THE ECOLOGICAL WORLDVIEWS AND POST-CONVENTIONAL ACTION LOGICS OF GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY LEADERS

by STEVEN SCHEIN

ABSTRACT

This is an empirical study of ecological worldviews and action logics of global

sustainability leaders. Although a body of research has emerged in recent years focused on

corporate sustainability practices at the organizational level, the literature has paid less

attention to corporate sustainability at the individual level. As a result, little is known about

the deeper psychological motivations of sustainability leaders and how these motivations

may influence their behavior and effectiveness as change agents.

This study was based on theoretical insights from several social science disciplines

including ecopsychology, integral ecology, environmental sociology, and developmental

psychology. Drawing on interviews with 65 leaders in more than 50 multinational

corporations, NGOs, and consultancies, the study presents three major propositions that

illuminate specific ways that ecological worldviews and action logics are developed and

expressed by sustainability leaders. Specific findings include five experiences that shape

ecological worldviews over the lifespan and six ways that post-conventional action logics

are expressed by sustainability leaders. Findings also include how the complexity of

sustainability is driving highly collaborative approaches to leadership. Insights from this

research can be integrated into leadership development programs in a wide range of public

and private institutions and will be of interest to a range of sustainability scholars, social

science researchers, sustainability executives, and social entrepreneurs.

Key Words: Sustainability leader, ecological worldviews, action logics, ecopsychology, developmental theory, new ecological paradigm, ecological self, corporate sustainability

ii

Copyright by

Steven Schein

2014

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Toward the end of my doctoral studies, my wife and I travelled to India and Nepal to

visit our daughter, who was studying in Kathmandu. One morning before dawn, we found

ourselves on a small rowboat on the Ganges River in the ancient city of Varanasi. As the

sun rose along the eastern shore, we placed floating candles on the river, praying and

chanting with our Hindu guide. At one point, I turned to my wife and said, “I feel as though

my dissertation committee is along with me.” Although she had become accustomed to

how often I brought them up during the previous year, I don't think she expected me to

mention them at precisely that moment! When she asked me what I meant, I explained

how they were each connected to India, and to me, in different ways.

My chair, Fielding President Dr. Katrina Rodgers, was about to give a keynote

address on ecological leadership at a management conference in New Delhi.

Anthropologist Dr. David Willis, my first faculty reader, was conducting research on a

spiritual community in Southern India. My second faculty reader, human development

scholar Dr. Judy Stevens-Long, had recently begun a new book about several of the

world’s most important religious texts, including the Bhagavad Gita. My external

examiner, MIT sustainability scholar Dr. Jason Jay, just celebrated the birth of his daughter

Uma, which means mother goddess Durga in Hindu mythology. My student reader, Julie

Huffaker, traveled and meditated in India years ago and had shared with me how deeply the

trip had affected her life.

I mention these connections to India for several reasons. First, they offer insight into

the interdisciplinary breadth and depth of the five individuals that comprised my

committee. Each of these individuals are not only highly respected scholars in multiple

iv

disciplines that include hermeneutics, cultural anthropology, human development,

leadership, organization development, and sustainability; they are great teachers.

However, this is not why I was thinking about them that morning on the Ganges. I

was thinking how each of them helped me see and feel so much more of the human story of

this ancient civilization while floating down the river. I realized at that moment that my

doctoral studies had given me much more than a PhD, they had greatly enhanced the way I

will experience the rest of my life. At 54 years of age, this is no small gift. I am very

grateful for the guidance of these five individuals during my dissertation journey.

I thank the many Fielding faculty members from whom I learned much. I also express

my gratitude to several scholars outside of Fielding with whom I developed friendships.

The many conversations I had with each of them at pivotal moments helped me back out of

more than a few corners and open new doors. Dr. John Bowling, Dr. Barrett Brown, Dr.

Richmond Fourmy, Dr. Sean Esbjorn-Hargens, Dr. Annick Hedlund de-Witt, Dr. Hilary

Bradbury Huang, Dr. Elliot Maltz, Dr. Aliki Nicolaides, Dr. William Torbert, and Dr.

Nancy Wallis. I also want to thank the 65 sustainability leaders that took the time to be

participants in my research as well as a circle of close friends that took walks in the woods

and listened patiently as I worked out ideas. Ben Bellinson (and his giant dog Nelson),

Dana Carmen, Aaren Glover, Matt Hough, Stephen and Sarah Marshank, and Robert

Townsend.

Finally, I offer a deep bow to my family. My three amazing children, Casey, Maggie,

and Teddy, ages 23, 21, and 19; each of them are stepping into their own worldviews in

such wonderful ways these days. My partner of 28 years, Patty Samera Schein, thank you

for being alongside me, behind me, and putting up with me, while I wrote this dissertation.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE: THE STUDY ............................................................................................................ 1 Reframing Sustainability ...................................................................................................................... 1 Theoretical Framework: Ecological Worldviews and Action Logics...................................... 2 Research Questions ................................................................................................................................ 3 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Definitions ................................................................................................................................................. 4 Significance of the Research ............................................................................................................... 5 Researcher Worldview and Personal Motivation .......................................................................... 7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 8

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .................................................................... 9 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 9 The Ecological Worldview Literature............................................................................................... 9

Interpretations of Worldviews ........................................................................................................ 9 Ecological Worldviews .................................................................................................................. 11 A New Ecological Paradigm ......................................................................................................... 14 The Ecological Self ......................................................................................................................... 17

Developmental Theory and Action Logics .................................................................................... 19 Studies Integrating Developmental Theory and Ecological Worldviews ........................ 21

The Sustainability Leadership Literature ....................................................................................... 23 Great Man Theories of Leadership ............................................................................................. 24 Interior Theories of Leadership .................................................................................................... 25 The Environmental and Sustainability Leadership Literatures ........................................... 27

Integrating Developmental Theory, Ecological Worldviews, and Sustainability .............. 28 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 32

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY AND DESCRIPTION OF PARTICIPANTS .... 34 Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 34 Research Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 34

Qualitative Approach ...................................................................................................................... 34 Data Collection ................................................................................................................................. 35 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 35 Analyzing Interview Texts Through Hermeneutic Turns ..................................................... 36 Sampling Strategy and Recruitment of Participants .............................................................. 37

vi

Description of Participants ................................................................................................................. 38 Small Size of Sustainability Departments ................................................................................. 39

Results from the Pilot Study .............................................................................................................. 40 Integrity During The Research Process .......................................................................................... 41 IRB Approval ......................................................................................................................................... 42 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 42

CHAPTER FOUR: ECOLOGICAL WORLDVIEWS ................................................................... 43 Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 43 Theme 1: Experiences that Shape Ecological Worldviews Over the Lifespan ................... 44

Family of Origin and Early Childhood Experiences in Nature ........................................... 45 Environmental Education, Teachers, and Mentors ................................................................. 47 Seeing Poverty and Environmental Degradation in Developing Countries .................... 49 Perceiving Capitalism as a Vehicle for Environmental Activism ...................................... 50 A Sense of Spirituality and Service ............................................................................................ 52

Theme 2: Expressions of Ecocentric Worldviews ..................................................................... 54 An Awareness of Ecological Embeddedness ........................................................................... 55 An Awareness of the Fragility of Planetary Ecosystems ...................................................... 56 A Belief in the Intrinsic Value of Nature .................................................................................. 58

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 60 CHAPTER FIVE: EXPRESSIONS OF POST-CONVENTIONAL ACTION LOGICS ... 61

Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 61 Theme Three: Expressions of Post-conventional Action Logics ............................................ 62

Awareness of Diverse Worldviews and Contexts ................................................................... 63 Thinking in Decades: Future Generations and Historical Context .................................... 66 Enhanced Systems Consciousness .............................................................................................. 68 Planet-Centric Circles of Identity and Care .............................................................................. 71 An Inquiring Stance with Greater Vulnerability ..................................................................... 73 Highly Collaborative Approaches to Leadership .................................................................... 75

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 80 CHAPTER SIX: IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY AND PRACTICE ................................... 82

Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 82 Implications of Theme One ........................................................................................................... 84 Implications of Theme Two .......................................................................................................... 86 Implications of Theme Three ........................................................................................................ 89

vii

Future Research ..................................................................................................................................... 95 Limitations to the Study ...................................................................................................................... 97 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 98

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 100

viii

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Disciplines/Theorists that form Ecological Worldview Literature…….. 12 Table 2. The Dominant Social Paradigm vs. The New Ecological Paradigm…… 16 Table 3. Descriptions of the Ecological Selves…………………………………. 23 Table 4. Description of Leadership Action Logics.…………………………………. 26 Table 5. Summary of Frameworks from the Literature Review…………………. 31

ix

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Corporate Sustainability Leadership Qualitative Interview Questions... 108

Appendix B. Ecological Worldview Qualitative Interview Questions………............. 109

Appendix C. Fielding Graduate University Informed Consent Form………………. 110

x

CHAPTER ONE: THE STUDY

Reframing Sustainability

As midsize mammals dependent on the earth’s ecosystems for life, human beings

now face the most serious and complex set of ecological problems in our history. Driven

by our ecologically unsustainable way of life and the dramatic increase in our global

population, these problems include an increasingly less predictable climate and a wide

range of interrelated social, environmental, and economic problems. Compounded by

growing water scarcity, deforestation, species extinction, and ocean acidification, our

ability to thrive is threatened (Barlow, 2007; Brown, 2010; McKibben, 2010).

Although we have been saturated with scientific information describing the

ecological crisis, it has not significantly changed the behaviors responsible for the serious

problems we face. Although some progress has been made in the public sector, government

leaders have been unable to advance ecological sustainability in a comprehensive manner.

Despite a growing awareness of the environmental issues in the private sector, the quarterly

earnings report is still the major driver in the corporate world. As a result, CEOs with

sustainability at the top of their agenda are few and far between. It appears that more

information from the natural sciences is not enough. Perhaps the social sciences can now

make a vital contribution by reframing ecological issues, especially for sustainability

leadership (Esbjorn-Hargens & Zimmerman, 2009; Hedlund-de Witt, 2012; Hulme, 2009;

Obrien 2006; Rogers, 2012).

Recent literature has explored how multinational corporations can play an important

role in solving the planet’s great ecological challenges. However, it focuses primarily on

2

overall corporate strategies and best green business practices. While a significant body of

research has emerged in recent years focused on corporate sustainability at the

organizational level (Lazlo & Zhexembayeva, 2011; Maltz & Schein, 2013; Porter &

Kramer, 2011), the literature has not paid enough attention to sustainability leadership at

the individual level. As a result, little is known about the deeper psychological motivations

of sustainability leaders and how this may relate to their effectiveness and capacity to lead

transformational change (Brown, 2012; Visser & Crane, 2010).

Theoretical Framework: Ecological Worldviews and Action Logics

Reframing the traditional natural science dialogue in the context of sustainability will

require a new type of integration with certain social science disciplines that can add

valuable new insights. These include developmental psychology, eco-psychology, deep

ecology, integral ecology, ecological economics, and environmental sociology.

At the intersection of these disciplines lies a phenomenon known as worldview,

which can be thought of as our entrenched ways of seeing the world. Worldview has been

defined as the “cognitive, perceptual, and affective maps that people continuously use to

make sense of the social landscape and to find their ways to whatever goals they seek. They

are developed throughout a person’s lifetime through socialization and social interaction.

They are encompassing and pervasive in adherence and influence. Yet they are usually

unconsciously and uncritically taken for granted as the way things are” (Hart, 2010, p.2). In

relation to ecological sustainability, worldviews can act as blinders that limit our perception

of the natural world.

Ecopsychologists and environmental sociologists characterize most worldviews as

anthropocentric, reflecting a belief that human beings can ultimately control nature through

3

technological and economic advances. Conversely, ecocentric worldviews express a belief

that human beings are dependent on and literally embedded in the Earth's ecosystem

(Capra, 1996; Meadows, 2008; Naess, 1989).

Within the developmental psychology and leadership literatures, an important

component of worldview is called action logics, which is the frame through which people

translate their thoughts, feelings, and perceptions into actions (Torbert, 2004). Action

logics may be conventional and less complex or post-conventional and more complex

(Cook-Greuter, 2004; Kegan & Lahey, 2009; Rooke & Torbert, 2005). Based on decades of

research on corporate leadership, Torbert and Herdman-Barker (2008) have shown how

leaders with post-conventional action logics have enhanced capacities to transform

organizations.

This study explores how ecological worldviews and action logics have the power to

enhance our understanding of the psychological dimensions of sustainability leadership. It

suggests that these two concepts have been missing from the field and sets the stage for the

two research questions.

Research Questions

How do sustainability leaders describe their worldviews and motivation for their work? Do the descriptions by sustainability leaders of their worldviews and their motivation for sustainability reflect specific action logics?

Methodology To answer these questions, a multiphase qualitative design was deployed.

Interviews took place with 65 sustainability practitioners, predominantly senior executives

from multinational corporations, with smaller samples from private companies, NGOs, and

4

consultancies. Thematic analysis and hermeneutic methodology was used to analyze and

interpret the qualitative interview data. This process resulted in three major themes, each

of which are supported by three to six findings. A complete description of the research

methodology is provided in Chapter 3.

Definitions

Several key terms and concepts are used throughout this study. Below

operationalized definitions are provided.

Sustainability – The ability to meet the needs of the present generation of

human beings without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their

needs. This refers to ecological, social, and economic needs.

Corporate sustainability - The ability of corporations to produce, distribute,

and dispose of goods and services without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their needs. Also called corporate social responsibility (CSR),

green business, corporate stewardship, natural capitalism, and shared value.

Green business – The strategies, products, and approaches in business that

emerged as a result of the growing awareness of the impact of business on nature.

Sustainability leaders – The individuals inside of corporations, NGOs,

governments, and other types of institutions whose primary responsibility is

developing and leading sustainability initiatives. Sustainability leaders can be at the

Chief Sustainability Officer, Vice President, Director, and Managerial level.

Sustainability leadership - The academic discipline focused on sustainability

leaders and sustainability departments within institutions.

5

Worldview – The cognitive and perceptual maps that people continuously

use to make sense of the world (Hart, 2010).

Ecological worldview –The cognitive and perceptual maps that people

continuously use to make sense of the natural world. They can be thought of as the

deep mental patterns for how people see relationships within the natural

environment. Includes the way people think about the relationship between society

and nature as well as their individual relationship with nature.

Action logics - The stages of increasing mental complexity adults can

potentially move through across their life span. Action logics are also called

mindsets, stages of consciousness, centers of gravity, mental patterns, meaning-

making systems, and orders of consciousness. They can be thought of as the frame

through which people translate their thoughts, feelings, and perceptions into actions.

They affect what people can be aware of, reflect on, and act on (Cook-Greuter,

2004; Kegan, 1994; Torbert, 2004).

Post-conventional action logics – This broad category refers to the more

advanced stages of adult development characterized by a greater understanding of

complexity and interdependency of systems. Post-conventional is also referred to

as later stage and postformal by developmental theorists (Brown, 2012; Cook-

Greuter, 2004; Esbjorn-Hargens, 2005; Kegan, 1994; Torbert, 2004).

Significance of the Research

During the last decade, the sustainability position inside multinational corporations

has grown in influence. Beginning with the appointment of the first Chief Sustainability

Officer in 2004 (Weinrub, 2011), the position has grown from the managerial level to

6

Director to Vice President to the Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO). Today there are

senior sustainability executives in hundreds of the world’s largest multinational companies.

In many cases, the Chief Sustainability Officer now reports directly to the Chief Executive

Officer (CEO). These are highly influential individuals inside of highly influential

companies.

Despite this, the literature has not focused enough attention on corporate

sustainability at the individual level. There have been a few theoretical studies that have

attempted to integrate ecological worldviews and action logics in the context of

sustainability leadership (Esbjorn-Hargens & Zimmerman, 2009, Boiral, Cayer, & Baron,

2009). In terms of empirical research, there have been even fewer studies. Those that have

been conducted have made significant new contributions but have been based on small

sample sizes (Brown, 2012; Hedlund-de Witt; 2012, Rogers, 2012).

This study begins to fill this gap. It seeks to provide answers to questions such as

the following: What are the deeper motivations of individuals that lead sustainability within

multinational corporations? What are their ecological worldviews, from where did these

views originate, and how are they shaped over time? How do they think about their work in

sustainability and what does this reveal in terms of their action logics? How have their

action logics and work in sustainability influenced their approaches to leadership?

A major contribution of this study is that it serves to empirically ground key

theories from the ecological worldview and developmental psychology literatures in

sustainability leadership practice. By doing so, it sets the stage for social science

researchers from several social science disciplines to pursue a major new line of inquiry:

sustainability leadership development. By contextualizing the research at the intersection

7

of the ecological worldview, developmental psychology, and sustainability leadership

literatures, this study should be of interest to a wide range of sustainability educators, social

science researchers, sustainability executives, and social entrepreneurs. Insights can be

integrated into leadership development programs in a wide range of public and private

institutions to help sustainability leaders reframe and more effectively confront global

challenges.

Researcher Worldview and Personal Motivation

By considering the underlying assumptions, past experiences, and philosophical

worldviews, researchers can become more aware of why they choose their methodologies

for a research project (Creswell, 2009). Among possible philosophical worldviews, I

describe mine as constructivist and transformative (Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Creswell,

2009). The constructive aspect stems from my desire to interpret and make sense of a

subjective and complex phenomenon: the way sustainability leaders develop and express

their ecological worldviews and action logics. The transformative aspect is to make

explicit my values regarding ecological sustainability and my intention for the research to

become actionable in the context of global leadership practice. This desire stems from my

personal motivation as a sustainability educator and practitioner over the last decade.

Since first reading the scientific research on the potential impacts of climate change

on the earth’s ecosystems, I have been interested in the relationship between business and

the environment. As a university business professor, I have been teaching and developing

sustainability related curricula since 2004. My work has focused on how the environmental

and social sciences can be integrated into business curriculum and corporate leadership

development programs.

8

In addition to reading the environmental and sustainability literature, my education

has included starting a small organic farm and studying with a series of teachers in the

fields of botany, permaculture, organic farming, and forest stewardship. This experience

has allowed me to see the natural world more clearly and understand how far out of balance

we’ve become as a global society. I have come to better understand the interconnectedness

of our climate, food, soil, energy, water, and waste, and their relationship to our planetary

ecosystems, our health, and our global economy. By presenting the findings from this

dissertation research, I hope to add new actionable insights to the field of sustainability

leadership in the service of ecological sustainability.

Conclusion

In this chapter, an overview of the study and the theoretical framework were

presented. The two research questions that guided the study and the significance of the

research were described. Consistent with the constructivist and transformative nature of

this study, I also described my researcher worldview and personal motivation for

conducting this research (Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Creswell, 2009).

In the chapters that follow, the literatures that form the theoretical framework will

be reviewed in depth and specific gaps the study was designed to address will be

highlighted in Chapter 2. Then in Chapter 3, the qualitative research methodology will be

described including the approaches to data collection, sampling and recruitment of

participants, and data analysis. In Chapters 4 and 5, the findings from the study will be

presented, including more than 100 separate quotations from the semi-structured

interviews. Finally, in Chapter 6, the significance of the study and the theoretical

implications will be discussed, including several suggestions for future research.

9

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

In response to the growing awareness of the earth’s ecological crises, countless

books and articles informed by research from the natural sciences have been published

since the early 1970s. However research into how the social sciences can help reframe how

we view ecological issues and advance the field of sustainability leadership is just

beginning. The literatures of ecological worldviews, developmental psychology, and

sustainability leadership can help reframe the natural science discourse and create new

insights for sustainability leaders. Taken together, these three literatures form the

theoretical framework for this study.

