Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Article 1 - Leadership For Sustainability

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 17

J Bus Ethics (2013) 112:369–384

DOI 10.1007/s10551-012-1278-6

Leadership for Sustainability: An Evolution of Leadership Ability


Louise Metcalf • Sue Benn

Received: 13 January 2012 / Accepted: 8 March 2012 / Published online: 10 April 2012
 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract This article examines the existing confusion over both theory and practice, and while much has been argued
the multiple leadership styles related to successful imple- about the definition, it is still an ambiguous and complex
mentation of corporate social responsibility/sustainability in umbrella term of contested meaning (Matten and Moon
organisations. The researchers find that the problem is the 2005). As such, it is often used synonymously with other
complex nature of sustainability itself. We posit that or- terms such as corporate responsibility and corporate sus-
ganisations are complex adaptive systems operating within tainability (Waddock and Bodwell 2007), as we use it in
wider complex adaptive systems, making the problem of this article. The ambiguity of CSR makes it problematic as
interpreting just in what way an organisation is to be sus- a practice, but it has gained popularity nonetheless as a
tainable, an extraordinary demand on leaders. Hence, lead- broad concept (Crook 2005) commonly signifying the
ership for sustainability requires leaders of extraordinary responsibility of the corporation to stakeholders repre-
abilities. These are leaders who can read and predict through senting the issues of ‘people, planet, profit’ (e.g. Cramer
complexity, think through complex problems, engage groups et al. 2006). The implementation of CSR as a practice is
in dynamic adaptive organisational change and have the still a ‘black box’ in the literature (Linnenluecke et al.
emotional intelligence to adaptively engage with their own 2007), with the antecedents of CSR, such as the type of
emotions associated with complex problem solving. Leaders leadership behaviours that trigger or shape corporate
and leadership is a key interpreter of how sustainability of the responses in this domain (Basu and Palazzo 2008; Wald-
organisation ‘links’ to the wider systems in which the orga- man et al. 2006) left largely unexplored.
nisation sits, and executing that link well requires unusual Studies of CSR in organisations and industries have
leaders and leadership systems. largely ignored the place of the corporate leader in
implementing CSR initiatives (Waldman and Siegel 2008).
Keywords Sustainability  Corporate social However, limited more recent research on leader values,
responsibility  Complexity ethics and style in regard to CSR has attempted to address
this question resulting in a wide variety of leadership styles
having been associated directly or indirectly with CSR (e.g.
Corporate sustainability, or more commonly, corporate Campbell 2006; Waldman and Siegel 2008; Angus-Leppan
social responsibility (CSR) is a relatively new and growing et al. 2010). Campbell (2006) argues that early CSR mes-
area of interest for academics and practitioners, in terms of sages connecting business to community were communi-
cated by ‘far sighted’ business leaders, who were not
entirely altruistic. Waldman and Siegel (2008) point out
L. Metcalf (&) that although there is a dearth of research in this area, the
Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia intellectual stimulation competency of transformational
e-mail: louise.metcalf@mq.edu.au leaders was most associated with ‘strategic CSR’, strategic
CSR being CSR that is conducted because it is of strategic
S. Benn
University of Technology, Sydney, NSW, Australia benefit to the firm. Finally, Angus-Leppan et al. (2010)
e-mail: suzanne.benn@uts.edu.au found that there were essentially two types of leadership

123
370 L. Metcalf, S. Benn

and organisational systems in strategically CSR organisa- complex systems, a realistic view of human behav-
tions, an autocratic-bureaucratic system and an authentic- iour and well-being, the critical role of natural and
consultative system. These last researchers also propose social capital, and the irreducible uncertainty sur-
that transformational leaders would be a useful style to rounding these issues. (p. 2488)
mediate between the two systems due to their debating
As Beddoe et al. (2009) indicate, achieving sustainability is
style. These studies, and related research on ethical lead-
a complex problem for all agents in the system: organisa-
ership, require further clarification (Waldman and Siegel
tions and people alike.
2008), however, as their disparate findings on leadership
According to Metcalf and Benn (2012) in order to
style alone indicate, there are foundational theoretical
achieve sustainability, leaders of organisations must rec-
issues that must be addressed to improve CSR implemen-
ognise that organisations operate in a wider complex
tation and this may also assist in solving some age old
adaptive system(s). This wider system(s) is the complex
leadership theory conflicts.
interconnected and dynamic environmental, economic and
In this article, we examine the existing disagreement and
social systems within which businesses are embedded as
confusion over leadership characteristics related to the
agents. Metcalf and Benn (2012) argue that leaders have an
successful implementation of corporate sustainability or
interpretive role in the complex adaptive system, essen-
CSR in organisations alongside the complex nature of the
tially leaders, and leadership, is likely to be the element of
problem itself. We argue that the complex and dynamic
the organisation that ‘makes or breaks’ its adaptivity to the
nature of interpreting just how and in what way an orga-
complex adaptive system(s) that surround and interact with
nisation is to be sustainable means that leadership for
it. These researchers also point out that effective whole
sustainability requires leaders of extraordinary abilities.
Earth sustainability may be less about human moral deci-
These are proposed to be leaders who can think through
sion making and more about complex problem solving,
complex problems, engage groups in dynamic organisa-
with most leaders either unable or discouraged to explore
tional change and have high emotional intelligence (EI) to
the full complexity of the organisation’s role or impact
deal with the personal emotions associated with complex-
within its wider systems environment.
ity. In essence, we argue that leaders and leadership is a
Metcalf and Benn (2012) are not alone in their argument
key interpreter of how the complexity of CSR ‘links’ the
that sustainability as a complex problem of how organi-
external environment to the organisation, and that this link
sation relate to their environment. Thompson and Cavaleri
is a powerful mediator for successful implementation of
(2010) agree, indicating that organisational sustainability
CSR. This is a type of leadership that is, arguably, yet to be
occurs within a complex system, successful navigation of
seen or accepted in organisations around the world.
which requires extensive trial and error learning and hence
extensive build up of organisational knowledge. Further,
McElroy (2006) proposed that achieving sustainability is
Sustainability is a Complex Problem
contingent on unfettered knowledge of the human impact
on the world and the capacity to learn from it. However,
Corporate and human sustainability is widely recognised as
researchers are yet to draw out how this is then translated to
a complex problem, in 2009 the National Academy of
the organisation itself, although Metcalf and Benn (2012)
Sciences of the United States of America published a paper
suggest that leaders and leadership may be the key, they do
in its proceedings that demonstrated the level of com-
not indicate any particularly leadership type. This article
plexity required to reach a sustainable human society. In
explores what that leader type and related leader compe-
this article, distinguished scientists Beddoe, Costanza,
tencies may be.
Farley, Garza, Kent, Kubiszewski, Martineza, McCowen,
The idea that organisations operate within a complex
Murphy, Myers, Ogden, Stapleton, and Woodward con-
environment is also not new. Researchers investigating the
clude that:
resource based view (RBV) of the firm have long viewed
…the task is huge and will take a concerted and organisations in terms of the way they work within their
sustained effort if we hope to make the transition a environment, this is due to the critical requirement of RBV,
relatively smooth one. It will require a whole systems that is, that the relevant resources, whatever their type (i.e.
approach at multiple scales in space and time. It will resources, capabilities or dynamic capabilities), are specific
require integrated, systems-level redesign of our to the firm and not capable of easy imitation by rivals
entire socio-ecological regime, focused explicitly and (Barney 1986). In a review article, Lockett et al. (2009)
directly on the goal of sustainable quality of life summarise the empirical evidence existing for RBV and
rather than the proxy of unlimited material growth. It conclude that there are certainly methodological problems,
must acknowledge physical limits, the nature of however, the concept of organisational success through

