustainable practices and

reflecting on practices. Self-transcendence is a fundamental component of wisdom

(Levenson, Jennings, Aldwin, and Shiraishi, 2005), which reflects a deeper

understanding of inter-connectedness with the external and surrounding environment,

and past and future generations (Levenson et al., 2005), and allows one to consider

oneself as an integral part of the universe (Cloninger, Svrakic, and Przybeck, 1993).

Both prudence and sustainability integrate ethics into practice towards human

flourishing with the consideration of environmental, social, economic, and political

systems. This ethical aspect, particularly the sustainability issue of fairness of trade-

offs between the need for current profitability and future environmental needs

(Beckmann, Hielscher, and Pies, 2014; Wilkinson and Hill, 2001), is promoted by

wisdom serving an effective deliberation and sound reasoning that leads to morally

right actions (Baggini and Fosl, 2007, p. 153). This way, wisdom integrating cognitive,

affective and reflective dimensions (Ardelt, 2003) incorporates ethics and morality into

organizational practices which lead to more ethical and sustainable performance.

According to Lombardo (2010) wisdom is “the continually evolving understanding of

and fascination with the big picture of life and what is important, ethical, and

meaningful; it includes the desire and ability to apply this understanding to enhance

the well-being of life, both for oneself and for others” (p. 34). In this sense, wisdom

serves as a means to an end not an end in itself (Tredget, 2010), and therefore enables

20

organizations to develop their sustainability capacity by reflecting on their wise

performances. Sustainability capacity refers to the extent to which the organization is

willing to make and capable of forming sound judgments that lead to sustainable

performance. The further the sustainability capacity develops, the more reflexive

analysis and an integrative approach to the existence, strategies and performances of

the organization become involved in formulating sustainability strategies, due to the

increasing number of the factors influencing the relationship between the organization

and the environmental, social, and economic systems.

To sum up, the exercise of prudence or practical wisdom is critical for developing and

sustaining human relationships inside and outside the company and organisation

(Tredget, 2010). Both wisdom and sustainability are concerned with human flourishing

by emphasizing the integration of economic growth, social equity and care capacity of

natural systems (Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002). Given the shared assumptions of wisdom

and sustainability, sustainable operations allow wisdom to manifest in practice, and

therefore sustainable frameworks, strategies, measures and indexes can be considered

as the practical guidelines for fostering wisdom in the business world. On the other

hand, wisdom enhances sustainability by incorporating a more reflexive, integrative

and holistic approach to the interconnectedness of social, environmental, political, and

economic systems in the organizational sustainability capacity and strategies.

Conclusion

Wisdom and sustainability have become central to both academic discourses and

business practices in today’s world. This paper as one of the first analyses on the

21

relationship between wisdom and sustainability sheds light on wisdom incorporation

into organizational performance through sustainability, and encourages

interdisciplinary scholarship and dialogue on how wisdom and sustainability can

implemented in a more integrative manner to facilitate the flourishing of humanity.

This paper argues that sustainability is not a necessity, it is inevitable. The discussion

shifts the focus from the idea that sustainability is a good thing for organizations to do,

to the argument that sustainability is the only option that organizations have, to

succeed in the current uncertain and unstable business world. The argument draws on

the suppositions that the environment, human beings, and knowledge as the main

elements of businesses are inherently unpredictable, cognitively inconsistent, and

fallible, respectively. The congruence of these characteristics increases business world

instability and, in turn, the likelihood of decisions resulting in unintended

consequences. Wisdom offers solutions to effectively manage the congruence of these

characteristics toward appropriate decisions and sustainable performances. Wisdom

as a moral virtue emphasizes the consideration and integration of diverse interests at

the individual, organizational and social levels. The paper argues that sustainability

allows wisdom to manifest in practice. Sharing assumptions on the need for

considering the values and interests at the individual, organizational, societal levels,

wisdom and sustainability mutually enable the organization to make more effective

decisions and take a more sustainable course of action in an unstable business world.

While sustainability sets forward practical frameworks to let wisdom find expression in

practice, wisdom promotes the organization’s sustainability capacity for formulating

more effective and integrative sustainable strategies.

22

The foregoing research makes a significant contribution to both scholars and

practitioners, given that wisdom and sustainability are increasingly attracting attention

in both academia and the practitioners’ world. For the academicians and

organizational researchers who are interested in wisdom and sustainability studies,

there is much scope for further research. Bringing to the fore the linkage between

wisdom and sustainability, more concentrated on the practical side of the integration

of wisdom into management and business practices, this work paves the path towards

further discussions and studies on wisdom aspects of sustainability, and those aspects

of wisdom that promote sustainability. The research calls for further studies on how

the practices of sustainability can foster wisdom at the individual, organizational, and

societal levels.