The Ecological Worldview Literature

The literature about ecological worldviews is made up of various disciplines (see

Table 1). The general concept of worldviews and how it has been defined by three of the

social science disciplines will first be examined. Next, the concept of ecological

worldviews is discussed through the lens of several subdisciplines. The constructs of a new

ecological paradigm and the ecological self will then be analyzed to enhance our

understanding of ecological worldviews.

Interpretations of Worldviews

The social psychologist Koltko-Rivera (2004) defines worldviews as a set of

assumptions about physical and social reality that can have powerful effects on cognition

and behavior. Worldview can also be characterized as one's total outlook on life, society,

and its institutions. Highlighting the esoteric nature of worldviews, Koltko-Rivera (2004)

10

adds that worldview is often hidden in the literature because it is called other things

including values, paradigms, and beliefs.

From a sociological perspective, Ray and Anderson (2000) situate the term in the

context of values and culture in the United States. They define worldview as “the content

of everything you believe is real - which includes God, the economy, technology, the

planet, how things work, how you should work and play, your relationship with your

beloved - and everything you value” (p. 17). Ray and Anderson (2000) observe that

changes in worldview do not happen often because it changes virtually everything in our

consciousness. They describe this as a sense of who you are and what you are willing to

see, including your priorities for action. Their seminal book, The Cultural Creatives, is a

large-scale sociological survey that divides Americans into three large cultural groups

essentially based on their respective worldviews. Although a complete discussion of the

implications of their work is beyond the scope of this dissertation, it is relevant to

understanding many of the challenges American society has faced over the last decade. As

relates to ecological sustainability, their research helps explain why people from opposing

political parties disagree about environmental policy.

In the field of developmental psychology, we see extensive use of the worldview

concept. Developmental stage theorists and consciousness researchers have periodically

used the term worldviews synonymously with the concepts of meaning-making systems,

action logics, stages of development (Cook-Greuter, 2000, 2004; Torbert, 2004), and

orders of consciousness (Kegan, 1980, 1994). Goldhaber (2000) outlines three families of

worldview theories that are relevant to the study of human development: the mechanistic

worldview, the organismic worldview, and the contextualist worldview, where each family

11

puts forth different theoretical images of human development. Overton (2006)

characterizes worldviews as narratives that ultimately evolve to become an overarching

paradigm constellated by a set of interwoven and coherent set of concepts.

Finally, ecological economists Beddoe et al. (2009) describe how “our current

socio-ecological regime is a set of interconnected worldviews, institutions, and

technologies that all support the goal of unlimited growth of material production and

consumption as a proxy for the quality of life” (p. 1). Former World Bank economist Daly

(1996) calls for a pre-analytic vision or worldview in making the distinction between

qualitative development versus quantitative growth, which is the core idea underlying the

idea of his theory of steady-state economics. Having explored how the overall worldview

concept has been used by three of the social sciences, the next section will introduce the

concept of ecological worldviews.

Ecological Worldviews

Ecological worldviews were described as early as the 13th century by St. Francis of

Assisi, who said that all humans were responsible for protecting nature as part of their faith

in God. The transcendentalism of Emerson and Thoreau in the 19th century and more

recently Thomas Merton in the early 20th century have also contributed to our

understanding, each suggesting new ways of thinking about the natural world. More

recently, philosophers including White (1967) and Naess (1989) introduced ecological

worldviews into academic discourse. Since then, social scientists from various disciplines

have explored the nature and implications of ecological worldviews, resulting in a large

and growing body of literature as noted in Table 1.

12

Table 1 – Disciplines and Theorists Who Comprise the Ecological Worldview Literature Discipline Theorists Key Concepts and Themes Eco-psychology Roszak

Hillman O’Connor Conn Kahn

Psyche and gaia Anthropocentricism of psychology Ecopsychology, health, and well-being Developing sensory awareness Human relationship with technology

Deep Ecology Naess Sessions Drengson Devall Fox Macy Abram

Deep vs. shallow ecology - ecological maturity Ecological self Technocratic vs. planetary-person paradigm Ecocentricism vs. anthropocentrism Ecological transpersonal philosophy Ecological self - paradigm shift Ecological embeddedness

Environmental Sociology Systems Thinking

Dunlap Hedlund de-Witt Bragg Kempton Bateson Meadows Capra

New ecological paradigm NEP critique/worldviews by discipline Constructionist theory/expanded self-concept Environmental values Ecology of mind Limits to growth Systems thinking - web of life

Ecological Economics

Beddoe Costanza Daly

Redesign dominant socio-economic regime Valuing natural capital Steady-state-economy, pre-analytic vision

Social Views on Climate change

Obrien Hulme

Framing climate change debate Social meanings of climate change

Integral Ecology Indigenous Studies

Hedlund de-Witt Esbjorn-Hargens Four Arrows Hart

Integral perspective on worldviews Ecological selves framework Indigenous education / paradigm shift Indigenous worldviews and research

Developmental Psychology and Sustainability Leadership

Boiral et al. Brown Rogers Hedlund de-Witt

Action logics and environmental leadership Conscious leadership for sustainability Corporate Ecological Selves Integral worldview framework

Environmental sociologist Hedlund-de Witt (2012) notes that research into

worldviews has historically been underemphasized. By observing that approaches to

environmental issues from academia, public policy, and the corporate sphere have not

integrated interior perspectives, she highlights the potential for worldview research. These

interior perspectives include psychological dynamics, emotional responses, and cultural

13

values. Citing Koltko-Rivera (2004), she makes the distinction between environmental

attitudes and worldviews. Attitudes are the collection of beliefs, affect, and behavioral

intentions a person holds regarding environmentally related activities. The more

encompassing concept of worldview refers to the foundational assumptions and perceptions

regarding the underlying nature of reality.

Integral ecologists Esbjorn-Hargens and Zimmerman (2009) use the term in a

cultural and developmental context. They observe that within the environmental

movement there are three large groups of worldviews known as traditional, modern, and

postmodern. Here they are using the word worldview to refer to politics, religion, and

culture. They state that the failure to differentiate amongst worldviews prevents

environmentalists from effectively communicating with each other and, more importantly,

moving toward solving the world's major environmental problems.

These authors break new ground by exploring the relationship between ecological

worldviews and stages of consciousness. They state their intention as “the study of

interiors and the development of those interiors so that environmentalists will acknowledge

that environmental issues arise differently for people depending on their worldview” (p.

38).

The integral approach suggests leaders need an understanding of stages of

consciousness so that they can communicate with people that hold a variety of worldviews.

They make a compelling case that a successful approach to ecological sustainability is

dependent on the development of a world-centric identity. They observe that this stage

development has been largely ignored in environmental and ecological research and in

traditional academia in general.

14

In addition to the theoretical lenses cited above, social scientists have looked at the

nature of ecological worldviews through various constructs. Amongst the most prominent

are the new ecological paradigm and the ecological self. By exploring the literature

focused on these two constructs, an expanded understanding of ecological worldview

emerges.

A New Ecological Paradigm

Underlying the various interpretations of ecological worldviews by the social

sciences is the tension between anthropocentric and ecocentric worldviews. Eco-

psychologists and environmental sociologists characterize most worldviews as

anthropocentric reflecting a belief that human beings can ultimately control nature through

technological and economic advances. An anthropocentric worldview also reflects a belief

that human beings are at the center of the universe and the most significant species on

earth. It assumes that all phenomena in the world should be interpreted in terms of human

values and experiences.

On the other hand, a person with an ecocentric worldview expresses a belief that

human beings are dependent on and literally embedded in the Earth's ecosystem. An eco-

centric thinker sees the earth’s biosphere at the center, with humans as one of many

thousands of species that have arisen and are dependent upon the earth’s living systems for

survival (Abram, 2010, Capra, 1996; Meadows, 2008; Naess, 1989).

The Canadian novelist and environmental activist Margaret Atwood helps make the

difference between these two worldviews clear. She observes that the green movement is

not a movement to save nature, but actually a movement to save the human race. She adds

that nature in all of its evolutionary biodiversity will prevail long after the human race; and

15

humans, an unusual midsize mammalian species, may disappear from the planet. An

ecocentric worldview means having a basic understanding of non-human organisms and

their ecosystems. It requires that we apply what we learn about how human activity

impinges on ecosystems so as to do less harm and live sustainably in our ecological niche

(Goleman, 2009).

Building on the distinction between anthropocentric and eco-centric worldviews,

the notion of a new environmental paradigm (NEP) was first coined by Dunlap and Van

Liere (1978). Influenced by the publication of Limits to Growth (Meadows et al., 1972) and

the growing environmental movement, these two young sociologists described their

motivation as stemming from a shift in their own worldviews from the existing dominant

social paradigm.

They began to conceptualize a new environmental paradigm based on the three

major themes found in the environmental literature: existence of ecological limits to

growth, importance of maintaining the balance of nature, and rejection of the

anthropocentric notion that nature exists primarily for human use. They introduced a new

survey instrument that was widely adopted in the research community during the 1980s and

produced numerous studies. Then based on new information from the natural sciences and

the growing awareness of deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and climate change, they

expanded their instrument in the late 1992 and renamed it The New Ecological Paradigm

Scale (Dunlap, 2008).

16

Table 2 - The Dominant Social Paradigm vs. The New Ecological Paradigm

DOMINANT SOCIAL PARADIGM NEW ECOLOGICAL PARADIGM

Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs

When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous results

Humans were created to rule over the rest of nature

Despite our abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature

Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans

Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist

Human ingenuity will ensure that we do not make the earth unlivable

We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support

The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them

The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources

The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with impacts of modern industrial nations

In order to maintain healthy planetary ecosystems, we need to change our sources of energy and develop a “steady-state” economy

The so-called ecological crisis facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated

If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe

Note: Adapted from Boiral et al., 2009; Brown, 2012; and Dunlap et al. 2000.

Based on the extensive use of the NEP survey by social scientists, the idea of a new

ecological paradigm has generated significant dialogue over the last three decades.

However, findings about ecological worldviews based on the NEP survey have been

criticized from a psychological perspective (Boiral et al., 2009; Brown, 2012; Hedlund-de

Witt, 2012).

The major criticism of the NEP is that it is primarily a measure of values and beliefs

on a societal level and does not get at deeper individual eco-psychological constructs. This

is due in large part to the instrument being originally designed as a sociological survey.

This is also due to the psychological dimensions of ecological worldviews being

17

underrepresented in the social science literature in general, as Hedlund-de Witt (2012) and

Esbjorn-Hargens and Zimmerman (2009) have noted. However, this is where

developmental theory may help shed light into the deeper nature of ecological worldviews.

As a next step in this exploration, an overview of the construct of the ecological self is

presented in the next section.

The Ecological Self

The ecological self is the primary eco-psychological construct that has been

explored by the social sciences over the last 40 years. The first explicit reference to the

ecological self was made by Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess in the 1970s in his work

on the philosophy of deep ecology. Since then, the concept of the ecological self has been

explored by three primary disciplines: deep ecology (Abram, 2010; Macy 2007; Seed,

Macy, Fleming, & Naess, 1988), eco-psychology (Kahn, 1999; Roszak, Gomes, & Kanner,

1995), and integral ecology (Esbjorn-Hargens & Zimmerman 2009).

Among the deep ecologists, Naess (1989), Shepard (1973), and Devall (1995)

explore the ecological self from a developmental perspective, although without making

reference to stages. Building on the concept of many-sided maturity, Naess (1989)

observes that a person can be mature in social relations but have an adolescent ecological

self. Shepard (1973) describes a potential state of consciousness where the epidermis of the

skin is like the surface of a pond with a felt sense that nature is continuous within us. This

capacity to comprehend that human beings are part of the greater ecosystem may signal a

later stage of an ecological worldview. Integrating a more developmental perspective,

Devall (1995) concludes that we underestimate our self-potential by not appreciating our

18

ecological self. He contends that the ecological self is part of the transforming process that

is required to heal ourselves in the world.

Eco-psychologist Sewall (1995) supports the idea that the ecological self matures

through the recovery and development of our sensory systems, which she calls “exquisitely

evolved channels for translating the in here and the out there” (p. 203). She recommends

five perceptual practices for perceiving our ecological conditions. Through these practices

inner and outer worlds become arbitrary and the mature ecological self perceives its

permeability. Empathy for and identity with the broader ecosystem are outcomes of these

changes in perception. Conn (1995) describes an ecologically responsible construction of

the self as part of a counseling practice based on the direct experience of

interconnectedness of nature.

Australian environmental psychologist Elizabeth Bragg (1996) explores the concept

of the ecological self through the lens of what she calls constructionist psychological

theory. The ecological self is a foundational construct of eco-psychology, but she suspects

that an expanded self-concept can affect the functioning of an individual in the

environment. Her research seeks to explore how self-constructs can be changed.

Although she does not specifically refer to stages of development, her theoretical

analysis generally supports an integration of eco-psychology and constructive

developmental psychology. By doing so, Bragg suggests that a developmental perspective

is needed to enhance our understanding of ecological worldviews. In constructionist theory,

the self is not treated as a psychological entity that exists empirically (as often implied by

western psychological theories of self) but as a construct co-created by culture, society, and

19

individuals at a particular time and place. This is consistent with the systems, dialectical,

ecological, and contextual views of human development (Stevens-Long & Michaud, 2006).

Bragg notes three reasons why this developmental theory has considerable

relevance to the concept of the ecological self. First, developmental theory is based on a

more ecological or systems view of the person. Secondly, it offers some understanding of

how an expanded construct of self might affect the individual. Third, developmental theory

may lead to suggestions about how constructs of the self can be changed. Now that the

ecological worldview literature and the constructs of a new ecological paradigm and the

ecological self have been reviewed, developmental theory and research are explored in

relation to these key themes.

Developmental Theory and Action Logics

In this section an overview of developmental theory and action logics is presented.

Then the few studies that have attempted to integrate developmental theory with ecological

worldviews are reviewed. Certain gaps and new avenues for the integration of

developmental theory and ecological worldviews are then suggested that foreshadow this

research.

Although there are early references to the development of self in ancient religion

and philosophy, the modern concept of development of self through differentiated stages

was pioneered by child psychologist Jean Piaget (1948, 1954). Building on his work,

Kohlberg (1969) and Loevinger (1977) then expanded the study of childhood stage

development to adults, followed by Kegan (1980), who added the term constructive

developmental to the psychological literature. Since then, developmental theorists

including Cook-Greuter (2004), Kegan (1994), and Torbert (2004) have made significant

20

contributions to our understanding of how adults construct knowledge about the world

around them through specific hierarchical stages of increasing complexity across their

lifespan. Collectively, their research has shown that there is a pattern to the stages of

consciousness that adults can potentially traverse over the course of their lives. Research

further shows that each stage can only be reached by journeying through an earlier one.

Once a stage has been realized, it becomes a permanent part of how individuals interpret

the world around them (Cook-Greuter, 2004; Torbert, 2004).

In his work on moral development, Kohlberg (1969) first used the term

conventional and post-conventional to refer to two broad stages of moral development.

Since then, developmental researchers have subdivided stages of consciousness into three

levels known as preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. Pre-conventional

stages are associated with impulsive, opportunistic, and lower levels of psychological

maturity. Conventional stages are characterized by conformance with wider social

conventions and achieving expertise and efficiency. Finally, post-conventional stages are

characterized by an attempt to reframe problems with a broader understanding of

complexity and interdependency of systems (Boiral et al., 2009; Torbert, 2004).

In the domain of corporate leadership, William Torbert and his colleagues have

done extensive field research using the term action logics to define stages of development.

Based on his empirical research over several decades, Torbert (2004) has found that leaders

with post-conventional action logics have enhanced capacities to transform organizations.

Cook-Greuter (2004) describes these stages as the recognizable stories human

beings tell about who they are, what is important to them, and where they are going. She

explains that these stages are coherent systems of how people make meaning of their lives

21

and that these systems evolve in complexity throughout one's life. She concludes that it is

“at the heart of what drives human beings” (p.276). McCauley, Drath, Palus, O’Connor,

and Baker (2006) observe that developmental stage theories share certain basic

assumptions. These include the notion that reality is mentally constructed and that there

are identifiable patterns that describe how individuals construct reality. These patterns can

be called stages, levels, or action logics and each stage affects what an individual can be

aware of, reflect on, and act on. Generally, the progression is towards more advanced

stages and leads to a more complex understanding of the world.

Although developmental theorists have explored how adults construct general

knowledge about the world around them, how adults construct and interpret the ecological

world around them has received much less attention. As a result, when reviewing the

above descriptions, we find no specific reference to ecological worldviews.

However, there have been a few studies that attempt to integrate ecological worldview,

ecological selves, and developmental theory. These will be reviewed in the next section.

Studies Integrating Developmental Theory and Ecological Worldviews

Few studies attempt to integrate developmental theory with ecological worldviews.

In this section, these studies are summarized and possible links with action logics as

researched by Torbert (2004) and Rooke and Torbert (2005) are explored. The most robust

attempt to integrate developmental theory and ecological worldviews comes from integral

ecology. As noted earlier, integral ecologists Esbjorn-Hargens and Zimmerman (2009)

suggest that environmental issues arise differently for people depending on their stage of

development. They hypothesize that leaders can learn to tailor their communication to

people that hold a variety of worldviews.

22

Esbjorn-Hargens and Zimmerman (2009) introduce a framework of ecological

selves based on the capacity to take in additional perspectives and identify with

increasingly complex levels of the natural world. As part of their model, they provide

detailed descriptions of the ecological selves that embody the various ecological

worldviews that individuals can hold. By doing so these authors have created one of the

only typologies of ecological worldviews.

However, while the model of ecological selves and associated worldviews supports

several key assumptions of developmental theory, it does not appear to be in alignment

with others. For example, the model outlines identifiable patterns of how individuals

interpret the natural world and that each pattern affects what an individual can be aware of,

reflect on, and act on. Later patterns reflect a more complex understanding of the natural

world.

However, their theory that each of these patterns can exist within all individuals is

contradicted by two key aspects of developmental theory. First is the evidence that shows

stages are hierarchical. Second, is the percentage distribution of adults at each stage based

on large-scale studies (Cook-Greuter, 2000; Kegan & Lahey, 2009; Torbert, 2004). Lastly,

they do not hypothesize how individuals develop their ecological worldviews. These

problems represent gaps in their theoretical proposition. While Esbjorn-Hargens and

Zimmerman (2009) make the valuable contribution of elucidating different patterns of

ecological worldviews that theoretically exist at each stage of development, the theoretical

model of the ecological selves needs to be refined further by empirical research.

23

Table 3 – Descriptions of the Ecological Selves

Stage Name Ecological Worldview

Eco-Guardian

Limited understanding of nature Subject to nature-based rituals Nature mysterious and dangerous

Eco-Warrior

Aggressive stance towards nature Impulsive and heroic view of self in relationship to nature

Eco-Manager

Passes laws and establishes institutions to protect nature Conformance with societal norms

Eco-Strategist

Explores nature through scientific lens Conserves resources for consumption Strong belief in technological nature

Eco-Radical

Sees the intrinsic value of nature Promotes ecological justice Seeks to overcome oppression

Eco-Holist Honors and integrates multiple approaches to natural environment Beginning to think multidimensionally about nature

Eco-Integralist

Understands and embraces the complexity of nature in all its life forms Expanded vision to what is possible

Note: Table adapted from Esbjorn-Hargens & Zimmerman (2009) and Rogers (2012)

The above discussion and analysis serves to highlight the paucity of theoretical and

empirical research by developmental stage theorists into the nature of ecological

worldviews, especially in the context of sustainability leadership. However, before

exploring these limitations further, the third literature that forms the conceptual framework

for this study is introduced in the next section.