123
Leadership for Sustainability: An Evolution of Leadership Ability 371

interaction with its competitive environment is not one. dynamically changing over time (dynamics); (2) neither
These authors conclude that: the internal strengths of an structure nor dynamics are disclosed (intransparency); (3)
organisation are important to successful strategy; history the goal structure is not straight forward: in dealing with a
and experience of the competitive environment helps to complex problem, a person is confronted with a number of
shape the organisation itself; part of the process is the different goal facets to be weighted and coordinated
interpretation of resource functionality and use by man- (Dörner and Kreuzig 1983).
agers; RBV is dynamic because resources availability Complex problem solving has been analysed using con-
changes over time; and finally that competitive advantage trolled laboratory type experiments and ‘Naturalistic Deci-
is usually internally developed. This theory is also highly sion Making’ (Klein 2008; Klein et al. 1993; Lipshitz et al.
adaptable as it is based on the ‘facts’ of how organisations 2001; Zsambok and Klein 1997), rather than compete, these
operate, it is about function, and so does not require lim- approaches complement each other in helping us understand
iting assumptions, meaning that it can legitimately be how people solve complex problems. Whereas, naturalistic
combined with many other theories, a method that suits decision making exploration provides rich data on the pro-
complex problems (Gray and Wood 1991). cess of problem solving, the uncontrolled nature of the sit-
In fact, organisational under performance in its envi- uation means that we can never be entirely sure of
ronment has also been indicated to be the result of a lack of conclusions (Funke 2010). Laboratory experiments offer
organisational knowledge and problem solving capacity. high control but risk the possibility of creating unrealistic
Cavaleri and Sievert (2005) surmise that errors in shared environments with equally questionable outcomes (Funke
knowledge and theory within an organisation result in 2010).
systemic issues and, hence, under performance of that Broadly, we can propose how human beings engage
organisation. However, as Thompson and Cavaleri (2010) with complex problems as Fig. 1. Here, we demonstrate
point out, real life trial and error learning is costly for complex problem solving in a general model, developed by
organisations, even when managers are encouraged to us, with recognition that it is necessarily a simplification.
develop scenarios in their heads about the effects of their We propose this merely as a general heuristic for the
decisions they tended to be unreliable about estimating the purposes of thinking about the problem of complex prob-
dynamics (Forrester 1961). However, this is likely to be lem solving. The diagram proposes that (1) We recognise a
due to the context they are trying to scenario about, as it complex problem, (2) Engage cognitively, emotionally and
can be very difficult to be accurate about nonlinear motivationally, (3) Generate a mental model of what we
dynamics through mental simulation alone. are dealing with, (4) Theorise creatively, (5) Make some
Highly complex problems are also referred to as decisions, plans and predictions, (6) Decide on how to
‘wicked’ problems (Churchman 1967). These are problems communicate the solution, (7) Communicate/act the solu-
that appear daunting because they have a large number of tion and (8) Test the solution, then restart the thinking
interacting elements and there is an absence of proven process, hopefully refining the solution over iterations.
theoretical approaches for the solution (Learmonth et al. As Funke (2010) concludes in his review of complex
2011). As Learmonth et al. (2011) state, sustainability and problem solving and complex cognition, complex cogni-
human interaction with the natural environment is a highly tion connects to emotion and motivation so inherently that
complex and therefore a wicked problem. These neither affect nor motivation can be said to be mere by-
researchers indicate that agent-based computer modelling products of complex cognition. In fact, at least three dif-
of systems may be the best way to generating those theo- ferent approaches in the area demonstrate the importance
retical approaches towards solutions. They suggest this of affect on problem solving cognition: (1) the ‘affect as
approach because it allows for difficult to predict, nonlinear
outcomes, which are solutions that human beings may find
too complex to generate by rational or logical thought
alone. This argument further supports the notion that CSR Emotions, Generate a
and sustainability are complex problems. Complex Cognition mental Theorise
Problem and model of the Creatively
Motivation problem

Human Cognitive Processes of Complex Problem


Solving Test solution Decide how to Make decisions
Communicate
communicate the plans and
/ Act the
decision to the predictions
A complex problem is one that fulfils the following criteria: solution
group
(1) aspects that are relevant to the solution process are large
(complexity), highly interconnected (connectivity), and Fig. 1 Complex problem solving heuristic

123
372 L. Metcalf, S. Benn

information’ approach by Schwarz (1990), (2) the ‘assim- recognises, complex problem solving involves more than
ilation–accommodation’ approach by Fiedler (2001) and just cognitive processes, it includes emotion and motivation,
(3) the ‘affect-infusion’ model by Forgas (2001). In aspects that are not found in simple problem solving. Emo-
essence, the more complex a problem becomes, the more tions and the motivation to persevere in complex, nonlinear
important it is to consider how emotions and motivation and even chaotic environments, alongside the recognition
interplay to the person’s thinking about a solution. that our own sensemaking is inherently self-biased, are
This acknowledgement of how feelings and motivation equally important as the ability to create a logical argument
effects complex problem solving has also been recognised by that followers and leaders can use for their own sensemaking.
researcher interested in ‘sensemaking’. As defined by Weick The complexity of complex problem solving as complex
et al. (2005) sensemaking is ‘…the ongoing, retrospective cognition becomes even more compounded when one con-
development of plausible images that rationalize what peo- siders the multifaceted nature of leadership itself. In sum-
ple are doing’ (p. 49), essentially the process we use to make mary of what we have discussed above, in asking the
sense of what we do in the world through retrospection. question of how CSR leadership creates sustainability in
Thompson and Cavaleri (2010) indicate that when organisations we are essentially layering complex problems
analytical, logical approaches to a problem are not possi- over each other. Sustainability, as we have shown, is a
ble, managers tend to rely on their own sensemaking, complex problem, how human beings solve complex prob-
which they also found to be driven by their personal needs. lems is a complex problem (complex cognition as suggested
This bias to the self is also reflected in the leader–follower by Funke 2010), and leadership is also hotly contested in the
model proposed by Keller (2003) where follower sense- literature, indicating that it too is a complex problem. Hence,
making of what makes a ‘leader’ is shown to be influenced the question of ‘how CSR leadership creates sustainability’
by childhood attachment styles of the follower. In addition, is a multilayered complex problem in and of itself.
a relatively common, but complex, executive decision
making experiment by Westaby et al. (2010) found that
leader decision making and sensemaking around reasons What is Leadership?
for decisions involved not only logical/rational decision
making but also attitudinal, normative and control per- Leaders are not necessarily managers, although the study of
ceptions. These results echo those found by dissonance leadership is dominated by a dyadic relationship between
researchers, indicating that leaders who experience a dis- formally designated leaders (or managers) and their sub-
continuity between their reasons and their choices will be ordinates. The much-studied field of leadership is plagued
motivated to seek out further reasoning to reduce the with a plethora of contested definitions (Jackson 2005),
negative sensation of dissonance (De Dreu and Van Kleef however, here we take Yukl’s (2001) unifying premise that
2004; Jonas et al. 2005; Jonas et al. 2001), even after the the only consistent definition of leadership is that of a
decision is made, indicating that the way we solve complex process of influence.
problems is not limited by logical/rational decision When defined as a process of influence, leadership is
making. broader than management. Influence can come from
In summary, the way human beings tend to solve complex stakeholders inside and outside the firm (e.g. Frooman
problems is complex in and of itself. Funke’s (2010) term of 1999) and may be a system of behaviour, i.e. group
‘complex cognition’ seems most appropriate since, as he behaviour, rather than the behaviour of an individual.