For practitioners, especially for educational purposes, the discussion of the

interrelationship between wisdom and sustainability further underpins the multi-

dimensional nature of sustainability (Selby, 2006) and yields novel insights into

teaching courses that concern environmental systems, where it is essential to take a

multidisciplinary approach to developing curriculum that fully integrates the subject of

‘sustainability’ (Bacon et al., 2012).

For other practitioners, this work identifies and highlights those inevitable and

inherent characteristics of human cognition, knowledge and the surrounding

environment of businesses that profoundly affect the quality of their performance in

the current extremely competitive business world. It offers the proposition that

practicing wisdom and sustainability enables practitioners to handle the congruence of

23

the instability of the business world, human cognitive inconsistency, and knowledge

fallibility more effectively. The paper suggests a practical approach to how wisdom and

sustainability can be implemented in a more integrative and holistic manner towards

minimising any possible short- and long-term negative effects on the environmental,

societal and economical systems.

24

References

Ardelt, M. 2003. Empirical assessment of a three-dimensional wisdom scale. Research On Aging, 25(3), pp. 275–324.

Ardelt, M. 2010. Are older adults wiser than college students? A comparison of two age cohorts. Journal of Adult Development, 17(4), pp. 193–207.

Aristotle. 2009. The Nicomachean Ethics. (D. Ross, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Arnaud, D., LeBon, T. 2000. Towards wise decision making 2: Emotions. Practical Philosophy, 3(3).

Awad, E. M., Ghaziri, H. M. 2004. Knowledge management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bacon, C. M., Mulvaney, D., Ball, T. B., DuPuis, E. M., Gliessman, S. R., Lipschutz, R. D., Shakouri, A. (2012. The creation of an integrated sustainability curriculum and student praxis projects. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(2), pp. 193–208.

Baggini, J., Fosl, P. S. 2007. The ethics toolkit: A compendium of ethical concepts and methods. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Baltes, P. B., Kunzmann, U. 2003. Wisdom: The peak of human excellence in the orchestration of mind and virtue. The Psychologist, 16(3), pp. 131–133.

Baltes, P. B., Staudinger, U. M., Maerker, A., Smith, J. 1995. People nominated as wise: A comparative study of wisdom-related knowledge. Psychology and Aging, 10(2), pp. 155–166.

Beckmann, M., Hielscher, S., Pies, I. 2014. Commitment strategies for sustainability: How business firms can transform trade-offs into win-win outcomes. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23(1), pp. 18–37.

Birren, J. E., Fisher, L. M. 1990. The elements of wisdom: Overview and integration. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and developmen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; pp. 317–332.

Blauert, J., Zadek, S. 1998. The art of mediation: Growing policy from the grassroots. In J. Blauert S. Zadek (Eds.), Mediating sustainability. Growing policy from the grassroots. West Hartford: Kumarian Press.

25

Buckley, P. J., Carter, M. J. 2004. A formal analysis of knowledge combination in multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5), pp. 371–384.

Case, P. 2013. Cultivation of wisdom in the Theravada Buddhist tradition: Implications for contemporary leadership and organization. In W. Küpers D. J. Pauleen (Eds.), Handbook of practical wisdom: Leadership, organization and integral business practice. Aldershot: Gower.

Clarke, T., Clegg, S. 2000. Changing paradigms. Sydney, Australia: Longman.

Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., Przybeck, T. R. 1993. A psychological model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50(12), pp. 975–990.

Colicchia, C., Marchet, G., Melacini, M., Perotti, S. 2013. Building environmental sustainability: Empirical evidence from logistics service providers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 59(15), pp. 197–209.

Collins, E., Roper, J., Lawrence, S. 2010. Sustainability practices: Trends in New Zealand businesses. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(8), pp. 479–494.

Costanza, R., Daly, H. E., Bartholomew, J. A. 1991. Goals, agenda and policy recommendations for ecological economics. In R. Costanza (Ed.), Ecological economics: The science and management of sustainability, New York, NY: Columbia University Press; pp. 1–20.

Daft, R. L., Weick, K. E. 1984. Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), pp. 284–295.

Dow, W. 2006. The need to change pedagogies in science and technoloy subjects: A European perspective. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16(3), pp. 307–321.

Dyllick, T., Hockerts, K. 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 141, pp.130–141.

Epstein, M. J., Roy, M.-J. 2001. Sustainability in Action: Identifying and Measuring the Key Performance Drivers. Long Range Planning, 34(5), pp. 585–604.