The Sustainability Leadership Literature

In addition to the ecological worldview and developmental psychology literatures,

the conceptual framework for this study is informed by the sustainability leadership

literature. This literature also forms the primary area of praxis for this study. First, a brief

24

history of the leadership literature during the 20th century is provided. Then the focus is

narrowed to the two streams of the leadership literature that pertain most closely to the

study, both of which began to appear in the 1970s. The first is the subset of the leadership

literature that focuses on the interior development of leaders and the second focuses on

environmental leadership. Following these two formative threads in the leadership

literature, the sustainability leadership literature that emerged in the early 1990s is then

described. Finally, the few studies that are located at the confluence of these three streams

of the leadership literature where the study is located are then analyzed.

Great Man Theories of Leadership

During the early part of the 20th century, control and the centralization of power

were primary themes in the leadership literature (Northouse, 2013). Modern leadership

theory then began to emerge in the 1940s based on principles of scientific management and

the “rational man” (Rost, 1997). Then in the middle part of the 20th century, traits and

styles became a primary focus for defining leadership (Bass, 1990). Also during this time

transactional and transformational theories of leadership focused on the ability of leaders to

motivate their workers (Hersey & Blanchard, 1977). These theories became known as

“Great Man’ theories of leadership. Over the past 50 years, leadership scholars have

conducted more than 1000 studies in an attempt to determine the styles, characteristics, or

personality traits of great leaders (George, McLean, Mayer, & Sims, 2007).

The major assumptions underlying these great man theories were that leaders were

born and not developed. Further, that these great leaders possessed extraordinary

capacities including charisma, intelligence, and social skills. Significant alternatives to the

great man theories of leadership emerged in the 1970s. Two of the most significant are

25

theories that focused on the interior development of leaders and a second focused on

environmental leadership. These two subsets of leadership theory are discussed next.

Interior Theories of Leadership

By proposing that the real work of a leader is to ask himself/herself the question;

How can I best use myself to serve? Greenleaf (1977) proposed a new type of leadership

ethic focused on service to others. In doing so, he catalyzed a family of leadership theory

based on interior and even spiritual dimensions. Three of these theories that have made

significant impacts on the literature are highlighted below.

First in this category of interior leadership theories is the work of Peter Senge and

his colleagues (1990). Building on the work of Argyris and Schon (1977), Senge

introduced mental models and systems thinking to the leadership literature. His research

found that leaders who developed more complex ways of thinking were more flexible,

creative, and ultimately better able to anticipate the challenges of the future.

Second, the work of Goleman and his colleagues (1998, 2002) added a new

perspective on the interior development of leaders through their work on emotional

intelligence. Their research strongly suggests that leaders with greater self-awareness are

better equipped to deal with the social complexity of organizations.

In a third body of research, Torbert and his colleagues integrated developmental

psychology with the leadership literature (Rooke & Torbert, 1998, 2005; Torbert, 2004).

As part of their multi-decade research into stages of development in the context of

organizational leadership, Torbert and his colleagues created descriptive labels designed to

capture key aspects of each stage of consciousness. These stages are called action logics in

an effort to capture how each stage becomes the logic that governs how people act. Action

26

logic is thus the frame through which people translate their thoughts, feelings, and

perceptions into actions.

Table 4 - Description of Leadership Action Logics Stage Name Description of Leadership Action – Logics Opportunist Short-time horizon, flouts power and sexuality, rejects feedback,

hostile humor, deceptive, manipulative, externalizes blame, punishes, "eye for an eye" ethic.

Diplomat Observes rules, avoids inner and outer conflict, conforms, suppresses own desires, loyalty to group, seeks membership, right versus wrong attitude, appearance/status conscious, tends toward clichés.

Expert Interested in problem-solving via data, critical of others and self, chooses efficiency over effectiveness, perfectionist, values black-and-white-based decisions, wants to stand out, dogmatic, accepts feedback only from "objective" sources.

Achiever Results and effectiveness oriented, long-term goals, concerned with issues of ethics and justice, deliberately prioritizes work tasks, drawn to learning, seeks mutuality and relations, aware of personal patterns of behavior, feels guilt if does not meet own standards, blind to our own shadow, chases time.

Redefining Collaborative, tolerant of individual differences, aware of context and contingency, may challenge group norms, aware of perspective and shadow, inquiring and open to feedback, seeks independent, creative work, attracted by difference in change, historical context.

Transforming Process oriented, strategic time horizon, systems conscious, enjoys a variety of roles, recognizes importance of principle and judgment, engaged in complex interweave of relationships, very aware of own personal traits and shadow, high value on individuality, growth, self-fulfillment, particular historical moments.

Alchemical Alert to paradigms of thought and action, embraces common humanity, dispels notions of heroic action, deeply internalized sense of self, knowledge held with empty mind, sees light and dark, treats time and events as symbolic, metaphorical (not linear, literal).

Note: Table adapted from The Global Leadership Profile Report from Action Inquiry Associates (2013)

A few studies have attempted to integrate action logics with the emerging

environmental and sustainability leadership literature. In the next section, a brief overview

of the environmental and sustainability leadership literature is provided and then these

studies are reviewed.

27

The Environmental and Sustainability Leadership Literatures

With the passage of the first national environmental laws in the US in the early

1970s and an awareness of the environmental impacts of economic growth, the literature

about corporate social responsibility began to appear. The first formally recognized

definition of sustainability was produced in 1987 by the Brundtland Commission that stated

that sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World

Commission on Environment and Development, United Nations, 1987). Since then the

sustainability leadership literature has been situated at the intersection of the corporate

social responsibility, sustainable business, and the environmental leadership literature

(Ferdig, 2007; Lazlo & Zhexembayeva, 2011; Hawken, 1994; Maltz, & Schein, 2013;

Porter & Kramer, 2011; Shrivastava, 1995).

Pointing to the interior developmental nature of sustainability leadership, Ferdig

(2007) observes that sustainability leaders are informed by an expanded view of how the

complex universe operates. Implicitly referring to a post-conventional worldview, she

states that being a sustainability leader means letting go of the ego-driven certainty of right

answers and genuinely engaging with different points of view. She observes that a

sustainability leader “understands that everything is connected to everything else, that we

live in a dynamic, ever-changing universe, and that no single action occurs in isolation but

is inextricably linked, often invisibly, to every other action” (p. 32).

Rogers and Hudson (2011) argue that an interior shift like change in worldview is

much more than just environmental accounting and green business practices. Making

reference to the enormous complexity of the sustainability challenges, they observe that

28

“just as important is what goes on inside people's heads when they formulate the nature of

the problem which calls for choices. This formulation is often a matter of deep, hidden

assumptions and mindsets, not just the setting up of a spreadsheet of pros and cons,

algorithms, and formulas” (p. 7).

Within the environmental and sustainability leadership literature, there have been at

least three studies that bring together the ecological worldview and developmental

psychology literatures. These three studies comprise the multidisciplinary subset of the

sustainability leadership literature that most closely pertains to this study. These studies

are reviewed in the next section.

Integrating Developmental Theory, Ecological Worldviews, and Sustainability

The first theoretical study found in the sustainability literature that is based on an

action logics and ecological worldviews is by Boiral et al. (2009). These authors note that it

is often assumed that “all green managers spontaneously share the same values, the same

worldview, and the same way of managing environmental issues” (p. 480). With a focus on

environmental leadership behavior, the authors use action logics (Torbert, 2004) to

hypothesize specific potential behaviors of leaders at each stage of development.

Boiral and his colleagues conclude that the characteristics associated with post-

conventional action logics are most closely aligned with the demands of sustainability

leadership. They conclude that post-conventional consciousness equips individuals to

navigate the complexity of sustainability issues and mobilize individuals for environmental

causes within organizations. However, they acknowledge that their hypothesis remains

largely unexplored from an empirical standpoint. They also observe that the absence of

ecological worldviews in the developmental literature is due in part to the psychometric

29

instruments being developed in an era when ecological issues were less salient (Boiral et

al., 2009).

In a recent empirical study, Brown (2012) examines how leaders with post-

conventional action logics designed sustainability initiatives. Among his findings were that

they design from a deep inner foundation, use systems thinking, access non-rational ways

of knowing, and adaptively manage through dialogue with the system. However, he notes

that the lack of large-scale, empirical research currently makes it difficult to draw specific

conclusions about the nature of sustainability leadership. He suggests, “research on the

values associated with sustainability leadership is limited and incomplete. The more we

understand what values undergird the behaviors required to lead sustainability initiatives,

the easier it will be to cultivate them” (p. 70). He concludes the academic discipline of

sustainability leadership is still in the very early stages.

The most recent study found in the sustainability leadership literature, Rogers

(2012) explores the connection between the individual worldviews of multinational

executives and their ability to confront global environmental challenges. Using the

framework of ecological selves as a theoretical lens, Rogers found that executives were

able to identify specific moments that led to a different way of thinking about the

environment. While certain executives characterize these changes as epiphanies, others

described a more gradual evolutionary shift. All of the executives reflected on these shifts

as being a permanent change in the way they conducted their professional lives.

In a tentative connection with developmental stages and ecological worldviews,

Rogers reported that those executives that experience these behavioral changes

demonstrated worldviews that appear to be on the more advanced end of the ecological

30

selves spectrum. She found that these executives demonstrated a more highly developed

sense of complexity, systems thinking, and interdependence. Rogers speculates that further

use of the ecological selves framework, and possibly the development of a new instrument,

could lead to new insights and a deeper understanding about how leaders develop advanced

capacities to confront the global environmental challenges.

A summary of several of the major frameworks from the ecological worldview,

developmental psychology, and sustainability leadership literatures is presented in Table 5.

A conclusion to the literature review including the specific gaps identified then follows.

31

Table 5 – Summary of Frameworks from the Literature Review

Action Logics

Paradigm Ecological Selves

Sustainability Leadership Implications

Diplomat - focus on socially expected behavior, avoiding conflict, loyalty to chosen group

Anthropocentric conformance with dominant social paradigm (DSP)

Eco-Warrior Aggressive stance towards nature Impulsive and heroic view of self in relationship to nature

Supports environmental initiatives due to a concern for appearances

Expert - focus on expertise, logic, procedure, and rational efficiency

Ethnocentric Still maintaining a strong belief in DSP

Eco-Manager Passes laws and establishes institutions to protect nature

Focus on compliance with environmental laws. Sustainability as a technical issue

Achiever - focus on results, goals, effectiveness, and success

World-centric Early ecocentric Beginning to become aware of new ecological paradigm (NEP)

Eco-Strategist Conserves resources for long-term consumption

Sustainability as the ultimate strategic challenge Focus on sustainability measurements

Redefining - focus on self in relationship to the system

Ecocentric Early planet centric Belief in NEP

Eco-Radical Sees the intrinsic value of nature and ecological justice

Sustainability as a responsibility to the planet

Transforming – focus on transforming the system

Planet centric Highly Eco-centric Highly committed to NEP

Eco-Holist Understands the complexity of nature

Sustainability requires a complex approach integrating culture, psychology, & natural science

Alchemist - focus on interplay of awareness, thought, and action

Cosmos centric Deep experience of ecological embeddedness

Eco-Integralist Celebrates oneness with nature

Reimagining the purpose of business to regenerate the Commons

Note: Compiled from the research of Boiral et al. (2009), Brown(2012), Dunlap(2008), Esbjorn-Hargens (2005), Lynam (2012), Rogers (2012), and Rooke & Torbert (2005)

32

Conclusion

This dissertation study is based on the assumption that more information from the

natural sciences is not enough to change the behaviors that are responsible for the serious

ecological problems confronting humanity. It proposes that the social sciences have the

power to reframe ecological issues and advance sustainability leadership. This reframing

requires a new level of integration of theories from the ecological worldview,

developmental psychology, and sustainability leadership literatures. The preceding review

of these literatures takes a substantive new step towards this integration.

The review revealed at least three specific gaps in the literatures. First, there is

considerable confusion and lack of agreement amongst the social sciences as to a common

understanding of ecological worldviews. Secondly, there is only a small body of

theoretical research that looks at ecological worldviews and action logics in the context of

sustainability leadership. Thirdly, there is even a smaller body of empirical research into

ecological worldviews and action logics and its implications for sustainability leadership.

Empirical studies that integrate the main theories underlying these disciplines are thus

rare. Despite extensive empirical research into action logics and stages of human

consciousness over several decades, there is little research exploring how ecological

worldviews and action logics are developed and expressed in sustainability practice. This

review of the literature revealed only one empirical study that integrated developmental

theory and focused specifically on the ecological worldviews of corporate sustainability

leaders, and this was in a single company with a small sample (Rogers, 2012).

There are several possible explanations for these gaps. One possible explanation is

the highly anthropocentric nature of the entire field of Western psychology, where research

33

into consciousness development has centered mainly on the human being and his

relationship to himself and others, with little attention to his relationship with the natural

world. Moreover, there appears to be an overall lack of familiarity with developmental

stage theory within the leadership and social sciences in general. Finally, leadership

research has placed a continued focus on external behaviors and best practices, especially

in regard to sustainability leadership theory and practice. All three of these explanations

help us understand the paucity of research that integrates ecological worldviews and action

logics.

Whatever the causes, the ecological challenges facing humanity call for a new level

of interdisciplinary approach and innovative research from the social sciences. In response

to these gaps in the literature and the scarcity of empirical research described, this study

was designed to interview a robust sample in order to add to the existing body of

knowledge. In the next chapter, the research methodology is presented.

34

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY AND DESCRIPTION OF PARTICIPANTS

Introduction

In this chapter an explanation of the research methodology and a description of the

sample population is provided. First, a detailed description of the research design including

the qualitative approach, methods of analysis, and issues of validity is described. Next, the

sampling recruitment strategy and a detailed description of the research participants are

provided. Lastly, researcher integrity and ethics of the study are discussed.

Research Methodology

Qualitative Approach

To answer the two questions that guided this study a multi-phase qualitative design

was chosen for several reasons (Creswell, 2009). First, a qualitative approach aligned with

the goal of the study to provide a “deeper picture than the variable based correlations of

quantitative studies” (Silverman, 2006, p. 26). Secondly, the use of semi-structured

interview questions allowed for a wider range of data collection. Third, although

quantitative instruments are often used to study the field of leadership, qualitative studies

are increasingly used, especially to study interior dimensions of leadership. Fourth, based

on the constructivist and transformative stance of the researcher, a qualitative study best

captured the spirit of the research (Creswell 2009). Given the inquiry into the ecological

worldviews and action logics on which this study is based, a qualitative approach was

determined to be most appropriate.

35

Data Collection

The first phase of data collection took place over an 18-month period during 2011-

2012. Utilizing a 10-question survey organized into four areas, semi-structured phone and

face-to-face interviews with 50 corporate sustainability leaders using principles of

naturalistic inquiry were conducted (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The four areas of inquiry

were general background, leadership development, culture change, and measuring success.

The interviews typically lasted from 30 to 45 minutes and were transcribed during or after

the interview (see Appendix A for list of questions).

The second phase of data collection took place during 2013. Using a new set of

questions derived from the literature review, semi-structured phone interviews with an

additional 15 sustainability leaders were conducted. These interviews were designed to

generate greater insight into how these participants describe their ecological worldviews.

The interviews for this phase typically lasted from 30 to 45 minutes and were recorded

during the phone interview and subsequently transcribed (see Appendix B for list of

ecological worldview interview questions).

Data Analysis

In order to analyze and interpret the qualitative data, a multi-step thematic analysis

process was utilized (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Creswell, 2009; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The

following describes the general procedure. All interview transcripts were organized by

name of participant, organization, and date of interview for easy reference. First, each

transcript was reviewed multiple times trying to get a general sense of the information

being conveyed. During this initial review, the most interesting and surprising aspects of

the interviews were also identified.

36

Then keeping the first research question in mind, an inductive thematic analysis process

(Braun & Clarke, 2006; Creswell, 2009) and hermeneutic methodology (Bentz & Shapiro,

1998; Rogers, 2013) was deployed to further analyze the interview texts. After additional

rounds, color-coding notes in the margins and identification of initial themes also occurred.

Coding of data using Marshall and Rossman’s data reduction process (2011) also occurred

as various key words and phrases evolved into descriptive themes and findings that

addressed the first research question. During the final rounds of analyses, findings were

organized under two major themes that were supported by eight groups of diverse

quotations as specific evidence (Creswell, 2009). Lastly, the themes and findings connected

into a narrative storyline to present the data related to the first research question as will be

described in Chapter 4.

Then with the second research question in mind, the above procedure was repeated. A

deductive hermeneutic methodology was utilized to analyze and interrogate the qualitative

data based on the action logics framework as described in the literature review. By

highlighting key phrases, structures of thought, and patterns in the textual data, expressions

of specific action logics were identified in each transcript. During the final rounds of

analysis, one more additional major theme supported by six groups of quotations as

evidence was identified (Creswell, 2009). Lastly, the themes and findings were connected

into a narrative storyline to present the data related to the second research question as will

be described in Chapter 5.

Analyzing Interview Texts Through Hermeneutic Turns

Hermeneutics can be defined as the art and science of interpretation of texts. As

part of their qualitative research method called mindful inquiry, Bentz and Shapiro (1998)

37

describe a type of multi-level discourse researchers can have with their interview

transcripts. In the context of qualitative research, hermeneutics can also provide a

compelling framework for constructing new theories and methods (Rogers, 2013). As part

of her explanation of methodological hermeneutics, Rogers (2013) describes a multi-level

interpretive process designed to support historical context and social change.

As a means of more deeply exploring the two research questions, interview

transcripts were analyzed through a series of hermeneutic turns. This involved becoming

more aware of the context of each participant at the time of each interview, my intention

and context at the time of each interview, and the current context within which the data

were being analyzed. It also led to an awareness of the context of the theories that were

being used to analyze the interview texts. In particular, hermeneutic methodology allowed

for a deeper exploration of the second research question involving the expression of action

logics in the interview texts.

Sampling Strategy and Recruitment of Participants

Purposive sampling is often used to explore specific phenomenon within

specialized populations (Babbie, 2002, Quinn & Dalton, 2009). Based on corporate

sustainability as the primary praxis for the study, a purposive sampling strategy focused on

senior sustainability executives at multinational companies was deployed.

Participants for the study were recruited by attending nine different national and

international corporate sustainability conferences over a period of 3 years between 2011

and 2013. At these conferences, relationships with senior sustainability leaders and

consultants from a wide range of corporations and NGOs were cultivated.

38

A snowball sampling strategy was also deployed (Babbie, 2002). During the initial

interviews, sustainability executives referred their colleagues at other corporations or

NGO’s, who then became additional participants in the study. This snowball phenomenon

also resulted from my attendance at the national conferences where I was introduced to

additional participants.

Description of Participants The sample consisted of 65 senior corporate sustainability executives and consultants.

Of these 65 participants, 45 held senior-level positions in multinational companies at the

Chief Executive Officer, Chief Sustainability Officer, Vice President, Director, or Manager

level. There were 2 CEO’s of public companies, 6 Presidents of private companies, 6

CEO’s of sustainability-related NGOs, and 8 sustainability consultants.

A partial list of the companies included Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, Clorox,

Miller-Coors, Sprint, AT&T, Motorola, AMD, Waste Management, 3M, Mattel, Starbucks,

Nike, SC Johnson, Seventh Generation, Coca-Cola, Ford, GE, Price Waterhouse Coopers,

Sun Microsystems, Green Mountain Coffee, and Ben and Jerry’s, which is a subsidiary of

Unilever.

Their job titles ranged from Chief Sustainability Officer, VP of Global Citizenship,

VP of Environment and Water, Director of Sustainability and Stewardship, Director of

Natural Resources, Director of Social Mission, and Manager of Product Integrity. A few of

the most interesting titles were Director of Stakeholder Mobilization, Director of Coffee

Community Outreach, and Director of Corporate Consciousness.