Search for Attractor Basin –


Leadership of Variety=
process of experimentation,
challenging ideas, innovation

Attractor Basin Found –


Leadership of Convergence = Attractor BasinFound – Leadership
stability of human social of Unity= stability through norms,
structure through rules “one team, one organisation”

Human Perception of Time

Fig. 2 Complex systems leadership theory

123
Leadership for Sustainability: An Evolution of Leadership Ability 373

Hence, leadership moves from the concept of leadership as Siegel’s reference to the personal values of a CSR leader is
a relationship to the concept of leadership as a social at least indicative of authentic, ethical and moral leadership
process that contains complex relationships (Barker 2001). styles. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that our
For example, Gemmil and Oakley (1992) define leadership understanding of CSR can be usefully informed by the
as ‘a social process… of dynamic collaboration, where literature on authentic, ethical and moral leadership mod-
individuals and organisation members authorize them- els. We note that Siegel (in the letter exchange of Waldman
selves and others to interact in ways that experiment with and Siegel 2008) indicates that moral leadership may
new forms of intellectual and social meaning’ (p. 124). In actually be a driver of CSR which may also be of strategic
discussing leadership in more detail, it is important to do so benefit to organisations. De Hoogh and Den Hartog (2008)
in the context of CSR. As leadership styles are often con- found that leaders who demonstrated a sense of right versus
text specific, we next explore current understandings of wrong, duty, concern for others, concern for consequences
leadership as it applies to CSR, noting Waldman’s point (in and also had a tendency to judge their own behaviour, were
the letter exchange between Waldman and Siegel 2008) seen as ethical leaders. In particular, a sense of duty was
that there is very little mention of the role of leadership in found to link most strongly with the perception of ethical
the academic CSR literature. leadership. This type of leadership was most prominent in
non-profit organisations. In addition, leaders who value the
breadth of their organisation’s stakeholders appear to be
Leadership Styles Linked to CSR
more successful in their leadership positions, according to
the financial and social success achieved by their organi-
As leading scholars, Waldman and Siegel (2008) agree in
sation (De Hoogh and Den Hartog 2008).
their letter exchange, empirical studies of CSR have largely
In Sully de Luque et al. (2006) researchers examined the
ignored the place of the corporate leader in implementing
values of 500 CEOs in 17 countries, asking what factor or
CSR initiatives. Although top managers are obviously in
values were most important in their decision making. The
the best position to influence these types of strategies and
results indicated that leaders with strong economic values
projects, researchers have previously failed to examine the
were viewed as authoritarian and failed to be visionary,
effect of leader values, ethics and style in regards to CSR
however, leaders with strong stakeholder values were
(Waldman and Siegel 2008). The letter exchange reveals
viewed as visionary and not authoritarian. Finally, this
Waldman’s preference for strategic CSR, defined as
study also found that visionary leaders with strong stake-
‘…dimensions of CSR that are likely to be matrixed in the
holder values were in the most financially successful
business and corporate strategies of firms…’ (p. 118),
companies. Ethical leadership has been positively linked to
which we believe translates to a version of Matten and
other elements of organisational effectiveness (Brown
Moon’s (2008) explicit CSR.
et al. 2005; De Hoogh and Den Hartog 2008; Khuntia and
In their 2008 letter exchange Waldman resists the use-
Suar 2004), De Hoogh and Den Hartog (2008) found that
fulness of purely ‘values-driven’ CSR, or CSR driven by
‘morality & fairness’ and role clarification were both
the manager’s personal values, as he argues that managers
positively correlated with optimism about the future and
are not accountable to society, but to the firm’s share-
perceived top level management effectiveness. However,
holders and furthermore he argues managers have no way
as Waldman and Siegel (2008) agree in their letter
of knowing the true needs of stakeholders. Waldman’s
exchange, more cross-level research is needed to clarify
argument implies that the most appropriate leadership style
links between leadership behaviours and styles and CSR.
for organisations implementing CSR strategies is that
Walumbwa et al. (2008) also found that authentic
which is strategically driven and which does not require
leadership, where leader behaviour keeps its integrity with
maintaining an integrity to personal values. Siegel, on the
the leaders’ personal values, had strong correlations with
other hand, argues that leader integrity to personal morality
specific job outcomes. These researchers used their own
can yield positive outcomes for businesses and may actu-
questionnaire measure of authenticity and defined this
ally be the driver of CSR strategies in organisations
leadership style as:
(Waldman and Siegel 2008). Although valuable, neither of
these viewpoints take into account complexity theory and …a pattern of leader behaviour that draws upon and
therefore they are predominantly focused on an introspec- promotes both positive psychological capacities and a
tive form of CSR leadership, either internal to the leader or positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-aware-
internal to the organisation and shareholders. ness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced
Waldman (in the letter exchange of Waldman and Siegel processing of information, and relational transpar-
2008) does not link his strategically driven CSR leadership ency on the part of leaders working with followers,
to any empirically researched leadership style. However, fostering positive self-development. (p. 94)