Eweje, G. 2006. CSR and taff retention in New Zealand companies: A literature review (No. 6). Bentley, Tim (pp. 1–16). Auckalnd, New Zealand. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10179/635

Fortuin, K. P. J., Bush, S. R. 2010. Educating students to cross boundaries between disciplines and cultures and between theory and practice. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 11(1), pp. 19–35.

26

Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., Krause, T.-S. 1995. Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), pp. 874–907.

Halpern, D. F. 2001. Why wisdom? Educational Psychologist, 36(4), pp. 253–256.

Hansen, E. G., Schaltegger, S. 2013. 100 per cent organic? A sustainable entrepreneurship perspective on the diffusion of organic clothing. Corporate Governance, 13(5), pp. 583–598.

Hockerts, K. 2014. A cognitive perspective on the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment. doi:10.1002/bse.1813

Intezari, A., Pauleen, D. J. 2011. Wisdom, management and extreme unpredictability. In Spirituality Leadership Management (SLaM). Sydney, Australia.

Intezari, A., Pauleen, D. J. 2012. When knowledge is insufficient: Wisdom in a complex world. In Philosophical Perspectives in IS (Sigphilosophy). Seattle, Washington: (July 29) Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) Proceedings. Paper 4.

Intezari, A., Pauleen, D. J. 2013. Students of wisdom: An integral Meta-competencies theory of practical wisdom. In W. M. Küpers D. J. Pauleen (Eds.), Handbook of practical wisdom: Leadership, organization and integral business practice. Aldershot: Gower; pp. 155–174.

Intezari, A., Pauleen, D. J. 2014. Management wisdom in perspective: Are you virtuous enough to succeed in volatile times? Journal of Business Ethics, 120(3), pp. 393–404.

Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P. 1996. Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harward Business Review, 74(1), pp. 75–86.

Khalili, N. 2011. Practical sustainability: From grounded theory to emerging strategies. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Knoepfel, I. 2001. Dow Jones sustainability group index: A global benchmark for corporate sustainability. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 8(1), pp. 6–15.

Lafferty, W., Langhelle, O. 1999. Towards sustainable development: On the goals of development - and the conditions of sustainability. London: Macmillan.

Lélé, S. M. 1991. Sustainable development: A critical review. World Development, 19(6), pp. 607–621.

27

Levenson, M. R., Jennings, P. A., Aldwin, C. M., Shiraishi, R. W. 2005. Self-transcendence: Conceptualization and measurement. International Journal of Aging Human Development, 60(2), pp. 127–143.

Lombardo, T. 2010. Wisdom facing forward: What it means to have heightened future consciousness. The Futurist, September-.

Marker, A. W. 2013. The development of practical wisdom: Its critical role in sustainable performance. Performance Improvement, 52(4), pp. 11–21.

Maxwell, N. 2012. How universities can help humanity learn how to resolve the crises of our times - from knowledge to wisdom: The University College London experience. In D. Rooney G. Hearn (Eds.), Handbook on the knowledge economy, Volume two, Cheltenham, UK: Kastelle, Tim; pp. 158–180.

McKenna, B. 2005. Wisdom, ethics and the postmodern organization. In D. Rooney, G. Hearn, A. Ninan (Eds.), Handbook on the knowledge economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; pp. 37–53.

Mckenna, B., Rooney, D. 2012. Making sense of irrealis in the global financial crisis. Culture and Organization, 18(2), pp. 123–137.

Meacham, J. A. 1990. The loss of wisdom. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development. New York: Cambridge University Press; pp. 181–211.

Melé, D. 2010. Practical wisdom in managerial decision making. Journal of Management Development, 29(7/8), pp. 637–645.

Miller, T. R., Muñoz-Erickson, T., Redman, C. L. 2011. Transforming knowledge for sustainability: Towards adaptive academic institutions. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(2), pp. 177–192.

Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. 2011. The big idea: The wise leader. Harvard Business Review, 89(5), pp. 58–67.

O’Sullivan. 2005. Some theoretical propositions on the nature of practice wisdom. Journal of Social Work, 5(2), pp. 221–242.

Pantzar, E. 2000. Knowledge and wisdom in the information society. Foresight, The Journal of Future Studies, Strategic Thinking and Policy, 2(2), pp. 230–236.

Papagiannakis, G., Voudouris, I., Lioukas, S. 2014. The road to sustainability: Exploring the process of corporate environmental strategy over time. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23(4), pp. 254–271.

28

Parnell, J. a. 2008. Sustainable strategic management: Construct, parameters, research directions. International Journal of Sustainable Strategic Management, 1(1), p. 35.