Several of the interviews took place at conferences or at the corporate headquarters of

the participants’ companies located throughout the United States. The locations of their

39

headquarters ranged from Starbucks, Microsoft, and Nike in the Pacific Northwest to

Mattel, Hewlett Packard, and Clorox in California. Sustainability executives for Ben and

Jerry’s, Seventh Generation, and Green Mountain Coffee are located in New England,

while executives from Sprint, Ford, Motorola, and SC Johnson are located in the Midwest.

Texas is where participants from Waste Management and AMD are located and Coca-Cola

executives are located in Georgia. Although they were all based in the United States at the

time of the interviews, a large percentage of these executives have significant international

experience, many having worked in global settings for extended periods.

All the participants had at least 5 years experience coordinating and communicating

sustainability-related initiatives to a broad range of internal and external stakeholders

including their employees, supply chains, NGO partners, and customers. Many of the

participants had been working closely with corporate sustainability initiatives for more than

10 years and had held multiple senior positions in more than one multinational corporation.

Many have worked in both the private and public sector. As will be described in Chapter 4,

several had made the move from environmental NGOs to executive positions with

multinational corporations.

Small Size of Sustainability Departments Although this study was not designed to systematically survey the size of

sustainability departments within these companies, the interviews allowed me to better

appreciate that the majority of these executives were leaders of relatively small teams.

Most of these companies have more than 10,000 employees worldwide, several with

50,000+, and a few with 100,000+ employees located in dozens of countries throughout the

world. In terms of suppliers in their global supply chains, the numbers reach similar levels.

40

However, in most cases these executives were in departments with less than ten total

employees focused exclusively on sustainability. Considering the global scale of their

companies, the complexity of sustainability initiatives, and the challenges of coordinating

and communicating with a wide diversity of stakeholders, the ratio of the number of people

on these sustainability teams is extremely small. Understanding this context for my

participants was relevant for my study, as will be described in the following chapters.

Results from the Pilot Study Over a 4-month period from March-July 2013, a pilot study was conducted where

various research designs were explored and quantitative and qualitative data were

collected. In addition to conducting semi-structured interviews with global sustainability

leaders, how certain quantitative instruments might help answer the research questions was

explored. These instruments were the New Ecological Paradigm Scale from the field of

environmental sociology and the Global Leadership Profile from the field of developmental

psychology.

Over a period of several months, the background of these instruments was reviewed

and pilot data using both instruments from a separate sample of leadership consultants and

academics were collected. After further examination of how these quantitative data related

to the dissertation questions, the decision was made to explore this part of the data in post-

doctoral research. There were several reasons for this decision. First was the recognition

that this portion of the pilot data addressed a different set of research questions. Second

was the recognition that these data were based on a separate sample and would not be

generalizable to the primary sample of global sustainability executives.

41

Lastly, it became clear that the tentative findings from the use of these instruments

for the purpose of studying ecological worldviews would be a description of their

limitations, which will need to be developed with further research. This decision allowed

for additional interviews aimed at further answering the two research questions. As one

final step in the pilot study, a preliminary thematic analysis of the interview transcripts was

conducted and more than 25 initial themes and subthemes were generated for further

analysis during the next stage of the study.

Integrity During The Research Process In order to ensure a high degree of validity throughout the data collection and

analysis phases of the study, a strategy of integrity was deployed. First, validity was

considered as a process in itself and periodically leading qualitative research texts were

reviewed in an effort to maintain mindfulness throughout the duration of the study

(Creswell 2009, Lincoln and Guba, 1985, Marshall & Rossman 2011, Strauss and Corbin,

1998). Secondly, reflexivity was maintained by engaging in the practice of triple-loop-

awareness as part of developmental action inquiry (Tobert, 2000). By doing so, my

intention was to constantly self-reflect, both implicitly and explicitly upon the multiple

dimensions upon which the study was conducted (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). Third,

scholars and practitioners with various forms of expertise relevant to the research were

continually sought out and their feedback was solicited during the study. Lastly, I

endeavored to be aware of my own worldview and how that may have had an influence

during the qualitative interviews or during the analysis of the data.

42

IRB Approval

Approval for this dissertation research was obtained from the Fielding Institutional

Review Board in February of 2013. As part of the introductory email to all research

participants, a detailed explanation of the research and a copy of the informed consent letter

were included. This ensured that all research participants fully understood the purpose and

full scope of the research and gave their consent as participants in the study. See Appendix

C for a copy of the informed consent letter.

Conclusion

In this chapter, details of the research methodology were provided including data

collection, sampling and recruitment strategy, description of the participants, and the

approaches to data analysis. Results from the pilot study and how integrity was maintained

during the research process were also described. In the next two chapters, findings from the

study will be presented. In Chapter 6, their significance and theoretical implications will be

discussed.

43

CHAPTER FOUR: ECOLOGICAL WORLDVIEWS

Introduction

In this chapter, findings are presented that relate to the first research question: How

do sustainability leaders describe their worldviews and motivation for their work?

As a means of exploring this question, interviews took place with 65 sustainability

leaders, the majority of whom occupy senior executive positions in multinational

companies. Although many of the participants were met face-to-face at conferences, most

of the formal interviews took place over the phone. All of the interviews were transcribed

either during or immediately after the interviews took place.

Generally conversations started with a short warm-up. Then the semi-structured

portion of the interviews began with general background questions such as; When did you

first become interested in sustainability? How did you become involved with sustainability

within your organization? Where do you think your deeper motivation comes from in

regards to sustainability? (see Appendix A for the complete list of interview questions).

Conducting these interviews allowed for general initial insights into the

backgrounds of the participants and the underlying motivation for their work in

sustainability. An inductive thematic analysis process was then administered (Braun &

Clarke, 2006; Creswell, 2009) and a hermeneutic methodology was used (Bentz & Shapiro,

1998; Rogers, 2013) to analyze the transcribed interview texts. After numerous rounds of

coding, sorting, and hermeneutic turns, specific groups of key words and phrases were then

identified that led to eight supporting findings for two major themes.

44

Theme 1: Experiences that Shape Ecological Worldviews Over the Lifespan

- Family of Origin and Early Childhood Experiences in Nature

- Environmental Education, Teachers, and Mentors

- Seeing Poverty and Environmental Degradation in Developing Countries

- Perceiving Capitalism as a Vehicle for Environmental Activism

- A Sense of Spirituality and Service

The first major theme that stood out during the interviews was that almost all the

participants described personal experiences they attributed to having shaped their

ecological worldview. This generally occurred when they were asked about their

backgrounds and motivations concerning sustainability. Most of them traced their

worldviews back to specific points in time, people, places, or events that made a significant

impression on their lives. They shared stories at length and with little prompting. Many of

them became animated when telling stories about their childhoods, their families, and their

travels abroad to developing countries in Central and South America, Africa, and Asia.

Although the interviews were not designed to examine the biography or lifeline for

each of the participants, a chronological sequence did suggest itself in the data. The first set

of interview excerpts generally referred to the K-12 years in the lives of the research

participants. The next set of quotations that supported the second finding corresponded to

their college and graduate school years. The third set of quotations was about experiences

that the participants had while traveling in foreign countries as young adults. The next set

of quotations described experiences in their 30s for the most part. The last set of quotations

related to spirituality and a sense of service and appeared to be a reflection of their current

lives, which would correspond to their late 30s, 40s, or early 50s for most of the

45

participants. The possible developmental implications of this chronological sequence will

be explored in Chapter 6. Next, a detailed presentation of the qualitative data supporting

the individual findings for the first theme is presented.

Family of Origin and Early Childhood Experiences in Nature

In response to initial background questions, phrases such as growing up, how I was

raised, ever since I can remember, and when I was a kid appeared in many of the interview

transcripts. These first three interview excerpts all point to how early childhoods in rural

environments influenced worldviews. Each of these three mid-career senior sustainability

executives attributed their early environmental worldview and eventual career paths in

sustainability to their childhoods:

Growing up my family had a very sustainability-minded approach. My parents were composting and reusing grocery bags before it was mainstream. My parents were much ahead of their time. I grew up that way. I also spent a lot of time outdoors and developed a deep appreciation for nature…. So I think it influenced me to become an environmentalist.

When I was a kid my grandfather had an apple orchard. We would spend summers going from one grandparent to the other. We just played outside in the apple orchard that was maybe sixty acres or something. There were all these cows around. You just kind of learned about the role of growing food in a way that just kind of enveloped me… That was just how I was raised. I was raised in a rural, small town in Vermont and was like most boys in rural America at the time. I was outside all the time. I also did a lot of fishing and hunting when I was young. My father's family influenced my upbringing. We gardened a ton. I did canoe trips with scouts and all that sort of thing.

In addition to going to the park with his father at the age of 6, this President of an

environmental NGO shared how the careers of his two parents and his older brother

46

influenced his thoughts about the environment while growing up in California during the

60s:

I think it started when I was about six years old and my Dad would take me to the park. I grew up around Modesto, California. My mom was in democratic politics and my dad was a teacher. My older brother made a film in the early ‘70s about garbage. I watched all the development in California and I knew that it did not feel right.

This eco-psychological perspective of happiness in nature can be found in this next

quotation:

Ever since I can remember, I’ve been happiest when I'm out in the wilderness. I grew up walking along trails in the foothills near my house…. One day I started walking fairly slowly. And I just started seeing so much more. Going slow, listening.

As a final example of this finding, here is a quotation about childhood that also

leads into the second finding about environmental education. It is from an interview with

the President of a national consumer food company. In it he describes an unforgettable

experience in middle school:

I grew up in West Nyack, New York along the banks of the Hudson River, less than an hour north of Manhattan. The teachers at the middle school I went to had a mission to get more environmental awareness into the classroom. So they taught us about why the Hudson was so dirty, told us about all the industrial dumping from factories up the river. Then one day they took my class out on the Clearwater, Pete Seeger's sailing vessel that was dedicated to cleaning up the river. I remember how they used nets to dredge up and remove garbage from the river. I saw stuff like old tires, pieces of cars, old luggage, and lots of scary stuff. We also sang all the Pete Seeger and Woody Guthrie songs like “This Land Is Your Land” and “Inch by Inch” and somehow through the music and seeing all the junk in the river, it made a big impression on me.

47

Environmental Education, Teachers, and Mentors

The next finding that emerged from the data is drawn from the number of

executives that reflected on experiences in college or graduate school. For instance, this

executive, a Vice President at a global consumer food company, remembered one particular

class he took that was based on the systems thinking work of Thomas Lovejoy, a widely

respected tropical biologist:

I went to Kenyon College. I remember that I had to take at least one natural science class. There was a class on systems thinking based on Thomas Lovejoy’s work and the value on standing forests… Later on I realized I needed the business skills to continue to explore the power of business. I did a combined MBA and Environmental Studies degree at the University of Washington. My favorite professor was the chair of accounting department and taught a class in environmental accounting.

This participant, the President of a national food company, spoke at great length

about his discovery of ecopsychology while an undergraduate:

I was a psychology major at Stanford. My senior year I heard about the field of eco-psychology. There wasn't anyone who taught it at Stanford but I found a professor at UC Berkeley who had edited an anthology. So I got together with him and did an independent study. I lived in a cooperative on campus called Synergy. They had a big garden outside the house and that is when I first became really interested in how to build soil and grow food… My perspective was being shaped by the time I was spending with the farmers and became the impetus for my work in sustainability.

This participant, an executive with a global NGO, described how his senior thesis

opened up what he referred to as his theme of the integrated nature of disciplines:

I went to Brown and studied environmental science. Part of the curriculum was to write a senior thesis. My thesis explored what it would be like if ranchers were ranching native animals instead of cattle on western rangelands. I explored what that would look like. For me it was the beginning of blending ecological science with culture and economy. Since then it has been a real exploration into

48

that blending of disciplines, which for me has been a key theme since I went to college, the integrated nature of disciplines.

This next participant, a Director of Environmental Policy at a multinational

consumer food and beverage company, reflected how his undergraduate degree launched

his career and ultimately led him from the public sector to what he perceived to be a more

proactive role in a large corporation:

I did my undergraduate in environmental science at University of Washington. I started doing environmental compliance working for King County. The big shift in my career came when I started to realize that I was mostly focused on fixing people’s misses. The government was spending millions of dollars cleaning up people’s misses. These mistakes could have been prevented. So I started to seek out a more proactive role.

These two participants, both senior sustainability executives of global electronics

firms, reflected on how their graduate environmental science and chemistry educations

played important roles in their sustainability careers.

I have a PhD in Organic Chemistry. I’ve led environmental research at labs in China and Germany. Running those groups for around seven years gave me a great perspective on environmental science, technology, and culture. It sort of drove a stake in the ground for me.

I came from a background of environmental toxicology and environmental policy. What I had to develop was business acumen.

This participant refers to a philosophical shift that took place during college and

how social activism inspired his future work as a sustainability leader.

Coming out of high school, I was not the person I now am. I trace back to college as a turning point. Soon thereafter I became a different person, I would say. I grew up in a fairly sheltered upper middle-class suburb of New York…. There was something about breaking through the bubble arriving to college…. that everything was fresh and new…. There was a lot more to think about and read about in college and then there were also ways to apply idealism through community service, which was a big piece of it… Then the pivot from service to activism was one I was feeling out as I was

49

later going through college, junior and senior year. I had a couple of professors who had been activists themselves in the ‘60s. Stories of student turmoil and protest movements really got my attention and interest.

Seeing Poverty and Environmental Degradation in Developing Countries

Many of the participants shared stories about their experiences in foreign countries.

Several executives worked in the Peace Corps or other volunteer organizations in South

America and Africa. They reported how seeing poverty and environmental degradation

firsthand had a significant impact on their worldview. For instance, this participant

described how a volunteer experience in South America changed his life:

I went to Paraguay in the summer of 1991 in between my junior and senior year in high school… I lived with a family in a very rural part of the country... Every few kilometers there were tiny shacks where families lived beside their fields. Mostly they were growing single crops like soy and cotton. There were big open fields for cattle created by clear cutting. In the distance you could see a stand of old-growth forest but it felt like it was always in the distance. The deforestation was depressing. I remember feeling a lot of sadness about what I saw.

The next quotation is from a long-time executive with a large coffee company. As

part of their company’s policy, employees are selected to attend immersion trips to the

countries of origin where the coffee is grown. Here is how he described his experience:

When I first went to Costa Rica in 1992 I did not see any poverty. Then I took a week's vacation in 1995 and travelled to northern Guatemala and southern Mexico and saw all the poverty. I used my own vacation time and paid for the trips myself. I lived with families, took a total immersion language course, and became more and more passionate about these issues. I came to understand the struggles and became so committed that I did a lot of this on my own time.

50

Along similar lines, this participant spoke about how his travel and work in Central

and South America allowed him to formulate new thoughts about sustainable development,

social justice, and the environment.

I was able to get to the developing world early in college through an internship. I think this is where my interest about poverty and inequality issues in the United States pivoted to become more global… I became aware of how environmental and social justice issues went in tandem. Then it prompted travels in Bolivia for my senior thesis research and later living and working in Nicaragua for half a year right after college… I learned more about the questions that I needed to be asking more than getting answers…realizing that people and the environment are very much intertwined.

This participant, the Director of Sustainability at a major consulting firm, referred

to his experiences in the Peace Corps and the United Nations when reflecting on the

motivation for career path in sustainability:

I was in the Peace Corps and was sent to Kyrgyzstan. Then I got my Master’s and worked for the United Nations Global Compact, first in Costa Rica and then in Chile. I was working at the United Nations before I took this job.

Perceiving Capitalism as a Vehicle for Environmental Activism

One very surprising finding that emerged from the interviews was the number of

senior sustainability executives at multinational companies who had extensive prior

experience working in either environmental NGOs or the public sector or both.

These executives described similar versions of stories where they had started their

careers motivated to work on a combination of social justice or environmental issues. Then

after a number of years they intentionally decided to move into the private sector as a way

to leverage their experience and have what they perceived to be a bigger impact on the

world.

51

For example, this participant, a widely respected senior sustainability executive

who has worked for two multinational corporations and pioneered many corporate

sustainability practices, described how he went between the public and private sectors

earlier in his career:

I started my career working for Bernie Sanders on national budget and defense issues. Then I went to work for Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield. We were able to figure out how we could take a peace dividend… Later I went on to Green Peace with a clear focus on global warming… I ended up deepening my understanding of corporations and developing a new model of corporations as a more positive force in the world… I came to the conclusion that being part of a corporation was how I could have the biggest impact.

This next participant, a senior sustainability executive at one of the most visible

global brands with one of the largest global supply chains, described how he spent more

than two decades in the public sector before moving into his role in corporate

sustainability:

I went to college in Colorado and was involved in the protest to shut down the Rocky Flats Nuclear Power plant. I went to work for Senator Tim Wirth and wanted to help end the nuclear arms race… I remember Tim saying not on his life was he going to compromise. He said he was going to fall on his sword before he ever let nuclear weapons continue. When the Berlin Wall fell, Tim kind of pivoted from the east to west political military issues to the north to south environmental and social issues and I pivoted with him. It was a turning point for me in terms of commitment to the environment.

The following quotation is from a veteran Chief Sustainability Officer from a global

consumer food company who started his career with an NGO:

In Seattle in the early ‘90s we had a scandal around recycling trucks dumping their contents in the landfill. Through my involvement on a commission around this scandal I met two entrepreneurs who had started a plastic recycling company. I joined their company and worked in sales of trading plastic scrap and developing first-generation plastic lumber.

52

This next quotation is from a participant who began her career working for the EPA

before joining one of the major corporate social responsibility NGOs:

I was an environmental lawyer doing land use and realized that I wanted to work with the EPA. We did sting operations in New Jersey… They were the pros in environmental dumping in the ‘90s. There was a lot of excitement going after and busting these guys. We sued Monsanto for the largest settlement ever at the time for $1 million. Then I did a Master’s in public administration at the Kennedy School before coming here.

This executive at a national consumer food company pointed to her previous

position with the federal government that formed an important part of her background as a

sustainability leader.

I came from a background in the National Forest Service and was literally in the trenches. I got my hands dirty.

A Sense of Spirituality and Service

The final finding under this theme emerged from participants that evoked a sense of

spirituality and service when describing their motivation for sustainability. For example,

this participant, the senior sustainability executive at a global communications company,

told a story about how she grew up with nature in her backyard:

I believe this whole area of environmental corporate activism also involves spiritual development. I grew up on a creek in Sioux City, Iowa and just that experience gave me a love of nature. Ever since I was a child I wanted to serve and give back to the community. At this point in my life, I can’t imagine having a more satisfying career because my spiritual aspect is being addressed through my work in sustainability.

This next participant, an executive at a global wood products manufacturing

company, shared this very personal reflection of his spirituality during her interview:

53

I am very much of the view that we are all parts of a very interconnected, interdependent whole. All species, or natural features as Joanna Macy puts it, are all important; we all have our place; we are all worthy of respect. However, humans have set themselves apart and above nature to everyone’s detriment. Technology has only increased this divide…. My spirituality is nature-based... it is definitely tied with respect, awe and gratitude for nature. In nature is where I am more at home. I was fortunate to have had access to nature in my childhood. I’ve always had a deep connection and humility. My work in sustainability has only enhanced and deepened my perspective.

Along the same lines, this participant, an executive at a national waste management

firm, shared how his experience with transformational shadow work helped deepen his

sense of the connection between spirituality and sustainability:

I was the first executive director of the Mankind Project, which gave me a lot of perspective on deep transformational shadow work. I suppose that I’ve been working at the intersection of spiritual development and sustainable business practice ever since. At this stage of my career, spirituality, sustainability, and work are interwoven.