123
374 L. Metcalf, S. Benn

They surveyed 478 students with a mean age of 32 years CSR. Thomas Hobbes, in his book Leviathan (1651, 1985),
and found authentic leadership to correlate positively with argued this form of influence to be the only way to control
job performance. These researchers also found smaller, but selfishness in the commercial world. This style is charac-
still significant, positive correlations with job satisfaction terised by coercion and a distinct lack of democratic pro-
and organisational climate. This finding of the value of cess in decision making (Van Vugt et al. 2004). Although
leader integrity was also found in Thomas et al. (2004) autocratic leadership has been largely ignored in the
where leadership integrity was associated with several research literature for the past decade, researchers studying
positive business outcomes including reduced business the topic in the second half of the twentieth century found
costs. support for Hobbes’s argument, showing that a controlling
Finally, although transformational leaders are not nec- leader can effectively resolve and prevent social dilemmas
essarily described as ethical or socially responsible, the (Arrow 1951; Hardin 1968; Messick and Brewer 1983;
theory on this form of leadership does require that such Ziller 1965). Interestingly, group members have been
leaders are trusted (Boerner et al. 2007) which indicates a found to be very willing to give up their freedom of
potential link to integrity through congruous behaviours. decision making to their leader to solve a social dilemma
Transformational leadership has long been linked to (Foddy and Crettendon 1994; Messick and Brewer 1983;
organisational performance through individual studies and Rutte and Wilke 1984; Samuelson and Messick 1986a, b;
meta-analyses (DeGroot et al. 2000). In particular, trans- Wilke 1991). However, this style has also been found to be
formational leadership has a strong link to innovation (Shin the least popular choice among groups seeking a leader to
and Zhou 2003) which Boerner et al. (2007) argue is lar- improve their social performance (Van Vugt and De Cre-
gely due to the mediating factor of debate that this lead- mer 1999). In a later study, Van Vugt et al. (2004) also
ership style encourages, thereby creating an environment found that autocratic leaders are less likely to have stable
where debate is used to make sense of novel ideas and new numbers of staff in voluntary group situations as people
areas. feel less loyalty to the group, thus impacting staff
As discussed, authentic leadership, ethical leadership engagement at work and hindering the development of a
and transformational leadership have each been indirectly positive internal CSR culture.
or directly linked to corporate sustainability and CSR.
These three leadership styles show a degree of conceptual
overlap although the literature also describes some distinct
differences between them. Ethical leaders display behav- Leadership in Complex Environments
iours that indicate they seek to do the right thing (Trevino
et al. 2000), they are consistent in their pursuit of their Crossan et al. (2008) focus on describing a framework for
ethical standards and they do not compromise when others effective strategic leadership in dynamic environments.
pressure them (Brown et al. 2005). Ethical leadership and Hypercompetitive and increasingly complex environments
authentic leadership share an emphasis on honesty, open- have given rise to a need to deal with extensive amounts of
ness and integrity as well as a desire to do what is right. information where continuity of existing business opera-
However, ethical leaders have been found to use punish- tions may not be assumed (Foster and Kaplan 2001),
ment to hold people accountable for ethical conduct thereby increasing demands on the skills of leaders.
(Brown and Trevino 2006), something which is not men- Researchers have proposed that the new key responsibility
tioned for authentic or transformational leadership. Trans- of leadership is sensemaking of the external environment
formational leaders are charismatic, they inspire, stimulate as leaders must help the organisation stay aware of and
intellectually, consider the individual and influence through adapt to the rapid changes in its industry and new stake-
idealised visions. However, there is no indication that holder demands (Crossan and Hulland 2002; Vera and
transformational leaders are aware of their own motiva- Crossan 2004). Given this level of complexity, it seems
tions and values, something which is true for authentic unlikely that a single leader will have sufficient informa-
leaders (Walumbwa et al. 2008). Walumbwa et al. (2008) tion to develop correct decisions for the organisation. Some
also argue that transformational leaders aim to develop scholars suggest ‘shared leadership’ as the preferred model,
followers into leaders, whereas authentic leaders aim to arguing that leaders encouraging leadership behaviour
develop followers towards personal authenticity, not nec- throughout the organisation will be more effective in this
essarily a leadership role. type of environment (Ireland and Hill 2005; Pearce and
Adding to this confusion of leadership links to CSR is Conger 2003), this also supports the idea that leadership
another, strongly contrasting style: autocratic leadership. systems of behaviour, i.e. group behaviour, may take this
This was perhaps the first leadership style to be linked to role.

123
Leadership for Sustainability: An Evolution of Leadership Ability 375

If, as suggested, we take CSR to be both ambiguous and from this single case study concerning this leadership style.
complex, then this research indicates that group or shared However, drawing on the example of the Mission Church,
leadership and a sensemaking approach may be the most it does seem reasonable to predict that CSR implementa-
appropriate for organisations struggling with a demand for tion in organisations may encourage this type of leadership
increasing social and environmental responsibility in their approach due to the potential for ambiguity and complexity
industry environment. If this is the case then organisations associated with conflicting stakeholder demands.
struggling with CSR implementation may force the sur-
facing of unofficial/emergent leaders. These are individuals
who emerge as leaders from a group of peers. Emergent Complex Systems Leadership Theory
leaders are not formally appointed so they exert influence
through the willing support of other group members (De In fact, the style of leadership described by Uhl-Bien et al.
Souza and Klein 1995). They become leaders by exhibiting (2007) and Plowman et al. (2007) reflects the dynamic
behaviour that others perceive as leader-like (Lord and nonlinear conceptualisation of organisations as complex
Maher 1991). In particular, researchers have found emer- and/or complex adaptive systems as described by Metcalf
gent leaders to show intelligence, masculinity, dominance and Benn (2012) and hence the place of leadership in com-
(Lord et al. 1986) and self-monitoring (Kickul and Neu- plex systems. In this theory, human systems self-organise to
man 2000). Stewart (2002) also found emergent leaders be complex systems, and if they also adapt to their envi-
were more likely to be extroverted and open. Interestingly, ronment they are termed complex adaptive systems (Holland
although emergent leadership is touted as a substitute for 1995), hence leadership in this theory is an emergent phe-
traditional hierarchical leadership (Rubin et al. 2002), there nomena of distributed intelligence (Hazy 2006), it is a group
is not yet any empirical data relating emergent leadership behaviour pattern. We note that, again, this is similar to but
with ethical behaviour or CSR. not the same as the term ‘emergent leadership’ in the lead-
However, the very complexity of CSR in organisations ership literature, where as ‘emergent leadership’ in the lit-
means that another potential style of leadership may be that erature refers to a single person who ‘emerges’ from a group
of complexity leadership. As Uhl-Bien et al. (2007) explain, to be a leader, leadership as an emergent phenomena is not
complexity leaders enable the future rather than direct it, limited to a single person, it is group behaviour which may or
they use language to create shared meaning from conflict that may not anoint a single person to be called ‘leader’. In sys-
they themselves surface, creating conditions for people to tems language, this distributed intelligence form of leader-
innovate as individuals and learn as a social group. The ship is described using systems language to be either:
business benefits of complexity leadership are yet to be leadership of convergence, leadership of variety, or leader-
demonstrated empirically, however, the case study of the ship of unity (Hazy 2006).
‘Mission Church’ (Plowman et al. 2007) plays out some Systems theory describes organisations as nonlinear
aspects of this form of leadership. This unique study of a dynamic systems that tend to exhibit self-organising and
church undergoing radical change, involving an alteration of emergent phenomena (Holland 1995; McKelvey 2001,
attendees from the middle class to the homeless resulted in a 2003; Prigogine and Stengers 1984; Stacey 1996; Thietart
need for leaders to bring about rapid organisational change. and Forgues 1995). Hence, any ‘stable’ emergent structure
Plowman et al. (2007) found that leaders refrained from of these nonlinear dynamic human systems is thought of as
dictating direction and instead took on a role of disrupting having a basin of attraction, meaning that the system, upon
existing patterns, surfacing conflict, embracing uncertainty, being affected by its environment, will return to its’ ori-
using simple rules and enabling sensemaking to encourage ginal state. Like water in a bowl, it is nudged and then has
a new direction. In essence, the leaders of the church ripples across the surface, but the water stays within the
deliberately provoked discussion of conflicting ideas, ref- bowl and eventually settles back down. Leadership that
ormation of habits and the embrace of uncertainty to ensure encourages this stable state, or encourages convergence
that the issues the church was facing were not ignored, and around the basin of attraction is called Leadership of
that the group developed its own solution. The result was a Convergence (Hazy 2006).
reinvigorated church with local recognition for its ministry If the complex demands of the environment surrounding
of the homeless. It must be noted that complexity leader- the human system increase, the attractor basin becomes
ship is not ‘emergent leadership’, although these two may shallow and any nudge from the environment means that
seem similar. Complexity leadership is a process of lead- the water runs the risk of jumping the lip of the bowl, nor
ership performed by leaders and others in the organisation, will it settle back to its previous structure (Levinthal 1997).
emergent leadership is an event of a single person This could result in the disintegration of the human system
‘emerging’ as a leader from a group of peers. In our view, (organisation), or, if another attractor basin is possible and
further empirical work is needed to support the evidence explored, it could mean that the human system takes on