Pasupathi, M., Staudinger, U. M. 2001. Do advanced moral reasoners also show wisdom? Linking moral reasoning and wisdom-related knowledge and judgement. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(5), pp. 401–415.

Pauleen, D. J., Rooney, D., Holden, N. 2010. Practical wisdom and the development of cross-cultural knowledge management: A global leadership perspective. European Journal of International Management, 4(2), pp. 382–395.

Pollner, M. 1991. Left of ethnomethodology: The rise and decline of radical reflexivity. American Sociological Review, 56(3), pp. 370–380.

Prewitt, V. R. 2002. Wisdom in the workplace. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15(1), pp. 84–98.

Rathviboon, S., Tabucanon, M. T., Sivakumar, M. 2013. A multiple-criteria decision-making model for evaluating sustainability of business enterprises. International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 14(3), pp. 315–332.

Reefke, H., Trocchi, M. 2013. Balanced scorecard for sustainable supply chains: Design and development guidelines. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 62(8), pp. 805–826.

Resources Institute World. 1994. World resources 1994-95: A guide to the global environment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Roca, E. 2007. Intuitive practical wisdom in organizational life. Social Epistemology, 21(2), pp. 195–207.

Rooney, D., McKenna, B. 2008. Wisdom in public administration: Looking for a sociology of wise practice. Public Administration Review, 68(4), pp. 709–721.

Rooney, D., McKenna, B., Liesch, P. 2010. Wisdom and management in the knowledge economy. New York: Routledge.

Rowley, J., Gibbs, J. 2008. From learning organization to practically wise organization. The Learning Organization, 15(5), pp. 356–372.

Rowley, J., Slack, F. 2009. Conceptions of wisdom. Journal of Information Science, 35(1), pp. 110–119.

29

Schaltegger, S., Beckmann, M., Hansen, E. G. 2013. Transdisciplinarity in corporate sustainability: Mapping the field. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(4), pp. 219–229.

Schneider, A., Meins, E. 2012. Two dimensions of corporate sustainability assessment: Towards a comprehensive framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(4), pp. 211–222.

Schneider, S. C., DeMeyer, A. 1991. Interpreting and responding to strategic issues: The impact of national culture. Strategic Management Journal, 12(4), pp. 307–320.

Searcy, C. 2014. Measuring enterprise sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, July. doi:10.1002/bse.1861

Selby, D. 2006. The catalyst that is sustainability: Bringing permeability to disciplinary boundaries. Planet, 17, pp. 57–59.

Shrivastava, P., Ivanaj, S., Persson, S. 2013. Transdisciplinary study of sustainable enterprise. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(4), pp. 230–244.

Small, M. W. 2011. Developing wisdom and moral duty in management. Journal of Management Development, 30(9), pp. 836–846.

Stead, J. G., Stead, W. E. 2000. Eco-enterprise strategy: Standing for sustainability. Journal Fo Business Ethics, 24(4), pp. 313–329.

Sternberg, R. J. 2004. What is wisdom and how can we develop it? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591, pp. 164–174.

Strijbos, S. 1995. How can systems thinking help us in bridging the gap between science and wisdom? Systems Practice, 8(4), pp. 361–376.

Svensson, G. 2006. Sustainable quality management: A strategic perspective. The TQM Magazine, 18(1), pp. 22–29.

Tredget, D. A. 2010. Practical wisdom and the rule of benedict. Journal of Management Development, 29(7/8), pp. 716–723.

Viederman, S. 1994. The economics of sustainability: Challenges. Paper presented at the workshop, The Economics of Sustainability, Gundacao Joaquim Nabuco, Recife, Brazil.

Walker, L. J. 2005. Toward a virtuous future: The framing of wisdom. Journal of Financial Planning, 18(9), pp. 30–34.

30

WCED. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Weitzman, M. L. 1997. Sustainability and technical progress. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 99(1), pp. 1–13.

Wilkinson, A., Hill, M. 2001. The sustainability debate. International Journal of Operations Production Management, 21(12), pp. 1492–1502.

Willis, A. C. A. 2003. The role of the global reporting initiative’s sustainability reporting guidelines in the social screening of investments. Journal Fo Business Ethics, 43, pp. 233–237.

Figure 1

31

Figure 1: Wisdom and Sustainability

Sust

ain

abili

ty

Cap

acit

y

Enga

gin

g fu

rth

er

wis

do

m

Wisdom

Embedding reflexivity

Sustain

able

strategies

Practical

frame

wo

rks gu

idelin

es

Wise Practices

Providing reflection for

future strategies