This participant, a senior sustainability executive at a multinational

telecommunications company, described how her initial education and experience as a high

school teacher eventually led to not only her work in sustainability, but how she facilitates

sustainability initiatives within the culture of her company:

Early on I had a plan and did not end up following it. I went to college and became a high school teacher. I did that for a year… I wound up in business school with a focus on sustainability… Now we define sustainability in our company more broadly than the environment. We focus on education. The single best determinant is how you can invoke the ability to teach. How can you unleash that ability for people to go and explore. It’s an interesting dynamic at our company. My family members are all teachers, professors, and social workers. I’ve somewhat redeemed myself now that I am doing CSR and sustainability work.

54

This executive at a global footwear and apparel company shared her awakening

environmental consciousness in the following way:

I read the Ecology of Commerce and listened to Paul Hawken speak. I also came across the Natural Step. It became apparent to me that we were operating against Nature’s rules.

This last executive at a major software company cited the movie An Inconvenient

Truth as a pivotal moment that catalyzed and deepened her commitment to sustainability:

That would be when I saw Inconvenient Truth. I was getting increasingly alarmed at what was and wasn’t happening in the areas addressing climate change and thought that I needed to personally get more involved. I became involved with an environmental group in my community and this kind of grassroots effort brought more visibility to what you could do personally and what we could do collectively… so I started looking for a job in the company to address that.

Theme 2: Expressions of Ecocentric Worldviews

- An Awareness of Ecological Embeddedness

- An Awareness of the Fragility of Planetary Ecosystems

- A Belief in the Intrinsic Value of Nature

In addition to the first theme and five findings that describe the origins of the

ecological worldviews of my research participants, numerous expressions of eco-centric

worldviews by sustainability leaders were identified during the interviews.

These expressions occurred mostly during the second phase of the interviews with a

smaller group of sustainability executives in response to more deductive questions such as;

How would you describe your ecological worldview? What comes up for you when you

think about your relationship with nature? (see Appendix B for a complete list of these

questions).

55

Phrases such as ecological context within which we live, learn from natural systems,

inherent value in nature, interconnectedness of humanity and the natural world, and truly

seeing other species are just some of the examples that appeared during my interviews that

are indicative of an ecocentric worldview (Abram, 1996; Capra, 1996; Dunlap, Van Liere,

Mertig, & Jones, 2000; Esbjorn-Hargens & Zimmerman, 2009; Naess, 1989). A detailed

discussion of these findings follows below.

An Awareness of Ecological Embeddedness

As part of their reflection on their ecological worldview, many participants

demonstrated an awareness of the ecological embeddedness of human beings, one of the

key aspects of an ecocentric worldview. For example, this long-time sustainability

executive at a major global apparel and footwear manufacturer, described her ecological

worldview this way:

I think probably that where I come from in terms of my ecological worldview is systems thinking and the interconnection of so much of what we do and our impact on the environment… I've always understood at a fundamental level that the economy and society are within the context of the environment. So we really can't do anything without paying attention to the ecological context within which we live. That’s probably the worldview piece.

This next executive, the senior sustainability executive at a fast-growing company

that produces household cleaning products, reflected on the potential for bio-mimicry and

industrial ecology to make the world better:

My awareness of just how much we can learn from natural systems has evolved over time. I continue to look more closely at how bio-mimicry and industrial ecology could reframe our industrial world and make it so much better. However I'm not so nature-centric that I don't think that there's a vital role for humans within all this. We possess the ability to control our processes and make them more efficient. However we have to sit within the natural system and learn from it.

56

In reference to one of the key principles of natural capitalism, this participant, the

president of a manufacturing company, spoke of "being of service” and “restoring

ecosystems”. He articulated a specific point in time where he expanded beyond his

thinking of himself as just an organizational leader to wanting a better understanding of

ecosystems in this manner:

It was there that I realized I made a shift from being primarily interested in my own experience of being a leader and interpreter to actually understanding ecosystems better in order to be of service and in some way conserve or restore ecosystems.

An Awareness of the Fragility of Planetary Ecosystems

These next interview excerpts are also indicative of an eco-centric worldview.

They demonstrate a heightened awareness of the relationship between social and

environmental issues and the fragility of our planetary ecosystems.

This executive, the head of natural resources management at a major global food

manufacturer, focused on how she sees her role as a sustainability change agent expanding

beyond her own company:

We are at risk to losing an enormous amount of topsoil and people do not understand that. I am very concerned about water allocation, very concerned with mono crops. In Oregon GMO sugar beets are being grown right next to organic... This is my passion and I am fortunate that the company allows me to look at agriculture.

Along the same lines, this participant reflected on his hopes and concerns for the

future by highlighting the health of the oceans and carbon emissions during our interview:

I hope that the next stage is a broader understanding of social and environmental equity as the cornerstone…. I have had a bit of a shift in my thinking. There are so many reasons to limit the amount of carbon into the atmosphere. The health of the oceans is a major one. They are taking a big beating due to acidification to the point of dying.

57

This final set of interview excerpts illustrates an ecocentric worldview by showing

evidence in the belief of a new ecological paradigm (see Table 2). This participant, the

Director of Sustainability and Stewardship in a major global technology company, offered

this reflection:

We are at the end of the age of oil. I have convinced myself by doing the math that if everyone lived like we do, we would need seven earths. So the big question is how are we going to go from a consumption society to a balanced system?

He went on to share a story about a particular solar energy project in Southern

California:

The folks hit a wall related to deploying solar power in the desert in California and we can’t get 100,000 acres because of the protected desert tortoise habitat. Maybe we can design the solar panel farm to be desert tortoise habitat. The key is to not come from our separate perspectives.

Another sustainability executive shared how a recent speech by the CEO of one of

the largest consumer products companies in the world aligned with her own worldview:

The CEO of Unilever, Paul Polman, made a really remarkable speech recently. I’m normally not swayed by these speeches because I’ve been around for this movement for so long. However this speech was amazing because it outlined what the mission is for Unilever in depth. Basically he said that they’re in this for the long term and if investors are for a short-term results then maybe they should look elsewhere…. and this coming from one of the largest consumer products companies in the world.

While describing the evolution of the priorities of his company’s corporate social

responsibility policy, this executive spoke about the importance of sustainably sourced

products to meet the needs of 9 billion people:

We started out giving money to save endangered species but we now know that we need to influence land policy and how products are sourced. This is now the most important part of our work. As

58

we near nine billion people we need to meet their needs with less land and sustainably sourced products.

Finally, this participant reflected on the long-term sustainability goal of reducing

overall consumption in a steady-state economy, a key concept of both a new ecological

paradigm (see Table 2) and an eco-centric worldview:

The longer term issue that I see in terms of leadership in commercial enterprises is that eventually we have to deal with consumption with a big C, not just Cradle to Cradle thinking, but we have to transition to business models that do not depend on growth, that in fact thrive on the basis of reducing consumption. Right now the business world is getting on board with being more efficient because they know we are running out of natural resources or they are afraid of climate change, or political instability, they are on board with this first phase, but not the second phase.

A Belief in the Intrinsic Value of Nature

One of the key distinctions between anthropocentric and ecocentric worldviews is

whether one believes nature is to serve man or whether it has intrinsic value. This next

participant reflected on this core philosophical question. Drawing on his background as a

senior executive with a global environmental NGO, he described how the two sides of this

debate are affecting his thinking:

There’s a fascinating debate going on in the scientific circles right now. On one side is the value of the natural world to human beings that reduces it to economic value and human life, and risk reduction value. I think what's happening is that most people know that this is intuitively a narrow view, but it's one that will speak to the people that we see at Davos and elsewhere…. On the other side is that we not only depend on nature, but there is an inherent value in nature... This is the camp of the spiritual values or you can say even the intrinsic values of the natural world regardless of how it serves human beings. But I think where the conflict arises is that in an effort to speak to the mainstream, the language is being reduced to a story of nature that serves humanity through economic and human wellbeing... However, for many of us who have a broader

59

view of the interrelationship and interconnectedness of humanity and the natural world that is problematic.

This next participant referenced one of the iconic environmental books of the 20th

century: The Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold. By describing the influence of great

nature writing on the development of his ecological worldview, he captures one of the

essences of Theme 1 described above. He also illuminates a core realization of an

ecocentric worldview:

It comes from Aldo Leopold that we need to quit being the lord and master of the world and become a plain citizen of it. We need to truly get away from a human-centric to a more nature-centric, shall we say, view. I don't think we can completely figure out how complex life is. But I do think it is possible to relate to and connect to it. I think it's truly seeing other species at least on an equal plane with us.

Along the same lines, another executive described how reading the nature writers of

the 20th century had informed her environmental ethic by adding,

So when I think about where my worldview comes from I can relate a lot to Aldo Leopold and historical lovers of nature like John Muir.

This next quotation offers one final example of the intrinsic value of nature and an

ecocentric worldview:

I'm convinced that humans are an integral part of nature, not masters of or separate from nature, and that through our self-reflective capacities as human beings we can harmonize our actions with the natural movements of nature.

60

Conclusion

In this chapter the supporting findings for the two themes that emerged from the

first research question were presented. These two themes are Experiences that Shape

Ecological Worldviews and Expressions of Ecocentric Worldviews. As support for these

two themes, interview excerpts were organized into two groups of supporting findings.

These include early childhood experiences in nature, environmental education,

experiencing poverty and environmental degradation in foreign lands, shifting to capitalism

as a vehicle for environmental change, spirituality and service, awareness of ecological

embeddedness, awareness of the fragility of planetary ecosystems, and a belief in the

intrinsic value of nature.

Collectively, these findings provide many new insights into how the ecological

worldviews of sustainability leaders are developed and shaped over the course of their

lives. The findings also demonstrate that sustainability leaders express ecocentric

worldviews in at least three distinct ways. However, they also lead to new questions such

as; How do their ecological worldviews influence the motivation for their work as global

sustainability leaders? And; How do their worldviews influence their approaches to

sustainability leadership? Many of the quotations presented in this chapter also show

evidence of post-conventional action logics, which is the focus of the second research

question and the subject of the next chapter: Expressions of Post-Conventional Action

Logics by Sustainability Leaders.

61

CHAPTER FIVE: EXPRESSIONS OF POST-CONVENTIONAL ACTION LOGICS

Introduction

In this chapter the six findings that support the third major theme are presented.

These findings emerged from the exploration of the second research question: Do the

descriptions by sustainability leaders of their worldviews and their work in sustainability

reflect specific action logics?

As described in the previous chapter, interviews took place with 65 sustainability

leaders, the large majority of whom are senior executive in multinational companies.

However, in addition to the questions described in Chapter 4 about their backgrounds,

motivation, and worldviews, these interviews included questions related to the specifics of

their actual work in their organizations. This set of questions focused more on how

sustainability was being implemented. These questions probed into the leadership,

strategies, and culture of their organizations. Participants were also asked about how they

were measuring their success as sustainability leaders.

These questions arose from wanting to know not only who these individuals were,

but also what they did. Questions were designed to get a sense of what their work looked

like on a daily basis and what their challenges were related to sustainability within their

organizations. Questions included; To what extent do you integrate sustainability into your

leadership development processes? What do you see as your biggest challenges to

accomplishing your goals at both the individual and organizational levels? How are you

measuring your success both at the individual and organizational levels? Can you share any

particular success stories? (see Appendix A for a complete list of questions).

62

As described in Chapter 4, the interviews were transcribed either during or

immediately afterwards. In order to explore the second research question, a deductive

thematic analysis and hermeneutic methodology was used to analyze the data based on the

developmental frameworks identified during the literature review. By highlighting various

phrases and looking for relationships and patterns in the textual data, ample empirical

evidence for the expression of post-conventional action logics was uncovered. (See Tables

4 and 5 in Chapter 2 for description of these action logics). During repeated rounds of

analysis, ample evidence for both redefining and transforming action logics was found in

the textual data as described by Torbert (2004). Language indicative of conventional

action logics was considerably less frequent and there were a few statements that could be

considered indicative of alchemical action logics. After more than a dozen rounds of

coding, sorting, and hermeneutic analysis, specific groups of key phrases, patterns of

thought, and expressions used by the participants were identified that led to six findings

that support the third major theme.

Theme 3: Expressions of Post-Conventional Action Logics

- Awareness of Diverse Worldviews and Contexts

- Thinking in Decades: Future Generations and Historical Context

- Enhanced Systems Consciousness

- Planet-Centric Circles of Identity and Care

- Inquiring Stance with Greater Vulnerability

- Highly Collaborative Approaches to Leadership

A detailed presentation of the individual findings and respective sets of quotations

from the interviews are presented in the next section.

63

Awareness of Diverse Worldviews and Contexts

The capacity to see and reflect on a diversity of worldviews (and hold object one's

own worldview) is one of the most crucial differences between conventional and post-

conventional action logics (Cook-Greuter, 2004; Kegan, 1994; Torbert, 2004). Closely

related is the capacity to be aware of diverse contexts. These contexts can be social,

cultural, economic, political, and environmental. During the interviews, numerous

examples of the capacity to see diverse worldviews and contexts were found. For example,

this participant, a Director of Sustainability at a major apparel and footwear manufacturer,

characterized her thinking this way:

What we’ve found in regards to our sustainability initiatives is that people go through phases of understanding over a long period of years. We continue to try to classify where we are on the journey.

This next participant, the Chief Sustainability Officer at a global consumer products

company, described his work as follows:

In my role as CSO everybody has an opinion because the idea of sustainability is so personal. When I come into a meeting with groups of our employees I don't know what their individual priorities are. One person cares about homeless people, another about animal rights, another about climate change, and some of them don't care all. In my job everything is framed about caring. So everyone cares about different things.

A third participant, the Chief Sustainability Officer at global travel services firm,

described how she thinks about the diversity of worldviews in the following manner:

When you think about sustainability you have to think about both ends of the spectrum. It’s about bringing everyone to the center from both sides, both the nonbeliever to the eco-enthusiast…. Both viewpoints have to be brought in… Changing behaviors just for the sake of the environment does not resonate with everyone.

64

A fourth senior executive talked about how his awareness of diverse worldviews

affected his approach to communication:

Part of the reason that I don’t stand on a soapbox is to allow a constant drip of improvements that starts to take root, one by one. I don’t ask employees how they regard our efforts. I want my conversations with my team to be about them, and their needs… It’s my experience that I regard these issues different than most people, I don’t want to environmentalize as a religion. I’m motivated on a very practical level. There’s a risk if I were to be seen as too extreme in my views. It’s kind of a circuitous pattern.

A strong awareness of cultural context was apparent in many of the interviews. For

example, this Chief Sustainability Officer referred to her experiences in India and described

how this has affected her thinking:

One thing that was very illuminating for me was my trip to India. There you have a lot of different environmental issues. Although they have the equivalent of Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, I don't sense it is very well enforced. So although they do have those policies, just the sheer magnitude of people and processes and outsourcing of our manufacturing and everything else in India, you really see all of that boiling there. It was very illuminating because before that I thought that things could be so much better, but not really acknowledging how far we've come. And then you go to India and it makes you realize these are real serious issues. The air quality alone is a major issue in terms of particular matter and the amount of biomass that's being burned. You blow your nose at the end of the day and it's just black. So I think this was a good reality check for me.

This same executive shared her perspective about the Dutch culture and their

relationship to technology:

I lived in Holland for 2 years. Culturally the Dutch are so interesting. In regards to sustainability, I would describe them as being very techno-centric. They have this deep understanding about why they're so vulnerable to climate change because of the fact that so much of the land is below sea level already. They have this intricate system of managing their agricultural land and the

65

north seas using these dikes and levees systems. They know that they would just be inundated creating a huge loss of agricultural land. However through their technology they believe that they will overcome the environmental factor.

The next participant, the Director of Sustainability and Stewardship from a major

global electronics firm, shared how his extensive time spent working in other countries

affected his worldview and way of thinking about culture in the following way:

I’ve led environmental research labs in China and Germany. Running those groups for around seven years gave me a great perspective on environmental science, technology, and culture. It sort of drove a stake in the ground for me. The Chinese know that they are running out of concrete, copper, steel, and minerals. The best place to get them is in Africa. Unfortunately, they will do business with corrupt governments. They will go to the Congo no problem.

The four interview excerpts below are from Vice Presidents or Directors of

Sustainability at multinational companies. Each quotation demonstrates an awareness of

worldviews and contexts in general, especially in the global context of their work.

What I do think is the case is that if you are a top-tier person moving towards the C-suite you need to understand the broader environmental and social context to be successful.

I've had an evolving view. Twenty years ago I was involved with environmental activities. Working in management you're really working on a very different side of the conversation. I realized that there are all these different perspectives and challenges involved with addressing the environment. And there needs to be a middle ground.

If you think about the influence of technology, we all need to be aware of how what we are doing will affect the broader society. It is now an expectation that we do work that benefits developing countries and that we can offer more solutions around the world.

We’re finding that more and more engineers are in tune with societal issues on a global level. For instance, we have many new

66

health care and energy products that are designed for rural markets in India and China. It’s really important that engineers have a cultural sensitivity to the emerging markets. We need enlightened engineers instead of those with a western mindset.

Thinking in Decades: Future Generations and Historical Context

Another indicator of post-conventional action logic that stood out in the data was

the mental pattern of putting sustainability in a long-term historical and future context.

Developmental researchers have found that leaders with post-conventional action logics

think with time horizons longer than decades, and often in terms of generations or their

own lifetimes (Brown, 2012; Esbjorn-Hargens, 2005; Torbert, 2004). This can mean

consistently thinking in terms of multiple decades into the past and future instead of weeks,

months, or years.

When talking about their work in sustainability, many of the participants appeared

to have the capacity to think decades out into the future while holding the past experience

of their own lifetime present in their minds. In particular, the time period of the early

1970s when the modern environmental movement was born forward to the present was

often referred to during the interviews.

By emphasizing their sense of history and long-term view of the future, the

following quotations all illustrate this aspect of post-conventional action logic:

We can see how it will play out over the next 10 years. I can see that if we do this right, we can really make change happen. It’s so much about common sense. Why do we throw all this stuff away and create all this waste? Ten years from now there will not be green companies. Every company will have a set of best practices around sustainability. I won’t need to show you the difference between green companies and other companies… This will be the standard in 10 years.

67

I think people need to understand how everything fits in and relates to the future. What you’re doing today affects what is going to happen 10 years from now. What has changed is that now we ask ourselves what do we need to do by 2050 as relates to climate change and carbon parts per million. What is the right thing to do? How should we be gearing the business to make that happen? How should we engage in legislation? What is the science behind this? What is going to be possible? Our plan has become how we can have all of our products put together in a way that allows us to have flexibility taking into account the large changes that will take place in the coming decades.

In the post-industrial world we will see the result of our work in sustainability… All of us need to be doing things that are very long term and very visionary.

During the interviews, climate change and the role of big business was frequently

put into a longer-term historical and future context by numerous participants. Many of the

research participants represented their companies in a variety of public/private/NGO

coalitions related to climate change and sustainability. Given their ecological worldviews,

many of these individuals spoke in very personal terms about the issue of climate change

and frequently put their thoughts into historical context.

For example, this CEO of a corporate environmental NGO based in Washington,

DC, said;

My personal view is that we've got to find a way to move from the goal of just understanding the natural environment to the realization that we ourselves are causing the environment to change drastically around us for the first time in the history of man. I think that changes the game. I think that I struggle with this personally. I don’t believe that it is possible at this point to mitigate the damage we have started. Now we need to mitigate how bad it's going to be, how we're going to help people deal with these environmental realities in the future.

68

Another participant, an executive at a national environmental coalition that focuses

on working with members of Congress for progressive climate and energy policy, shared

her perspective this way:

Environmental movements take a long time. We should not be surprised. What we see is a scaling up with more sectors, more brands. We were prepared for companies to back out, but we are actually getting more calls. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and big oil and big coal are disproportionately influential. If we really look at history, this is their last gasp. We’re seeing a crescendo of activity that will ultimately result in a long-term careful solution.