123
376 L. Metcalf, S. Benn

another attractor basin, another structure, and converges their characteristics, or personality. For example, early
again. We have endeavoured to describe complex systems researchers (Stogdill 1948; Yukl 2001; Dobbins et al.
leadership theory in Fig. 2 using a kind of organisation 1990; Bennis 1984) found that leaders differ from non-
‘timeline’ to demonstrate when an organisation finds an leaders on: intelligence, honesty and integrity, self-confi-
attractor basin and when it is searching for one. dence, ambition and high energy, task-relevant knowledge,
This conceptualisation is neatly supported by the Mis- the desire to lead, self-monitoring and charisma. However,
sion Church (Plowman et al. 2007) case study, where Stogdill’s seminal challenge of trait theories also found that
leaders in the church provoked the exploration of alterna- traits only predict approximately 10 % of leadership suc-
tive attractor basin/church forms. It seems likely that they cess (Stogdill 1948). One of the proposed reasons for this
sensed their church’s attractor basin had become shallow low predictability was the problem of what followers
and needed to find new possibilities. If understood in this actually saw from leaders. Personality is a psychological
way, complexity leadership then becomes a way of possi- construct and may not be displayed consistently to fol-
bly speeding up this search for another attractor basin. This lowers, hence the next step was to look at behavioural
kind of exploration of new structural forms of the human styles.
system is called: Leadership of Variety and is observed as a Behavioural theories describe the actual behaviours
process of exploration and experimentation (Hazy 2006). leaders use, and hence how leaders interact with others,
Hazy (2006) argues that the combination of individual, including followers. The first of these was the innovative
intra-organisation leadership activity (which might be as Managerial Grid, created by Blake and Mouton (1964)
simple as effective team work of subordinates or largely which broadly categorised leader behaviour as ‘concern for
subconscious agreed to social values of a team) combined people’ and ‘concern for production’, the juxtaposition of
with the activity of ‘higher level’ official leaders, actually each producing nine potential leadership styles. Ekvall and
creates the emergent ‘leadership’, and that, in effect, we Arvonen (1991) then added development-oriented behav-
often misattribute official leaders with charisma and high iour to update the theory for what they saw were more
intelligence when these two forms of ‘leadership’, the dynamic times. In general, behavioural styles theories have
single ‘titled’ leader and the group behaviour type of been more successful in predicting leadership success,
leadership, work together to create the style of ‘leader’ that however, although they take into account the perceptions of
we attribute organisational success to. Hazy (2006) uses the followers, they do not consider the different environments
obvious power of a raging river as a metaphor for this leaders must lead within. Situational leadership theories
effect of misattributing organisational success to a single endeavour to fill that gap.
leader, asserting that it is the human system as a whole that Situational theories have tried to determine the critical
is performing well, not merely those at the top and it may situational factors that affect leadership success. Fiedler
be that those at the top are just an expression of the group (2001) developed the first contingency model of leadership,
leadership behaviour. referring to: leader–member relations, task structure and
position power, as the key factors involved. Basically, how
these factors interact determine what a leader should do
Leadership Style Theory and Complex Systems and thus how successful they can be. This was then
Leadership advanced and popularised by Hersey and Blanchard (1974,
1982) who extended the theory into four prescriptive
In fact most leadership styles discussed in the literature can leadership styles and four stages of development. Path-
be subcategorised in terms of their aligned effect on the Goal theory is another form of situation leadership theory
human complex system of the organisation and this is what based on situation modelling and decision-making struc-
we will attempt to do here for the main leadership theories. tures (Keller 2003). Situational leadership theory has
Broadly speaking, leadership theories fit into five higher strong intuitive appeal and is widely accepted, although its
order categorisations: trait theories, behavioural theories, underlying assumptions have been challenged (Hambleton
situational theories, skill-based theories and visionary and Gumpert 1982) due to the concern that the wide variety
theories. These theories have developed in the literature of potential situations could mean that the concept itself is
alongside wider social thinking about leadership, moving less than useful.
from the idea of the ‘great man’, to a single or multiple Transformational leadership theories endeavour to move
leadership personality/behaviour type or combination of past previous theories through the recognition of the power
types, and then to what is required to transform or mobilise of inspiration. These types of leaders are often seen as
groups. ‘heroic’ and are proposed to have a profound effect on
Trait theories were first postulated in the 1940s and are followers (Burns 1978), at least in the short term. They are
the common way of describing well-known leaders through charismatic, they excite, arouse and inspire followers and

123
Leadership for Sustainability: An Evolution of Leadership Ability 377

encourage debate (Bass and Avolio 1990). Transforma- organisational culture values or through discussion-based
tional leaders are seen to achieve something on top of what agreement. This diagram helps to align multiple leadership
transactional leadership can achieve. There is much support theories alongside the current researchers’ exploration of
for the effectiveness of transformational leaders, even the organisation as a complex adaptive system, it demon-
across some cultures, however, transformational leadership strates the theory that the appropriate leadership ‘style’ is
has been found to be best used in short bursts as ‘heroic’ dependent on the adaptive state of the organisation, or
leaders are often seen as threats to others and are often cut group, i.e. it demonstrates the importance of whether the
down in political manoeuvres (Bass and Avolio 1990). social group is converging, searching or stabilising and
Transformational leadership, like all the previous theo- hence what leadership ‘styles’, and hence which individual
ries, also suffers from an assumption that leaders must treat leaders, are promoted, emerge or are surfaced by the group.
all subordinates the same way. LMX theory (leader–
member exchange theory) indicates that leaders not only
treat all subordinates differently, they do so in relation to Complex Systems Theory and Sustainability
the amount of ‘trust’ they have for their subordinates
(Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995). Further, the manipulation of As discussed previously, if we accept the idea that organ-
this differentiation is very powerful in contributing to isations operate within what Metcalf and Benn (2012) call
leader success (Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995). a broad set of complex interactive and dynamic environ-
All of these popular leadership theories, along with ment, economic and social systems, the CIDEESS, it’s then
those discussed previously in relation to CSR/sustainabil- logical to also look at the organisation itself as a complex
ity, can be shown to link conceptually to complex systems adaptive system or as complex adaptive processes as Sta-
leadership theory, juxtaposed against the complex systems cey (2000) proposes, thereby resulting in a layered com-
leadership concepts. In Fig. 3, we layer these theories over plex view of organisation management and leadership for
the complex systems leadership theory diagram created for sustainability. This interaction of systems/processes then
Fig. 2, this is our interpretation of how leadership styles returns us to the RBV of the firm, where organisations are
relate to complex systems leadership theory and, as such, best adapted to their environment through their interaction
we are open to other interpretations, however, given the with the market. RBV allows us to view organisations as
previous review these diagram locations seem most logical. complex and assists in framing our assertion that organi-
This diagram suggests that Leadership of Convergence, sations need to adapt to a complex environment, while also
rule or stability based leadership, is seen in forms Auto- providing some guidance on how to discover and interpret
cratic, Bureaucratic, Ethical and Moral styles of leadership. that adaptation.
Search for Attractor Basin or Leadership of Variety is seen As previously indicated, RBV suggests that there are
in Transformational, Complexity and Emergent styles, heterogeneous or firm-level differences that allow some
where exploration or search for new ideas is prominent. organisations to sustain competitive advantage in the
Leadership of Unity, where norms or organisational culture marketplace (Barney 1986; Noda and Collis 2001; Wern-
is aligned, is seen in Collaborative, Participative, Shared, erfelt 1984). These differences can be relationships or
Authentic and Visionary/Stakeholder styles of leadership, resources (Barney 1986; Collis 1991; Black and Boal 1994;
basically any style that involves shared connection or Miller and Shamsie 1996). Miller (2003) in a study of two
collaboration either on human personal values, dozen firms found evidence for the RBV, however, not in