This next participant shared his ideas of a steady-state economy the ideas of a new

ecological paradigm. His comments also demonstrate this capacity to think in a longer

time horizon:

The longer term issue that I see in terms of leadership is that eventually we have to deal with consumption with a big C, not just Cradle to Cradle thinking, but we have to transition to business models that do not depend on growth, that in fact thrive on the basis of reducing consumption. Right now the business world is getting on board with being more efficient because they know we are running out of natural resources or they are afraid of climate change, or political instability, they are on board with this first phase, but not the second phase.

Enhanced Systems Consciousness

Thus far we have seen how the sustainability executives expressed two of the key

characteristics of leaders with post-conventional action logics. These two characteristics

are a greater awareness of the diversity of worldviews and contexts as well as a capacity to

consistently think in longer time frames. In this section, interview excerpts are presented

that represent expressions of an enhanced systems consciousness, another distinctive

characteristic of post-conventional action logics that developmental researchers have

identified. As a consequence of being able to see a greater diversity of worldviews and

69

contexts, an awareness of the broader system emerges. These leaders recognize on a

consistent basis that they operate within a larger system made up of many different

worldviews and contexts. They become less quick to assert their own worldviews while

maintaining an enhanced understanding that they cannot control all the variables within the

system. They also begin to see themselves as part of systems within systems.

Developmental researchers have called this the capacity to see the self in the system.

For example, this senior sustainability executive at a major apparel and footwear

manufacturer offered this reflection about her ecological worldview that demonstrates her

systems consciousness:

I think probably that where I come from in terms of my ecological worldview is systems thinking and the interconnection of so much of what we do and our impact on the environment. I've spent a lot of time over the years around sustainability and been exposed to a lot of what's going on in the world. I have a science background. I've always understood at the fundamental basis that the economy and society are within the context of the environment. So we really can't do anything without paying attention to the ecological context within which we live.

When asked how he thought about the impact of his work, here is how another

senior sustainability executive put it:

The next circle out there is the whole planet…. Quite often it breaks down to understanding yourself and your dependence on nature. There's an interrelationship obviously. It means taking yourself and your team out into the world and become aware of how you are impacting the bigger ecosystems and making linkages. You could scale that down or up however you want to. But it's basically how the social and economic systems of the human community are in relationship with ecosystems. You need to have an understanding of all that kind of stuff in order to be skillfully engaged.

This participant, the CSO at a global travel services company, described how the

concept of waste had led her to a deeper appreciation of systems thinking:

70

When you step into a role like this what you think will inspire you changes. For example, I never thought I would be so excited about trash. However I realized that I was getting excited about systems thinking. In order to be a real change agent you have to understand the whole system. One day I put on my gloves and went through the trash in one of our buildings. When I thought about waste diversion, I began seeing the entire global waste system.

Another participant, when asked what some of his key takeaways were since he

began his journey as a sustainability leader, replied,

First, that the more you work on sustainability you realize it is not just connected to other issues, but the same as other issues, like ethics, religion, business, family, education, health, poverty, respect, government.

This next quote also serves to illustrate the systems thinking aspect of post-

conventional action logic:

It comes from learning where we had a role in impacting the environment, not just the planet itself but also the people working for the company. Finding an appropriate balance between all three areas: economic, social, and environmental. I carry the bulk of the environmental focus but the foundation is social justice. I struggle with the balance and how to involve everyone. I carry it as a personal mission.

This sustainability executive and major multinational food company described how

she and her team see their company as part of the global food system. She described how

they are using their company as a platform to influence other multinational companies

towards more sustainable agricultural practices:

We have a series of position papers that we worked on about a broad range of topics…. From climate disruption to local food systems and the value in terms of big world /small planet point of view…the finished papers will be external. They are very good papers for conversations. We are using the papers to influence other multinational companies who may not understand what we are doing… The papers are country specific. The French are very progressive. No genetically modified food. In the next several

71

years we can be a catalyst for safe food…If we capitalize on our ability tell our stories and to really engage our consumers, that is where our strength comes.

This participant, the head of environmental strategy at a global technology

company, became animated when talking about the long-term potential of scaling up the

solutions developed within his organization to address a wide variety of global challenges.

I would say that what makes this job most compelling for me is that despite all these really cool things that we are doing, we have not even scratched the surface in terms of what type of unique contributions we can make systems wide…. galvanizing people and shifting from a profit margin and cogs type of company to where we are helping to address societal issues at a scale that we can’t fathom and unlocking our potential.

This participant, the CEO of a major multinational company, also reflected on scale

in the following manner:

I think that we understand now that scale is a tool and you can use scale to do good things or use scale to do bad things. We try to use scale to do good things.

Planet-Centric Circles of Identity and Care

The capacity to identify with a widening circle of human and nonhuman

communities is another important characteristic of transforming action logics. It has also

been referred to as span of care by developmental researchers (Brown, 2012; Cook-

Greuter, 2004; Esbjorn-Hargens, 2005; Rooke & Torbert, 2005). Developmental

researchers have found the worldview of leaders with post-conventional action logics can

become wider until it embraces everyone on the planet as well as the biosphere itself

(Wilber, 2000).

The capacity to identify with a wide range of cultures and countries around the

world by many of the participants stood out in the data. There were numerous instances

where they indicated a heightened awareness of the entire global community during the

72

interviews. Once again, given the global reach of their companies, this comes as no

surprise. However, the frequency that a global and planetary perspective was mentioned

during the interviews was surprisingly high. For instance, when reflecting on the issue of

climate change, this Chief Sustainability Officer highlighted a missing perspective from the

political climate change debate in the following way:

Of course from a global perspective climate change is an enormous issue that we should be addressing. But I think one thing that is a little bit absent from these conversations is the outsourcing of our industrial processes to these other countries and our being ignorant of the effect of this. Also the reality that there is so much of just basic environmental protection that is not happening in developing countries. I think that's underreported. Most people know there's pollution in China and in India, but we haven't included that within our global environmental goals as well as I think it could be.

This Director of Sustainability spoke of climate change being an issue of equity for

people in underdeveloped countries throughout the world:

Ultimately climate is an issue of ethics and equity, and solving it seems like an obligation to our kids but also to poorer people around the world.

This quotation from a longtime senior sustainability executive at a major apparel

manufacturer reflected that our language and culture are still embedded in our patriarchal

society.

I think we are honing our approach. It’s an ever-widening circle of learning. The work we’re doing on diversity and culture, recognizing what are the patterns and the artifacts in the culture, I continue to find it so helpful… How do we lead going forward? We need to move towards a more matriarchal society from the dominant patriarchal societies. We continue to need to see that sustainability is embedded in the patriarchal and explore how we can move into a more feminine non-traditional approach.

73

This executive at one of the major environmental NGOs was able to articulate a

specific point in time where his circle of identity expanded from himself as an

organizational leader to a more ecocentric worldview.

It was there that I realized I made a shift from being primarily interested in my own experience of being a leader and interpreter to actually understanding ecosystems better in order to be of service and in some way conserve or restore ecosystems.

This last quotation is from a sustainability executive from the coffee industry. He

demonstrates his sense of identity as a global citizen:

For many years I've been involved with fair trade and corporate social initiatives in Central America. Traditionally, we work with the cooperatives and the larger growers on pricing and to help improve their operations and the labor conditions for their workers. About five years ago as part of a trip to Guatemala I sat down with a small group of people in one of the villages to get a sense of what things really looked like from their perspective…. We were after some new perspectives… to see what the issues were for their families.

An Inquiring Stance with Greater Vulnerability The capacity to maintain an inquiring stance with a heightened sense of personal

vulnerability is another important characteristic of post-conventional action logic. Although

this capacity becomes most prominent in the alchemist stage, it begins to appear in the

earlier post-conventional stages as well. Torbert (2010) calls this listening in the dark. This

refers to the capacity to continue to listen with an open mind, especially when under stress.

In particular, the capacity to reflect more consistently on a wide variety of events and

perspectives is indicative of this aspect of post-conventional action logic. For example, this

participant reflected,

Earlier in my career, I had one sense of what environmentalism was and what approaches could be taken. In some ways, I was idealistic because I thought that if environmental education was

74

framed in such a way, then anyone can learn and everything was possible… But then you ultimately don't have control over why or what everyone does… So lately over the last 6 or 7 years I’ve come to understand why certain things are on the trajectory they are. It kind of just places the idealism inside the realism.

Reflecting on his frustration with the tendency of employees in his company and in

the general public to reduce things to more simple binaries, this senior sustainability

executive put it this way:

It’s not as black and white as people see it…. It’s kind of a theatre of the absurd and somewhere in between…. it forces me to maintain a sort of confident humility.

Along the same lines, but even more succinctly, this senior sustainability executive

shared, “I'm in a constant phase of rethinking.” Or this executive who spoke about how to

communicate the essence of sustainability and wondered out loud, “How do we put it to the

heartbeat of the company?”

This long-time sustainability executive shared his observation about needing to

focus more on our failures instead of successes:

We as a business community are getting better at being less bad…not yet being good. The pace of change is nowhere where it needs to be. If we look at where we thought we would be now 5 years ago the progress has been very slow. I learn more talking to my colleagues about where they are failing. The most valuable lessons come from when we stumble.

The following quote is from a senior consultant who facilitates a support network

for chief sustainability officers. He spoke about the singular capacity for chief

sustainability officers to listen on behalf of their organizations:

They all have unique positions within their company. Most of them are sort of the consciousness of their company. Someone has to be the listening post for what’s next. They’re sort of the Indian scouts for the company.

75

This Chief Sustainability Officer at a global technology company reflected on how

his background as a chemist allowed him to work on concepts he can't see:

For me I feel sustainability is too important and when you get down to it that’s why I’m doing it. Being a chemist at a company, I know I don’t have all the answers…. Chemists are really good at solving problems using the scientific method. We’re good at working on concepts that we can’t see.

This participant, the CEO of a global consumer products company, described how

sustainability has forced him to learn how to get more out of his comfort zone.

We started to do more ethnographies and talking to different kinds of people. It’s really more about their world and their planet. You have to get out of your comfort zone and talk to people that you normally don’t talk to.

This last quotation is from a VP of Sustainability. It refers to the experience he had

during a retreat and expresses his vulnerability:

I did a dense and deep work with Joanna Macy below that kind of an aberration. Most of my peers don't want to be that vulnerable. The work I did with the sustainability Consortium was great but I think it could've gotten deeper.

Highly Collaborative Approaches to Leadership

In response to questions related to how sustainability was being integrated into the

leadership and culture of their companies, numerous executives observed how the practice

of sustainability was changing how they thought about leadership. The majority of these

executives had two to three decades of senior leadership experience in the corporate world,

with many of them working in sustainability for the last decade. By looking at key words,

phrases, and concepts, various expressions of highly collaborative approaches to leadership

were identified.

76

One of the most prominent expressions was the way that sustainability has caused

leadership to become a more collective process. Key words and phrases such as leading

from the middle, influencing without control, collective wisdom, from fear to trust, both

ends of the spectrum, and away from the typical hierarchical approach supported this

finding.

For example, this participant, the Chief Sustainability Officer at one of the largest

computer companies in the world with over 300,000 employees, shared this observation:

I think sustainability has caused leadership to evolve within our company. When I joined the company the culture was really about seniority. Now it is more about leading from the middle. With 300,000 people there really is no other way. It would take a year to get the word out on our initiatives. You would be a dinosaur. With my old jobs around change management and diversity it makes it really difficult. What we do in the corporate function is very much trying to influence without control.

Along the same lines, this participant, the Chief Sustainability Officer at a global

travel services firm, quoted above related to her awareness of diverse worldviews, offered

this observation about leadership:

When you think about sustainability you have to think about both ends of the spectrum. It’s about bringing everyone to the center from both sides, both the nonbeliever to the eco-enthusiast… Both viewpoints have to be brought in.

This next participant, the Chief Sustainability Officer at a major automobile

manufacturer, offered a similar reflection about leadership:

I think what comes up for me is that there has been a change in leadership over the years to use more of everyone’s collective wisdom. When I came in there was a group doing sustainability but it was more on the side… When that CEO asked me to take over the sustainability function, he asked me to integrate it more fully into the company. He wanted someone to show the leadership team what it was all about.

77

Also as part of this finding is this highly descriptive quotation from a CEO with

over four decades of senior leadership experience in some of the best-known American

multinational companies in the world:

What I began to experiment with was the change from fear to trust. Trust is a much more powerful tool than fear. Servant leadership is a term that has been overused now for many years but that is basically where it came from. Also what I saw was a form of democratization of companies in the mid to late ‘90s, away from the typical hierarchical approach that comes from the military, where an officer’s idea is better than yours because he outranks you. Good people started to realize that they don’t have to put up with that crap.

Yet another perspective related to the concept of leading from the middle was

offered by this participant, a senior sustainability consultant who has worked with dozens

of sustainability executives in recent years in a consortium. He described his perspective

on how sustainability leadership involves the capacity to hold two juxtaposing mindsets at

the same time.

If we look at the challenges that individual leaders are facing and the situations that they are being put into… we have the opportunity side opening up to new more socially responsible business models. It’s tough to find individuals that can hold both styles. Control versus opportunity. I see this interesting tension right now whether they are the CSO, CEO or at the EVP level, they have to be good at both of these types of leadership styles.

Another way that the capacity to collaborate more deeply and widely involved how

participants were working with a wide range of stakeholders including employees,

suppliers, customers, the public sector, and NGOs. This participant, the Chief

Sustainability Officer at a global consumer products company, reflected on how

sustainability had changed his way of thinking about leadership and collaboration in this

way:

78

I was based in Sweden, which has a more collaborative culture. To get the sustainability agenda to work internally you have to have strong influencing skills. When I think about sustainability leadership in contrast to the 20th century great man style of leadership, you’re more the Collaborator-in-Chief. You’re not command-and-control; you’re not omnipotent.

Demonstrating his inquiring stance, he went on to add,

I knew immediately that I did not know everything there was to know about sustainability…. I know that I will never be an expert. It enforces a new level of humility because I know deep down that I need to collaborate with others in a more flexible way. I'm very grateful that I went into sustainability and feel very lucky because it helped me develop some right-brain skills that I did not know had gone dormant. Practicing sustainability has allowed me to collaborate at a higher level.

This participant, the Senior Vice President of global citizenship at a global food

company, put it this way: “Sustainability is the ultimate team sport.” Another sustainability

executive added, “Whenever our team members want to build a collaborative effort, it’s my

job to build that tent.”

As part of this capacity to collaborate more deeply, there were numerous instances

were where sustainability executives shared stories about how their relationship with the

NGO sector had changed. For example, this participant described a large-scale worldwide

collaboration with an NGO in the area of water stewardship.

My focus is on water. We’re 4 years into this partnership…. We’re focusing on seven major river basins and fifteen countries. We’ve melded the people in the field so that now they’re almost indistinguishable. …. There is a local connection everywhere. …. It represents real ignition as to how we effectively partner and reach out and engage.

These final three quotations are from senior sustainability executives who express

versions of deeper collaboration with NGOs in similar ways:

79

Collaboration with NGO’s at our company has changed drastically... We had to start working with and listening to the NGOs at both the local and the federal level. You can’t please everyone all the time but there is a lot of common ground on new technologies… We share lots of common purpose with them.

I would say that one of the biggest shifts and mentalities that I have seen in recent years is that many people inside our company are now seeing sustainability as an opportunity and not just risk mitigation, governance, or compliance. I think what we have been able to do is turn it around and engage with society.

A really good sustainability leader should focus broadly on a sustainability strategy and make it come alive. We’ve really focused on engagement with stakeholders. Sometimes it takes a lot more listening. We created a human rights policy based on feedback with stakeholders in key issues. It has been dramatically important to the point now we have close relationships with numerous NGOs, and advocacy groups. They now know that we will do the right thing with the right feedback. So now we find out about things early in the curve.

Another highly collaborative approach to leadership that appeared in the data was

an enhanced capacity to translate and communicate complex sustainability initiatives.

Participants spoke of their challenges to communicate to diverse stakeholders and create

greater shared understanding. For example, this participant, a relatively young executive

involved in global food issues at a large environmental NGO shared this perspective:

It still is coming down to that although we have many of the technical solutions to problems faced by people around the world, there are political and economic forces in play that make this too little too late. There just aren't win-win scenarios to be had everywhere, especially on political issues. The power dynamics and economic inequalities are uncomfortable. There is not really a vernacular for the overall context. We've got to find some language that would be translatable for companies and governments.

This participant, the Chief Environmental Strategist the global technology firm,

described his view on communication this way:

80

Most companies are in a state of advanced chaos. The problem is communicating to everyone around the world. The reality today is that there are so many channels out there, we have to get the word out that we are doing this at a level that we’ve never heard of before. The key is to have voices go viral and rise above the clutter. My challenges are more about getting people to understand what is happening and change their behavior at scale.

Two more examples of the capacity to communicate to diverse worldviews can be

found in these quotations.

What we’ve found in regards to our sustainability initiatives is that people go through phases of understanding over a long period of years. We continue to try to classify where we are on the journey. This means that we have to continually evolve our communication.

Part of the reason is that I don’t stand on a soapbox is to allow a constant drip of improvements that starts to take root, one by one. I don’t ask employees as to how they regard our efforts. I want my conversations with my team to be about them, and their needs.

The idea of translation also arose from this executive while she was framing the

challenges of communicating the need to reduce carbon emissions:

All of us need to be doing things that are very long term and very visionary. It’s not going to be easy to translate to the common consumer that it is the right thing to do to reduce carbon emissions.

Finally, this senior sustainability consultant provided the title for this theme:

We all know that we have to have a steady drumbeat to make a difference. I wrote something a while ago that said the CSO should be called the Chief Translation Officer.

Conclusion

In this chapter the supporting findings for the third theme that emerged from the

analysis of the qualitative data were presented. This theme is Expressions of Post-

Conventional Action Logics by Sustainability Leaders. As support for this theme, interview

excerpts were organized into six supporting findings: awareness of diverse worldviews and

81

cultural context, thinking in decades, enhanced systems consciousness, planet-centric

circles of identity and care, inquiring stance with increased vulnerability, and highly

collaborative approaches to leadership.

When combined with the first two themes about ecological worldviews, the

findings presented in this chapter further illuminate the distinctive characteristics of the

sample population of sustainability leaders. In the next chapter, we explore how the

findings contribute to the theories from several literatures. These include the fields of eco-

psychology, environmental sociology, developmental psychology, and sustainability

leadership. In this way, we begin to understand how ecological worldviews and action

logics have the power to reframe and advance the field of sustainability leadership.

82

CHAPTER SIX: IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY AND PRACTICE

Introduction

The goal for this dissertation study was to better understand the interior worldviews

of global sustainability leaders. A review of several social science literatures led to an

integrative theoretical framework for this study. These literatures included deep ecology,

eco-psychology, environmental sociology, integral ecology, and developmental

psychology. They also included theories of interior and sustainability leadership. The two

research questions that guided this study were; How do sustainability leaders describe their

worldviews and motivation for their work? Do the descriptions by sustainability leaders of

their ecological worldviews and their work in sustainability reflect specific action logics?

By using these questions to guide the design of the study and the analysis of the

interview data, ample evidence was uncovered that led to three major themes. These are (a)

Experiences that Shape Ecological Worldviews Over the Lifespan; (b) Expressions of

Ecocentric Worldviews; (c) Expressions of Post-Conventional Action Logics. Each of

these themes is supported by a specific set of findings.

Among the three sets of findings, the most surprising is the ample empirical

evidence of post-conventional action logics in the large sample of global sustainability

leaders. The evidence that their action logics appear to be manifesting in several highly

collaborative forms of sustainability leadership further increases the significance of these

findings for theory and practice. These new leadership approaches include an enhanced

capacity to communicate complex sustainability initiatives to a diversity of worldviews,

influencing without control, and using an enhanced systems consciousness to work more

effectively on social and environmental issues with a wide range of external stakeholders.

While it may be expected to find a large percentage of highly developed ecological

83

worldviews among global sustainability leaders, the evidence that a large percentage also

operate with post-conventional action logics presents an important new contribution to the

literature. When combined with the first two sets of findings, this study serves to

empirically ground ecological worldview and developmental theory in sustainability

practice.

Although empirical studies by Brown (2012), Hedlund-de Witt (2012), and Rogers

(2012) have opened up this line of research, studies thus far have been theoretical, based on

small samples, or focused on areas other than sustainability leadership. In the case of

Hedlund-de Witt (2012), research has been focused on sustainable lifestyles and

development, not leadership theory and practice. Kahn (1999) has conducted decades of

research on the human relationship with nature, but his research has focused primarily on

childhood development, education, and the role of technology. Esbjorn-Hargens and

Zimmerman (2009) have written extensively about ecological worldviews, but primarily in

an integral theory-building mode. Many studies have been conducted using the new

ecological paradigm survey instrument (Dunlap, 2008), but they have focused primarily on

environmental values, education, public policy, and culture. The evidence provided in this

study adds new empirical insights to these theoretical and small sample studies. It extends

the existing body of interdisciplinary research in this area and offers new ways for scholars

and practitioners to think about sustainability leadership theory and practice. Next, each of

the three propositions made in this study are explored in greater depth.

84

Implications of Theme 1

The ecological worldviews of sustainability leaders are shaped across the lifespan by at least five distinct life experiences

The five findings that support Theme 1 suggest that sustainability leaders share at

least five common experiences that have shaped their ecological worldview. These

findings are significant in several ways. First, their descriptions of how they think about

nature indicate that they have explicit ecological worldviews. Second, sustainability leaders

appear to make a connection between their beliefs about the natural world and the

motivation for their work in sustainability. Third, their beliefs about nature appear to have

been formed throughout their lifespan.

Although the interviews were not designed to uniformly examine the biography or

lifeline for each participant, a chronological and possible developmental sequence did

suggest itself within the interview narratives. The first finding on how family and early

childhood had a significant impact on their worldview generally referred to the K-12 years.

The second finding that focused on environmental education generally corresponded to

their college and graduate school years. This appears to have been a period of great

discovery in their lives. However, what distinguishes these sustainability leaders from

many other types of leaders is that this period appears to have contributed significantly to

the formation of an ecological worldview. Many of them described a time when they first

cultivated an understanding of ecological systems and social justice. At this early point in

their lives, many of them then began to orient themselves towards eventual careers in

sustainability.

85

The third finding shows how witnessing extreme poverty and environmental

degradation for the first time in developing countries appears to have deepened their

ecological worldview and commitment to their work in sustainability. It is closely related

chronologically to the second finding, although in many instances appears to have occurred

a bit later in their 20s. The fourth finding that relates to career shifts appears to be in

response to an evolution of their ecological worldview and taken place primarily when they

were in their 30s. It reveals how many of the participants became aware of the impact of

global corporations on planetary ecosystems and social issues. In many cases, they appear

to have made conscious decisions to move to the private sector in order to have a bigger

impact on the world. The fifth finding relates to how they describe spirituality and a sense

of service as part of their ecological worldview. These expressions generally appear to be a

reflection of their current lives, which would correspond to their late 30s or 40s for the

large majority of the participants.

This possible developmental sequence should be of interest to ecological worldview

and developmental researchers in several ways. Although application of developmental

theory to ecological worldviews has been made by a few scholars (Rogers, 2012), most

research has been either theoretical (Esbjorn-Hargens & Zimmerman, 2009), or focused on

other domains such as sustainable lifestyles (Hedlund-de Witt, 2012), childhood

development, technological nature, or education (Kahn, 1999). Through their decades of

extensive empirical research, developmental theorists including Cook-Greuter (2000),

Kegan (1994), and Torbert (2004), have accumulated an impressive body of work that has

established the validity of developmental theory and focused on a wide range of

applications. However, their research has taken place under the anthropocentric umbrella

86

of Western psychology. Thus, it has almost exclusively focused on the relationship of

human beings to themselves and to each other, and not on the relationship to nature.

Among the primary psychometric instruments used for their research include the

various versions of the Washington University Sentence Completion Test (Loevinger,

1979, Cook-Greuter, 2004, Torbert, 2004). These instruments appear to not have given

enough attention to how the human relationship with nature develops. For instance, the

Global Leadership Profile, the latest version of the Washington University Sentence

Completion Test used by Action Inquiry Associates to assess action logics, does not appear

to invite enough reflection on the relationship to nature among its 30 sentence stems to

draw conclusions about ecological worldviews. The 5 findings that comprise Proposition 1

invite developmental researchers to explore new ways to integrate the development of

ecological worldviews into their theories and measurement instruments.

Implications of Theme 2 Sustainability leaders express ecocentric worldviews in at least three distinct ways

The three findings that support Theme 2 demonstrate that sustainability leaders

express ecocentric worldviews through an awareness of their ecological embeddedness, an

awareness of the existence of an ecological crisis, and a belief in the intrinsic value of

nature. These findings suggest that many sustainability leaders possess a high degree of

ecological intelligence on a planetary scale and also have a philosophical stance on their

relationship to nature. Many of them appear to be not only highly educated in the

complexity of global environmental science, but also readily aware of bigger philosophical

questions facing humanity in regards to our relationship to nature. Phrases used such as

running out of natural resources, industrial ecology, learning from natural systems, and

87

bio-mimicry, all point toward the scientific aspect of their eco-centric worldview. Whereas,

phrases such as ecological context within which we live, inherent value in nature, truly

seeing other species, and interdependence of humanity and the natural world, all point

towards a philosophical dimension that forms part of their ecological worldview. This

detailed empirical evidence serves to animate the ecological worldview literatures in a new

context and has numerous implications for theories in the eco-psychology, environmental

sociology, and deep ecology literatures. To demonstrate how, this set of findings can be

explored through the lens of two of the most prevalent constructs found within these

literatures, the new ecological paradigm (NEP) and the ecological self.

Based on the extensive use of the NEP survey instrument by social scientists, the

underlying concepts of a new ecological paradigm have generated significant dialogue over

the last three decades (Dunlap, 2008). The NEP instrument is based on several core ideas

and major themes found in the environmental literature. These include beliefs about

ecological limits to growth, maintaining the balance of nature, and various aspects of a

planetary ecological crisis including deforestation, species extinction, and climate change.

Overall, it seeks to measure the degree to which an individual holds an anthropocentric

versus an eco-centric worldview.

However, findings about ecological worldviews based on the NEP survey have

been criticized from a psychological perspective (Boiral et al., 2009; Brown, 2012;

Hedlund de-Witt, 2012). The major criticism of the NEP is that it is primarily a measure of

values and beliefs on a surface level and does not get at deeper individual eco-

psychological constructs. This occurs in large part because this instrument was designed as

a sociological survey. Moreover, the psychological dimensions of ecological worldviews

88

are underrepresented in the social science literature in general, as Hedlund-de Witt (2012)

and Esbjorn-Hargens and Zimmerman (2009) have noted.

The many ecocentric expressions by sustainability leaders offer new ways to

understand the core ideas of a new ecological paradigm, especially when considering the

sample on which the study is based. By presenting more granular expressions of eco-

centric worldviews by sustainability leaders, this study contributes to filling in the

psychological gaps left open by the NEP instrument.

The interview narratives also demonstrate how several participants appear to have

an awareness of their ecological embeddedness, one of the core aspects of the ecological

self. This finding offers a new link with the philosophy of deep ecology and suggests a new

relevance for this literature to sustainability leadership development. As eco-psychologist

Bragg (1996) observes, the ecological self is part of an expanded self-concept that can

significantly affect the functioning of an individual in his or her environment. Devall

(1995), a deep ecologist, concludes that we underestimate our self-potential by not

appreciating our ecological self.

Another interesting way to think about these findings is the way that they bring

together a more holistic view of the sustainability leader. One can see in their words

representations of both their ecological intelligence and their ecological self. The first type

of ecocentric expressions around the new ecological paradigm relate to cognitive

development, the second type seems more relevant to emotional development. Both form

part of their ecological worldview and the motivation for their work in sustainability.

89

Implications of Theme 3 Sustainability leaders express post-conventional action logics through five dimensions and

through highly collaborative approaches to leadership.

The set of findings that support Theme 3 offer ample evidence that sustainability

leaders express post-conventional action logic by demonstrating an expanded awareness of

diverse worldviews and contexts, thinking in time horizons longer than decades, holding an

enhanced systems consciousness, having expanded circles of identity and care, consistently

maintaining an inquiring stance, and by practicing highly collaborative approaches to

leadership.

The first finding reveals that global sustainability leaders appear to have developed

an enhanced capacity to see a growing range of worldviews and contexts as part of their

global sustainability practice. A range of social, environmental, economic, cultural, and

political worldviews were described in various ways by participants during their

interviews. There were many instances where it appeared that the inherently complex and

interdisciplinary nature of their work in global sustainability was forcing them to develop

this capacity. The diversity of worldviews and contexts exist both internally within their

organizations and externally with a wide range of global stakeholders. Their capacity to

recognize and appreciate various worldviews and contexts appeared to be further magnified

by the global scope of their multinational corporations.

The second finding indicates a capacity to consistently think in longer time

horizons, even while operating under the persistent short-term pressure of public

companies. This can often mean thinking in terms of decades, both in a historical and

future context simultaneously. Many of their reflections during the interviews showed

evidence of this capacity. It was apparent that many of the participants were aware of the

90

historical context within which they are working as well as the reality that it will take

decades to accomplish their goals.

A highly developed systems consciousness was also evident in the interviews with

many of the participants. This is indicative of their capacity to see a wide range of

interdependency both internally within their organizations and externally across multiple

stakeholders, countries, and cultures. Based on their roles in highly complex and large-

scale organizations, these global sustainability executives appear to recognize the

interconnectedness of social, economic, environmental, and political forces influencing the

sustainability initiatives they are responsible for promoting.

An expanded circle of identity and care points to whom these sustainability leaders

are capable of identifying with and caring about. Finding ample evidence of world-centric

and planet-centric spans of care within this sample population of sustainability executives

was a surprise. It was apparent during many of the interviews that the experiences of

working on global poverty and ecological issues in many parts of the developing world had

led to this expanded sense of identity and care.

The fifth finding that supports Theme 3 suggests that many of the interview

participants are consistently able to hold a more inquiring stance, which may be a

consequence of the various capacities described above. By operating with an enhanced

awareness of worldviews and contexts, many of the interviewees appear to have developed

a greater capacity to remain open and learn from their environment. In some cases, there

was also evidence of a greater sense of their own vulnerability. These findings hold

numerous implications for the integration of developmental and sustainability leadership

theory.

91

Based on several large-scale studies, developmental researchers have found the

overall distribution of professional adults in the United States with post-conventional action

logics to be approximately 6-7% (Torbert, 2004). The relatively small percentage of leaders

with post-conventional action logics was found to be virtually identical using Torbert’s

Profile instrument (total N = 497) and Kegan's Subject – Object Interview (total N = 342).

Although there are methodological limitations to this study that will be discussed below,

the qualitative evidence suggests that the sustainability leaders included in the study sample

exhibit post-conventional action logics at a significantly higher percentage than the general

population of business leaders. When considering the participants in this study operate

inside some of the world’s most influential companies, the significance of this set of

findings is magnified.

As Boiral et al. (2009) observe; the characteristics associated with post-

conventional action logic are closely aligned with the demands of sustainability leadership.

These authors propose that post-conventional consciousness equips individuals to navigate

the complexity of sustainability issues and mobilize individuals for sustainability causes

within organizations. Ferdig (2007) observes that sustainability leaders are informed by an

expanded view of how the complex universe operates, noting that being a sustainability

leader means letting go of the ego-driven certainty of right answers and genuinely engaging

with different points of view. A sustainability leader “understands that everything is

connected to everything else, that we live in a dynamic, ever-changing universe, and that

no single action occurs in isolation but is inextricably linked, often invisibly, to every other

action” (p. 32). These findings serve to ground and support the theoretical propositions of

Boiral et al. (2009) and Ferdig (2007) described above. The findings also serve to extend

92

the small body of empirical work into the action logics of sustainability leaders that has

been conducted thus far.

In his pioneering study into how sustainability leaders with later stage action logics

design sustainability initiatives, Brown (2012) illuminated ways that leaders think and

behave with respect to complex change initiatives. He reported that they design from a

deep inner foundation, use systems thinking, access non-rational ways of knowing, and

adaptively manage through dialogue with the system. He concludes that the discipline of

sustainability leadership is still in the very early stages and the lack of large-scale,

empirical research currently makes it difficult to draw specific conclusions about the nature

of sustainability leadership. This research begins to fill in this gap.

Recent work by Rogers (2012) used the framework of the ecological selves

(Esbjorn-Hargens & Zimmerman, 2009) to explore the ability of executives in a single

multinational corporation to confront environmental challenges. She found executives that

appear to be on the more advanced end of ecological selves spectrum demonstrated a more

highly developed sense of complexity, systems thinking, and interdependence. By drawing

on a robust sample of multinational executives from more than 50 companies, this study

adds depth and breadth to her findings.

As described in the introduction to this chapter, the evidence that the post-

conventional action logics of the research participants appears to be manifesting through

highly collaborative approaches to sustainability leadership is the subject of the final

finding. In response to questions about how sustainability was being integrated into the

leadership and culture of their companies, it became apparent that the practice of

sustainability was driving an evolution in their thinking about leadership and large-scale

93

change. This represents a new contribution to the substantial body of organizational

leadership theory that integrates various developmental frameworks. Amongst the most

prominent are developmental action inquiry (Tobert, 2004), adaptive leadership (Heifitz,

Grashow, & Linsky, 2009), leadership agility (Joiner & Josephs, 2007), and immunity to

change (Kegan & Lahey, 2009). However, these prominent theories do not focus on

sustainability leadership.

In an article entitled “Seven Transformations of Leadership” that was voted one of

the top 10 best leadership articles in the Harvard Business Review, Rooke and Torbert

(2005) describe what differentiates leaders is not necessarily their philosophy, personality,

or style of management. Rather, they explain, it is their internal action logic, which is how

they interpret the world around them. Based on research with thousands of executives in

diverse industries over 25 years, they explain how leaders can progressively move through

seven stages of development. They have found that leaders with post-conventional action

logics are able to consistently innovate and transform their organizations. They describe the

specific capacities that these leaders use to lead successful organizational transformations

and generate superior results. These capacities include greater communication and

collaboration skills, enhanced systems thinking, and operating with a more strategic time

horizon.

As their research relates to sustainability leadership, Rooke and Torbert (2005) cite

Joan Bavaria as an example of post-conventional action logic. Bavaria is the CEO of

Trillium Asset Management, the first socially responsible investment fund. She was also

one of the co-authors of the CERES Environmental Principles, which in coordination with

the United Nations, led to the Global Reporting Initiative, one of the most important

94

sustainability milestones in history. Through the example of Joan Bavaria, they make the

link between post-conventional action logics and sustainability practice. However, what is

missing from their research is to also make the link with how the ecological worldview of

Joan Bavaria may have influenced her actions as a sustainability leader.

Referring to post-conventional action logics and ecological worldviews, Brown

(2012) notes that these strengthened capacities are likely to support more effective

leadership during times of complexity and rapid change. He observes further, “research on

the values associated with sustainability leadership is limited and incomplete. The more

we understand what values undergird the behaviors required to lead sustainability

initiatives, the easier it will be to cultivate them” (p. 70).

By showing at least six distinct ways that global sustainability leaders express post-

conventional action logics, this study makes important new connections between

developmental theory and sustainability leadership. It allows for a new understanding of

post-conventional action logics and presents evidence of how these more advanced ways of

thinking lead to more collaborative approaches to sustainability leadership. These findings

could attract a larger audience of developmental and ecological worldview researchers to

apply their theories to the domain of sustainability leadership. This has numerous

generative implications for future research, which is the subject of the next section in this

chapter.

95

Future Research

Through its integrative framework and three generative propositions, this study sets

the stage for social science researchers from numerous disciplines to pursue a major new

area of focus: sustainability leadership. By providing empirical evidence of ecological

worldviews and post-conventional action logics among sustainability executives, it invites

scholars from several social science disciplines to explore how insights from their fields

can expand and enhance leadership development for sustainability. These disciplines

include

- Deep Ecology (Abram, 2010; Devall, 1995; Macy 2007; Naess, 1989)

- Developmental Psychology (Cook-Greuter; 2004; Torbert, 2004; Kegan, 1994)

- Eco-psychology (Bragg, 1996; Kahn, 1999; Roszak, 1995)

- Ecological Economics (Beddoe et al. 2009; Daly, 1996)

- Environmental Sociology (Dunlap, 2008; Hedlund-de Witt, 2012)

- Indigenous Studies (Four Arrows, 2006, 2013; Hart, 2010)

- Integral Ecology (Esbjorn-Hargens & Zimmerman, 2009; Obrien, 2006)

- Systems Thinking (Capra, 1996; Meadows, 2008)

Although a few studies have been conducted in this area, an understanding of how

both ecological worldviews and action logics can accelerate and enhance the field of

sustainability leadership is just beginning. In a recent study conducted by MIT and Boston

Consulting Group entitled Sustainability’s Next Frontier, researchers explored the extent to

which corporations are addressing sustainability issues. Based on a worldwide sample of

corporate leaders, they found that although nearly two thirds rate social and environmental

issues as significant, less than ten percent report that their corporations are addressing them

96

thoroughly. The researchers conclude by attributing this gap to a “disconnect between

thought and action” (Kiron, Kruschwitz, Rubel, Reeves, & Fuisz-Kehrbach, 2013, p. 3).

By providing extensive evidence of the interior worldviews of sustainability leaders and

how these may relate to their motivation for sustainability and their approaches to

leadership, this study starts to close this gap between thought and action in global

organizations. Future studies with new sample populations could explore questions such as

the following:

- Is the practice of sustainability driving human development or do individuals

with post-conventional action logic self-select for sustainability leadership?

- How can an understanding of ecological worldviews and post-conventional

action logics be integrated into sustainability leadership development programs?

- How can ecological worldviews and post-conventional action logics be

leveraged by sustainability leaders to enhance their effectiveness as change

agents in their organizations?

- How can existing assessment instruments such as the New Ecological Paradigm

Scale and the Global Leadership Profile be modified to enhance our

understanding of ecological worldviews in sustainability leaders?

- How do the ecological worldviews and action logics of sustainability leaders

vary across age groups, gender, and culture?

- What role can hermeneutic methodology play to study action logics?

Although the qualitative data uncovered during this study allow for some

speculation in regards to the above questions, drawing any specific conclusions is beyond

the scope of this study.

97

Limitations to the Study

The purpose of this study was to explore the ecological worldviews and action

logics of sustainability leaders. Based on qualitative interviews with a sample of 65

sustainability leaders, thematic analysis resulted in three major themes supported by 14

specific findings that addressed the two research questions. However, there are certain

limitations to this study that offer opportunities for future research.

In regard to Theme 1, the inference that the life experiences of sustainability leaders

suggest a developmental sequence is limited by the qualitative methodology and the

specific interview questions used in this study. As a result, the suggestion that these

experiences represent a hierarchical and developmental sequence is only tentative and

would need to be supported by further empirical research. This could be approached

through additional semi-structured interviews focused on a developmental line of inquiry.