Search for Attractor Basin –


Leadership Styles: Leadership Styles:
Leadership of Variety=
• Autocratic • Collaborative
process of experimentation,
• Beaurocratic • Participative
challenging ideas, innovation
• Ethical • Shared
• Moral • Authentic
Leadership Styles:
• Visionary/ Stakeholder
• Transformational
Attractor Basin Found – • Complexity
Leadership of Convergence = • Emergent Attractor Basin Found – Leadership
stability of human social of Unity= stability through norms,
structure through rules “one team, one organisation”

Human Perception of Time

Fig. 3 Complex systems leadership theory overlayed with main leadership theories

123
378 L. Metcalf, S. Benn

relation to use of resources or relationships. Instead Miller adaptive and successful ‘link’ between the internal system
(2003) found that firms that discovered their individual and the wider one.
quirks—sometimes liabilities—and were then able to
embed these in organisational design and leverage across
appropriate market opportunities, where able to build a Leadership Effectiveness in Complex Systems Theory
financially sustainable advantage in the marketplace. Of
course sustainable in Miller’s (2003) sense meant a con- The nature of complexity and organisational effectiveness
sistent competitive advantage rather than a consistently then begs the question as to how to measure and therefore
socially responsible sustainability. prove or disprove the theory explored above in this article,
Suggesting the system theory concept of Leadership of and to explore this notion we turn to ideas of existing
Variety, the development of asymmetries in the RBV complex systems leadership theorists, which are yet to be
theory was, according to Miller (2003), dependent on the linked to the ‘people, planet, profit’ (e.g. Cramer et al.
organisation’s willingness to detect the asymmetry through 2006) notion of sustainability.
experimentation, systematic organisational introspection, Hazy (2006) argues that leadership effectiveness in
problemistic search and boot strapping on nascent capa- complex systems is best measured through emergent system
bilities. Detection was also not a causal process as it was properties, rather than the more traditional measurement of
hampered by causal ambiguity, superstitious learning, individual behaviours. Hazy (2006) suggests such measures
system embeddedness and remoteness from positive out- as ‘Rate of Resource Flow’ and ‘Efficiency of Resource Use’
comes (Miller 2003). In other words, how these organisa- in the human system, or even high level financial outcomes
tions detected the organisational facets that became such as cashflow and margins for measuring leadership
competitive advantages was not a logical or rational pro- effectiveness. However, Hazy (2006) also indicates that
cess related to immediate cause and effect. leading is the ‘genesis’ of social structure and alludes to
Reflective of systems theory’s concept of an organisa- social structure as organisational culture. This seems to
tion moving from one basin of attraction to another, Miller indicate that some ‘measurement’ of organisational culture
(2003) discovered that once the quirks have been found, would also be a way of accessing the effectiveness or perhaps
organisations had to make the asymmetries a high priority, appropriateness of leaders and leader style.
fund them and turn them into valuable capabilities, often In effect, all these system level measures inevitably
through organisational re-design which might sometimes attempt to look at how the organisation ‘links’ to its
be quite large scale. external environment, however, the focus is primarily
Complex systems theory combined with the RBV of the through market and financial measures, due to its strong
firm, uses the term ‘sustainability’ to primarily refer to link with the RBV of the firm. This is limiting to
long-term financial viability, however, it also mentions the researchers interested in measuring leadership in relation to
organisation as using ‘environment’ inputted into the sustainability where sustainability is more than organisa-
human system as a limited resource (Hazy 2006). If we tion financial sustainability.
take the view that sustainability commonly signifies the Sustainability researchers who are interested in sus-
responsibility of the corporation to stakeholders repre- tainability as ‘people, planet, profit’ (e.g. Cramer et al.
senting the issues of ‘people, planet, profit’ (e.g. Cramer 2006), would argue for additional measures that can bal-
et al. 2006), then this seems too limited for our purposes. ance human ‘sensemaking’ of the external complex adap-
In order to expand the theory towards a broader view of tive system with financial viability of the firm. It may also
sustainability, we return to the notion that organisations be that measurement of individual leader behaviour, as per
operate within many broad complex adaptive systems and organisational hierarchy, may still be worthwhile if it is
must use ‘leadership’ to be adaptive to the demands of used in conjunction with system level measures. As Gleick
those systems (Metcalf and Benn 2012). The ‘Environ- (1989) suggested in his popular book ‘Chaos’, order can
ment’ system inputs to the organisation then, must be sometimes be found in the seeming chaos of natural forms
expanded to include not just environmental issues, but also at system level, it merely depends on the level of the
social system issues and international economic issues, and system one is observing. In that sense, it is worthwhile to
these are not just ‘inputs’ into the system, but must be model systems at all levels, including the individual level
highly integrated into the organisation through an in order to measure them usefully.
increasingly porous membrane between those within the Further, system level measurements could include some
complex human system of the organisation and the sur- existing measures, such as organisational culture. It may be
rounding complex adaptive systems, as suggested by that individual leader behaviour is a trigger for system wide
Metcalf and Benn (2012). Leadership then is the ability to differences in the organisation, or this may be an expres-
create and work well with this membrane, ensuring an sion of organisational culture when leaders are effective.