Another approach could be to modify existing assessment tools such as the Global

Leadership Profile, perhaps by adding eco-sentence stems to explore a stage conception for

ecological worldviews. In regard to Theme 2, the expressions of ecocentric worldviews are

also limited by the qualitative methodology deployed in the study. One way to further

explore the extent and specificity of these views could be to triangulate them with various

quantitative instruments, such as the new ecological paradigm scale.

In regard to Theme 3, expressions of post-conventional action logics were identified

through the analysis of textual data and a hermeneutic methodology. Participants were not

assessed with a psychometric instrument such as the Global Leadership Profile or the

Subject-Object Profile. As a result, this study does not make claims as to the specific stage

of development of the participants or the precise percentage of participants that would have

98

been assessed at each stage. Furthermore, this study does not make a distinction between

the three specific levels of post-conventional action logic. However, through the analysis of

textual data, it does strongly suggest a higher percentage of post-conventional action logic

exists in the sample population of global sustainability leaders than exists in the general

population of corporate leaders. In order to further validate this finding, additional

empirical data would need to be gathered using a psychometric instrument such as the

Global Leadership Profile.

The types of companies from which the sample was drawn represent one final

limitation. The companies represented in the sample were primarily involved in consumer

goods such as food and beverage, household products, and consumer electronics.

Corporations directly involved in certain industries such as petroleum extraction, natural

gas fracking, defense contractors, and genetically modified food were not included in the

sample. Therefore, the propositions and findings made in this study are based on data

gathered from sustainability executives only within certain industries and therefore limit

their generalizability to these industries.

Conclusion

This study has provided many new insights about the ecological worldviews and

action logics of global sustainability leaders. Through an integrative conceptual framework,

it has demonstrated how the diverse literatures of ecological worldviews and

developmental psychology can advance sustainability leadership theory and practice. These

literatures include deep ecology, eco-psychology, environmental sociology, integral

ecology, indigenous studies, and systems thinking. They span ecological economics, social

psychology, and sustainability leadership. By grounding key theories from the ecological

99

worldview and developmental psychology literatures in sustainability practice, this study

demonstrates their potential to advance sustainability leadership.

This study has also sought to fill in empirical gaps in these literatures. It has sought

to provide answers to questions such as, What are the deeper motivations of individuals

that lead sustainability within multinational corporations? What are their ecological

worldviews, from where did these views originate, and how are they shaped over time?

How do they think about their work in sustainability and what does this reveal in terms of

their action logics? And, How has their work in sustainability influenced their approaches

to leadership? By focusing on the deeper psychological motivations of sustainability

leaders, this study provides a more holistic view of corporate leaders and offers new

answers to these questions.

Human beings now face the most serious and complex set of ecological problems in

our history. Multinational corporations must play an important role in solving the planet’s

great ecological challenges. During the last decade, the sustainability position inside

multinational corporations has grown in influence. Today there are senior sustainability

executives in hundreds of multinational companies. In order to reframe and advance

ecological sustainability, there is much work to do. The findings from this study should be

of interest to a wide range of social science researchers, leadership educators, corporate

executives, and social entrepreneurs. New insights can be integrated into leadership

curriculum and programs in a variety of public and private institutions to support the

development of the next generation of sustainability leaders for the benefit of all life on

earth.

100

REFERENCES

Abram, D. (2010). Becoming animal: An earthly cosmology. New York, NY: Random House.

Abram, D. (1996). The spell of the sensuous. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Babbie, E. (2002). The basics of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson. Barlow, M. (2007). Blue covenant; The global water crisis and the coming battle for the

right to water. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago, IL: Harper Collins. Beddoe, R., Costanza, R., Farley, J., Garza, E., Kent, J., Kubiszewski, I.,…Woodward, J.

(2009). Overcoming systemic roadblocks to sustainability: The evolutionary redesign of worldviews, institutions, and technologies. National Academy of Science, 106 (8), 2483-2489.

Bentz, V., & Shapiro, J. (1998). Mindful inquiry in social research. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage. Boiral, O., Cayer, M., & Baron, C. M. (2009). The action logics of environmental

leadership: A developmental perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 479-499. Bragg, E., (1996). Towards ecological self: Deep ecology meets constructionist self–

theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 93–108. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative

Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. Brown, B. (2012). Conscious leadership for sustainability: How leaders with a late-stage

action logic design and engage in sustainability initiatives. Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. 3498378.

Brown, L. (2010). Plan B 4.0; Rescuing a planet under stress and a civilization in trouble.

New York, NY: Norton. Capra, F. (1996) The web of life: A new synthesis of mind and matter. Great Britain: Harper

Collins.

101

Conn, S. (1995). When the Earth hurts, who responds? In T. Roszak, M. Gomes, & A. Kanner (Eds.) Eco-psychology: Restoring the Earth healing the mind. (pp.156-171). Berkeley, CA: Sierra Club Books.

Cook-Greuter, S. R. (2000). Mature ego development: A gateway to ego transcendence?

Journal of Adult Development, 7(4). Cook-Greuter, S. R. (2004). Making the case for a developmental perspective. Industrial

and Commercial Training, 36(6/7), 275. Creswell, J. (2009). Research design; Qualitative, quantitative, and mix methods

approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Daly, H. (1996). Beyond growth. Boston, MA: Beacon.

Devall, B. (1995). The ecological self. In A. Drenson & Y. Inoue (Ed.), The Deep ecology movement: An introductory anthology (pp. 101-123). Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books.

Dietz, R., & Oneill, D. (2013). Enough is enough; Building a sustainable economy in a

world of finite resources. San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler. Drengson, A. & Inoue, Y. (Eds.). (1995). The deep ecology movement; An introductory

anthology. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books. Dunlap, R. (2008). The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: From marginality to

worldwide use. The Journal of Environmental Education. 40(1), 3-18. Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The “New Environmental Paradigm”: A

proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. The Journal of Environmental Education, 9(4), 10-19.

Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring

endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. The Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425.

Esbjorn-Hargens, S. B. F. (2005). Integral ecology: A post-metaphysical approach to

environmental phenomena. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(05A). (UMI No. 3175027).

Esbjorn-Hargens, S. & Zimmerman, M. (2009). Integral ecology; Uniting multiple perspectives on the natural world. Boston, MA: Integral Books.

Ferdig, M. (2007). Sustainability leadership: Co-creating a sustainable future. Journal of Change Management, 1(7), 25-35.

102

Fischer, A. (2013). Radical eco-psychology; Psychology in the service of life. Albany, New York: SUNY Press.

Four Arrows. (2006). Unlearning the language of conquest: Scholars challenge anti-Indianism in America. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.

Four Arrows. (2013). Teaching truly; A curriculum to indigenize mainstream education. New York, NY: Peter Lange.

George, B., McLean, A., Mayer, D., & Sims, P. (2007, February). Discovering your authentic leadership. Harvard Business Review, Feb. 2007.

Goldhaber, D.E. (2000). Theories of human development: Integrative perspectives. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam. Goleman, D. (2002) Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence.

Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Goleman, D. (2009). Ecological intelligence; The hidden impacts of what we buy. New

York, NY: Broadway Books. Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and

greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Grey, W. (1993), Anthropocentrism and deep ecology. Australasian Journal of Philosophy,

71:4, 463–475. Hart, M.A. (2010). Indigenous worldviews, knowledge, and research: The development of

an indigenous research paradigm. Journal of Indigenous Voices in Social Work, 1, 1-16.

Hawken, P. (1994). Ecology of commerce: A declaration of sustainability. New York, NY:

Harper Business. Hawken, P. (2008). Blessed unrest: How the largest movement in the world came into

being and why no one saw it coming. New York, NY: Viking. Hawken, P., Lovins, A., & Lovins, H. (1999). Natural capitalism; Creating the next

industrial revolution. New York, NY: Little, Brown. Hedlund-de Witt, A. (2011). The rising culture and worldview of contemporary spirituality:

A Sociological study of potentials and pitfalls for sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 70, 1057-1065.

103

Hedlund-de Witt, A. (2012). Exploring worldviews and their relationships to sustainable lifestyles: Towards a new conceptual and methodological approach. Ecological Economics, 84, 74-83.

Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K.H. (1977). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hulme. M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Jacobs, D. (1997). Primal awareness: A true story of survival, transformation and awakening with the Raramuri shamans of Mexico. Rochester, Vt.: Inner Traditions International.

Joiner, B., Josephs, S. (2007). Leadership agility; Five levels of mastery for anticipating and initiating change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kahn, P. (1999). The Human relationship with nature: Development and culture. Boston,

MA: MIT Press.

Kahn, P. (2011). Technological nature; Adaptation and the future of human life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kahn, P., Hasbach, P. (2012). Eco-psychology; Science, totems, and the technological species. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kegan, R. (1980). Making meaning: The constructive-developmental approach to persons and practice. The Personnel and Guidance Journal. 58, 373-380.

Kegan, R. (1982). The Evolving self: Problem and process in human development.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. (2009). Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock the

potential in yourself and your organizations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kempton, W. (1996). Environmental values in American culture. Boston, MA: MIT.

104

Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Rubel, H., Reeves, M. & Fuisz- Kehrbach, S. (2013). Sustainability’s next frontier: Walking the talk on the sustainability issues that matter most, MIT Sloan Management Review Research Report, Cambridge, MA.

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to

socialization. In D. Goslin, Handbook of socialization: Theory and research. New York, NY: Rand McNally.

Koltko-Rivera, M. (2004). The psychology of worldviews, Review of General Psychology, 8, (1), 3–58.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Loevinger, J. (1977). Ego development: Conceptions and theories. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Loevinger, J. (1979). Construct validity of the Sentence Completion Test of ego development. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 281-311.

Loevinger, J. & Wessler, R. (1970). Measuring ego development (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lazlo, C. & Zhexembayeva, N. (2011). Embedded sustainability: The next big competitive advantage. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Press.

Lynam, A. (2012). Navigating a geography of sustainability worldviews: A developmental map. Journal of Sustainability Education. 3,1-14.

Macy, J. (1989). Awakening to the ecological self. In J. Plant, (Ed)., Healing the wounds: The promise of eco- feminism. Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers, pp. 201–211.

Macy, J. (2007). World as lover, world as self; Courage for global justice and ecological Renewal. Berkley, CA: Parallax Press.

Maltz, E., & Schein, S. (2013). Cultivating shared value initiatives; A three c’s approach, Journal of Corporate Citizenship. (47) 55-74.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5 ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage. McCauley, C.D., Drath, W. H., Palus, C. J., O’Connor, P.M., & Baker, B. A. (2006). The

use of constructive – developmental theory to advance the understanding of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 634.

McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to cradle; Remaking the way we make

things. New York, NY: North Point Press.

105

McEwen, C. & Schmidt, J. (2007). Leadership and the corporate sustainability challenge: Mindsets in action, Retrieved from http://www.avastoneconsulting.com/MindsetsInAction.pdf

McKibben, B. (2010). Eaarth; Making a life on a tough new planet. New York, NY: Times

Books. Meadows,D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea

Green. Naess, A. (1989). Ecology, community and lifestyle: Outline of an ecosophy. Cambridge,

MA: Cambridge University Press.

Naess, A., Drengson, A. & Devall, B. (2008). The ecology of wisdom: Writings by Arne Naess. Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint Press.

Naess, A. (1995). Self-realization: An ecological approach to being in the world. In A.

Drenson & Y. Inoue (Ed.), The Deep ecology movement: An introductory anthology (pp. 13-30). Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books.

Nicolaides, A. (2008). Learning their way through ambiguity: Explorations of how nine

developmentally mature adults make sense of ambiguity. [Ed.D. dissertation]. Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(08A), (UMI No. 3327082).

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

O'Brien, K. (2010). Responding to climate change: The need for an integral approach. In: S. Esbjörn-Hargens, (Ed.), Integral theory in action; Applied, theoretical and constructive perspectives on the AQAL model, (pp. 65–78). Albany, SUNY Press.

Obrien, K., (2006). Are we missing the point? Global environmental changes an issue of human security, Global Environmental Change, 16 (2006) 1-3.

Piaget, J. (1948). The moral judgment of the child. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Porter, M.E. & Kramer, M.R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review. 89 (1), 62-77.

Quinn, L., & Baltes, J. (2007). Leadership and the triple bottom line: Bringing sustainability and corporate responsibility to life. A CCL research white paper. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Quinn, L. & Dalton, M. (2009). Leading for sustainability: Implementing the tasks of

leadership. Corporate Governance, 9(1), 21-38

106

Ray, P., & Anderson, S., (2000). The cultural creatives; How 50 million people are

changing the world. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press. Rogers, K. (2012). Exploring our ecological selves within learning organizations, The

Learning Organization, Vol. 19 (1), 28-37. Rogers, K. (2013). Hermeneutic methods for a globalized world. Manuscript submitted for

publication. Rogers, K., & Hudson, B. (2011). The triple bottom line: The synergies of transformative

perceptions and practices for sustainability, OD practitioner, 3 (4), 3-9. Rooke, D., & Torbert, W. R. (1998). Organizational transformation as a function of CEO's

developmental stage, Organization Development Journal, 16(1), 11-28. Rooke, D., & Torbert, W. R. (2005). Seven transformations of leadership, Harvard

Business Review, 83, 66. Rost, J.C. (1997). Moving from individual to relationship: A postindustrial paradigm of

leadership. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 4, (4) pp. 3-16. Roszak, T., Gomes, M. & Kanner, A. (1995). Eco-psychology: Restoring the Earth healing

the mind. Berkley, CA: Sierra Club Books. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.

New York, NY: Bantam Doubleday Dell. Senge, P. (2008). The necessary revolution: How individuals and organizations are

working together to create a sustainable world. New York, NY: Doubleday. Seed, J., Macy, J., Fleming, P. & Naess, A. (1988). Thinking like a mountain: Towards a

council of all beings. Philadelphia, PA: New Society.

Sewall, L. (1995). This skill of ecological perception. In T. Roszak, M. Gomes, & A. Kanner, (Eds.), Eco-psychology: Restoring the Earth healing the mind. (pp. 201-215). Berkeley, CA: Sierra Club Books.

Shepard, P. (1973). The tender carnivore and the sacred game. New York, NY: Charles

Scribner’s Sons. Shepard, P. (1995). Nature and madness. In T. Roszak, M. Gomes, & A. Kanner, (Eds.)

Eco-psychology: Restoring the Earth healing the mind. (pp. 21-40). Berkeley, CA: Sierra Club Books.

107

Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. The Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 936.

Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stevens-Long, J. & Michaud, G. (2006).Theory in adult development: The new paradigm

and the problem of direction. In J. Demick & C. Andreoletti (Eds.) Handbook of adult development, NY: Kluwer/Plenum.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Torbert, W. R. (2000). A developmental approach to social science: Integrating first-,

second-, and third-person research/practice through single-, double-, and triple-loop feedback. Journal of Adult Development, 7(4), 255-268.

Torbert, W. (2004). Developmental action inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler.

Torbert, W.R. (2010). Listening into the dark: An essay testing the validity and efficacy of developmental action inquiry for describing and encouraging the transformation of self, society, and scientific inquiry. Paper presented at the Symposium on Research Across Boundaries, Luxembourg.

Torbert, W. R., & Herdman-Barker, E. (2008). Generating and measuring practical differences in leadership performance at postconventional action-logics: Developing the Harthill Leadership Development Profile. In A. Coombs, A. Pfaffenberger, & P. Marko (Eds.), The postconventional personality: Perspectives on higher development (pp. 39-56). New York, NY: SUNY Academic Press.

Visser, W., & Crane, A. (2010). Corporate sustainability and the individual: Understanding what drives sustainability professionals as change agents. SSRN Working Paper Series.

Weinrub, E. (2011). CSO backstory: How chief sustainability officers reached the c-suite. Retrieved from http://weinrebgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/CSO-Back-Story-by-Weinreb-Group.pdf

White, L. (1967). The historical roots of our ecologic crisis, Science 155, 1203–1207. Wilber, K. (2000). Integral psychology: Consciousness, spirit, psychology, therapy.

Boston, MA. Shambala. World Commission on Environment and Development, United Nations. (1987). Our

common future: The Brundtland Report. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

108

APPENDIX A

Corporate Sustainability Leadership Qualitative Interview Questions

BACKGROUND 1) How, or why, did you become involved with sustainability within your

organization?

2) In regards to your current work in corporate sustainability, what issues motivate you most?

3) Where do you think your deeper motivation comes from in regards to your passion

for these issues? LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

4) To what extent do you integrate sustainability into your leadership development processes?

5) Are sustainability initiatives included into overall performance evaluations? 6) Have you seen a relationship between employee engagement and organizational

sustainability efforts?

CULTURE CHANGE 7) How would you describe the pace of change related to sustainability within your

organization and what would accelerate the pace?

8) What type of learning needs to occur in individuals in order to fully integrate a mindset of sustainability?

MEASURING SUCCESS

9) How are you measuring your success both at the individual and organizational levels? Can you share any particular success stories?

10) What do you see as your biggest challenges to accomplishing your goals at both the

individual and organizational levels?

109

APPENDIX B

Ecological Worldview Qualitative Interview Questions

1) Perhaps we can start with some general background. How, or why, did you become involved with sustainability within your organization?

2) How would you describe your ecological worldview? What comes up for you when

you think about your relationship with nature?

3) Looking back, can you point to any transitions or events where you started to look differently at the world, yourself, and nature, or is this a worldview that you have held for a long time?

4) How do you think that your work in sustainability has had an impact on your

worldview?

5) How do you perceive global environmental issues today and what you see as the source of many of the problems?

6) Can you think of a situation or a dilemma where your ecological worldview was in

conflict with an action or activity you were involved in as part of your work? How did you resolve this?

7) What do you believe are some of the implications of ecological worldviews on

sustainability leadership development in general?

8) Shifting to more long-term view, can you describe any thoughts about the future role of business in society, especially in the context of ecological issues?

9) In regards to ecological worldviews, can you describe any differences between generations of leaders within your company or within cultures around the world?

10) Is there anything that we did not touch on or you would like to share before we wrap up?

110

APPENDIX C

Fielding Graduate University Informed Consent Form

How Sustainability Leaders Develop Their Ecological Worldviews

You have been asked to participate in a research study conducted by Steve Schein, a doctoral student in the School of Human and Organizational Systems at Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, CA. This study is supervised by Katrina Rogers, PhD. This research involves the study of ecological worldviews and leadership development and is part of Steve Schein's current doctoral course work and dissertation.

The study involves a 30-45 minute semi-structured interview to be arranged at your convenience. You may also be asked to complete a 45 min. leadership profile and a 10 min. online survey. Only the researcher will listen to any digital recordings of the interview and the information you provide will be kept strictly confidential. Any quotes included in the final research report will be anonymous or by generic job title. If any direct quotes will be used, permission will be sought from you first. Ultimately, the results of this research will be published in my dissertation and possibly in subsequent journals or books.

No compensation will be provided for participation and the researcher will provide you with a copy of the final study. If you have any questions about any aspect of this study or your involvement, please tell the Researcher before signing this form. You may also contact the supervising faculty if you have questions or concerns your participation in this study. The supervising faculty has provided contact information at the bottom of this form. If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant, contact the Fielding Graduate University IRB by email at irb@fielding.edu or by telephone at 805-898-4033.

Two copies of this informed consent form have been provided. Please sign both, indicating you have read, understood, and agree to participate in this research. Return one to the researcher and keep the other for your files. The Institutional Review Board of Fielding Graduate University retains the right to access the signed informed consent forms and other study documents.

____________________________________ NAME OF PARTICIPANT (please print)

_____________________________________ SIGNATURE OF PARTICIPANT AND DATE

Katrina Rogers, PhD Steve Schein

Fielding Graduate University Fielding Graduate University

2112 Santa Barbara Street 2208 Lupine Dr.

Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Ashland, OR 97520

805-687-1099 (541) 944-0526