123
Leadership for Sustainability: An Evolution of Leadership Ability 379

The GLOBE research project, along with a substantial At an emergent, whole of system level, Hazy (2006)
amount of empirical studies, has found that what is argues that financially sustainable complex adaptive sys-
expected of leaders, i.e. what leaders may and may not do, tems exhibit behaviours such as appropriate levels of
and the status and influence bestowed on leaders vary resources in the system, a small amount of slack, an ability
considerably as a result of the cultural forces around them to make the most of resources, exploratory leadership and
(House et al. 2004). As Jackson and Parry (2008) point out, sufficiently porous boundaries so that it is well connected
leadership studies largely ignore the place of organisational with the market (see columns 1 and 2 in Table 1, table
culture, however, it was Schein (1985) who recognised the adapted from Hazy 2006). We propose that these can be
importance of the original leader in shaping organisational labelled as: system resource flow, system strength, system
culture, and Smircich and Morgan (1982) who saw lead- capacity, system growth and system sustainability, where
ership as a manifestation of organisational culture. Alves- sustainability is purely in relation to market. Hazy (2006)
son (2011) in his review of the relevant literature concludes also proposes the system level measures that would be
that leadership is most likely to be an outcome of culture, appropriate for these behaviours.
rather than the other way around. Regardless, leadership In Table 1, we take Hazy’s (2006) theory and add fur-
and organisation culture are so closely related that it is ther system level components in an effort to both improve
worthwhile measuring them as higher and lower expres- measurement of these outcomes and include social and
sions of the organisation’s complex adaptive system and environmental factors in terms of sustainability. If we
therefore a way of measuring the system usefully. acknowledge that sometimes what appears chaotic can be
In addition, as some researchers have found, there may predictable at lower or higher levels of the system (Gleick
be leaders who can work better with chaos and may 1989), it seems logical to include additional levels in
therefore be more attuned to leading organisations in chaos Hazy’s (2006) work, in this case we include employees and
like situations. Heath (2002), Metcalf (2001) and Herbert leaders as internal organisation agent levels, along with
(1999) all found evidence for human cognitive sensitivity external stakeholders at higher (wider) system levels.
to chaos and the ability to predict within it. Herbert (1999) The purpose of the current researchers’ expanding Hazy’s
found that there was a pattern to the way some people (2006) theory is to determine how in fact we might one day
responded to chaos like environments and Metcalf (2001) both measure and determine just how sustainable an orga-
found that this ability was correlated to ‘fluid’ intelligence. nisation truly is. To do this accurately, we must expand the
These results indicate that some people are more highly system under discussion to include the wider CIDESS
adaptable to nonlinear or chaotic environments, i.e. natural (Metcalf and Benn 2012) the organisation sits within, here
dynamic environments. Given that sustainability as ‘Peo- we propose that this should be through stakeholders. We also
ple, Planet, Profit’ requires adapting one complex system to indicate that it could be in the amount of decision-making
the needs of many other systems surrounding the organi- power that stakeholders have (more power if they are on the
sation, this may be a specific human ability to encourage board of the organisation for example) and how stakeholder
and evolve in order for human society (and human sys- interests are accepted into the organisation (through amount
tems) to reach sustainability. of staff diversity for example). In essence, in agreement with
Metcalf and Benn (2012), we propose measures that can
indicate how ‘porous’ an organisation is to its external CI-
DESS, particularly environmental and social systems.
Leadership Evolving Sustainability: An Evolution The additional complexity of maintaining a strong
of Human Ability ‘porous’ link between the organisation and its external
context: market, environment and society means that
Since sustainability as ‘People, Planet, Profit’ is necessary leaders who are able to help an organisation adapt to and
for human survival without large scale adaptation to a recognise the demands of a wider highly complex set of
dramatically climate altered planet Earth, it seems logical systems (the CIDEESS) will likely think differently than
that organisations that can get ahead of this problem and any other form of leader managerial science has previously
adapt will have more highly evolved human systems and/or theorised about. It is much more than simply good stake-
more highly evolved ‘links’ between the human system holder management.
(the organisation) and its external systems. They may also We suggest that these leaders are likely to take a much
have more highly evolved leaders who are better navigators wider view that will sometimes seem irrelevant, be pas-
of complex environments. In this section, we attempt to sionate about community concerns, and yet still be able to
summarise the characteristics this kind of system ‘leader- reinterpret all this into the appropriate way the organisation
ship’ and individual leadership behaviour might should adapt either in terms of organisational processes or
demonstrate. strategy or structure or even all three. They will need to

123
380 L. Metcalf, S. Benn

Table 1 Hazy’s (2006) model of organisation outcomes with multilevel system measures
System level measures System level characteristics Individual leader/follower Example individual leader/
(Hazy 2006) (Hazy 2006) characteristics follower measures

Revenue, cost of goods sold System resource flow Technical managerial skills KPI’s that measure resources to
(COGS), expenses; financial Rate of resource flow through Efficient use of resources including production output. E.g.
capital and assets, human capital, the system; levels of money and time. Disciplined timesheets analysed to determine
knowledge over time (intangible resources available in the production management if time is being used
assets). system. processes that reduce waste appropriately
Earnings, margins, efficiency System strength Technical managerial skills KPI’s that measure and assess the
benchmarks, cash flow; balance Rate of aggregation of slack or Efficient matching of production to market and adjust production
sheet items, expense levels excess resources; level of market demand and costs of (even individual production) as
versus benchmark levels. slack as index of negative production, timing of production necessary
entropy.
Return on assets (ROA) or equity System capacity Ability to Learn, Adapt, Be Measures, including KPI’s, around
(ROE), inventory, human and Capabilities to gain and use Creative innovation, opportunism,
intangible assets (considered in resources at appropriate Capable of making more of what’s creativity, and ‘reading’ the
terms of their rent production rates; capabilities’ creation around them, from themselves, market
rates); net present value (NPV), and decline rates. their team, resources; including
real option value, return on time and money
invested capital (ROIC).
Leadership activity to exploit System growth Individual Leadership Ability, Measures that help to align group
current capabilities; leadership Self-organising/leadership Individual and Group level values and surrounding
quality metrics with respect to activity and its impact; Culture processes, individual leader
best practices; leadership activity resource allocation to exploit Overall abilities capacity of leaders employee engagement metrics,
acceleration over time. current capabilities and that span multiple styles and organisational culture metrics
explore. situations, ability to be flexible.
Group values explored and
individuals work out how they fit
them
Leadership activity to match System sustainability Ability to read, predict and adapt Measures around product
capabilities to market demand; Matching of internal to the market place purchaser behaviours,
internal resources match to capabilities to environment competitors behaviours.
market resources; information by exploring for and Individual KPI’s that indicate
flow across boundary, i.e. climbing performance peaks how adaptations are proposed,
boundary permeability on performance landscape. created and their effects on the
organisation’s success
To this, we add: Ability to read, predict and adapt Measures that directly link the
Matching of internal needs to the wider social and organisation with its external
with environment capacity, environmental context of the environment, e.g. stakeholder
improving performance organisation as an agent of the interviewing, diversity of boards,
CIDESS etc. Individual KPI’s that
Matching of internal social
indicate how adaptations are
needs with social capacity,
proposed, created and their
improving performance
effects on the organisation’s
success, and how individuals
assist the organisation in linking
with its context, e.g. diversity
measures

understand, engage in and promote wider CIDEESS significance in relation to leadership skill because it will
thinking and will need to be able to deal with extensive improve leaders’ ability to deal with the stressful demands
amounts of complexity in information while also engaging of leading in complexity.
with the emotions and motivations needed to navigate it.
They will need to be management scientists in the widest
sense of the word, able to mix all types of methodology of Emotional Intelligence and Human Capacity to Deal
science, critical inquiry and practice to develop truly with Complexity
adaptable and socially cohesive organisations. In fact, it
may be that EI at both the individual leader and group Emotional intelligence is a much disputed concept
emergent ‘leadership’ level, will have increased (Antonakis et al. 2009) promoted by many as essential to

123
Leadership for Sustainability: An Evolution of Leadership Ability 381

leadership and disputed by others as irrelevant after per- Conclusion


sonality and intelligence are controlled for (Antonakis
2003, 2004). The main argument here is that EI lacks Finally, this examination of the existing disagreement and
discriminant validity, so in effect it is merely another way confusion over the multiple leadership styles related to the
of describing something we already know about, making successful implementation of sustainability in organisa-
the concept redundant (Antonakis et al. 2009). However, tions, has found that the solution lies in the complex nature
EI has a kind of compelling ‘common sense’ to it since of sustainability itself. In fact, the difficulty of the problem
leadership is entrenched in emotion (George 2000; Das- relates to the fact that it is the result of multiple layers of
borough 2006) and there is research to suggest that EI is complexity: the complexity of sustainability, the com-
linked to better leadership, although not when intelligence plexity of complex problem solving and the complexity of
is factored in (Van Rooy and Viswesvaran 2004). leadership itself.
If what we propose above is a valid conceptualisation of Hence, leadership for sustainability requires leaders of
organisations and organisations do operate as agents within extraordinary abilities. These are likely to be leaders who
a wider complex adaptive system(s) as Metcalf and Benn can read and predict through complexity, can think through
(2012) suggest, the concept of EI may simply suffer from complex problems, engage groups in dynamic adaptive
too many factors creating confusing links to intelligence organisational change and can manage emotion appropri-
and personality. EI is proposed to be composed of four ately. In essence, leaders and leadership is a key interpreter
factors: emotion perception, emotion facilitation, emotion of how the complexity of the wider complex adaptive
understanding and emotion management. Antonakis (in the systems environment of the organisation ‘links’ internally
letter exchange with Ashkanasy and Dasborough 2009) to the organisation, and this link is a powerful mediator for
proposes that the reason intelligence and personality may successful implementation of sustainability, or may even
be so closely aligned with EI is that a very intelligent be an expression of it. Leaders that do this will have to use
person with an ‘agreeable’ personality can learn how best the ability to navigate through complex environments, an
to respond to others according to their emotions. Hence, it element of complex problem solving that we are still
may just be that high intelligence plus agreeable person- endeavouring to describe.
ality equals emotion perception, emotion facilitation and Further research should look to address the links
emotion understanding. It may also equal emotion man- between the organisation and its wider CIDESS (Metcalf
agement, at least in terms of the externalisation of emotion. and Benn 2012). The complex adaptive systems leadership
In essence, Ashkanasy and Dasborough’s (2009) argument in the organisation may extend to other stakeholder
tends to agree with Funke (2010) that emotions and prob- groups—even shareholders. It may be that shareholders
lem solving are inherently closely linked, and as Funke gravitate towards one or another organisation based on the
(2010) asserts, this is particularly so as problems become values of that organisation, thereby making ‘porousness’ of
more complex. organisation’s links to the CIDESS even more strategically
We argue here that authentic and internal ‘emotion valuable in terms of the RBV of the firm. It will also be
management’ would be essential to the human capacity to important to explore the emergence of leadership styles in
deal with complexity, and even more important for those an organisation that is endeavouring to be sustainable and
who have to lead others through it. Complexity creates to link the types of styles that are prominent with the kind
decision-making problems for human beings, it increases of external environment ‘sensemakng’ that is going on,
the level of information that must be considered, the given our exploration of the complexity of the problem of
amount of interaction between factors and thus increases CSR leadership, these leaders are likely to be operating
the number of errors we can make, if you’re sensible of the cognitively, emotionally and motivationally in a way that
error rate you are sensible of the increasing risk, this will be highly useful to promote if we are to achieve whole
inevitably produces emotion. It may also be that some Earth sustainability.
emotions actually help us in navigating complex informa-
tion, as Funke (2010) suggests.
So, although EI in and of itself may be questionable,
emotion management seems a likely contributor to the References
human capacity to lead through complexity, as we propose
here. Further, we acknowledge that the human capacity to Alvesson, M. (2011). Leadership and organisational culture. In A.
lead interpret and adapt to complexity, although it may be Bryman, D. L. Collinson, K. Grint, & B. Jackson (Eds.), Sage
handbook of leadership. London: Sage.
strongly linked to intelligence, will also have a powerful
Angus-Leppan, T., Metcalf, L., & Benn, S. (2010). Leadership styles
emotion management demand. and CSR practice: An examination of sensemaking, institutional

123
382 L. Metcalf, S. Benn

drivers and CSR leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, Crossan, M., Vera, D., & Nanjad, L. (2008). Transcendent leadership:
189–213. Strategic leadership in dynamic environments. The Leadership
Antonakis, J. (2003). Why ‘‘emotional intelligence’’ does not predict Quarterly, 19(5), 569–581.
leadership effectiveness. The International Journal of Organi- Dasborough, M. T. (2006). Cognitive asymmetry in employee
zational Analysis, 11, 355–361. emotional reactions to leadership behaviors. The Leadership
Antonakis, J. (2004). On why ‘‘emotional intelligence’’ will not Quarterly, 17, 163–178.
predict leadership effectiveness beyond IQ or the ‘‘big five’’: An De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2004). The influence of
extension and rejoinder. Organizational Analysis, 12, 171–182. power on the information search, impression formation, and
Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2009). Does demands in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
leadership need emotional intelligence? The Leadership Quar- chology, 40, 303–319.
terly, 20, 247–261. De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and
Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social choices and individual values. New despotic leadership, relationships with leader’s social responsi-
Haven, CT: Yale University Press. bility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’
Barker, R. A. (2001). The nature of leadership. Human Relations, optimism: A multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly,
54(4), 469–494. 19(3), 297–311.
Barney, J. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and De Souza, G., & Klein, H. J. (1995). Emergent leadership in the group
business strategy. Management Science, 32, 1231–1241. goal-setting process. Small Group Research, 26(4), 475–796.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational leadership DeGroot, T., Kicker, D. S., & Cross, T. C. (2000). A meta-analysis to
development: Manual for the multifactor leadership question- review organisational outcomes related to charismatic leadership.
naire. Consulting Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, California. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17(4), 356–371.
Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A Dobbins, G. H., Long, W. S., Dedrick, E. J., & Clemons, T. C. (1990).
process model of sensemaking. The Academy of Management The role of self-monitoring and gender on leader emergence: A
Review, 33(1), 122–136. laboratory and field study. Journal of Management, 16(3),
Beddoe, R., Constanza, R., Farley, J., Garza, E., Kent, J., 609–618.
Kubiszewski, I., et al. (2009). Overcoming systemic roadblocks Dörner, D., & Kreuzig, H. W. (1983). Problemlösefähigkeit und
to sustainability: The evolutionary redesign of worldviews, Intelligenz. Psychologische Rundschau, 34, 185–192.
institutions and technologies. Proceedings of the National Ekvall, G., & Arvonen, J. (1991). Change centered leadership: An
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(8), extension of the two-dimensional model. Scandinavian Journal
2483–2489. of Management, 7(1), 17–26.
Bennis, W. (1984, August). The four competencies of leadership. Fiedler, K. (2001). Affective states trigger processes of assimilation
Training and Development Journal, 15–19. and accommodation. In L. L. Martin & G. L. Clore (Eds.),
Black, J. A., & Boal, K. B. (1994). Strategic resources: Traits, Theories of mood and cognition: A user’s guidebook (pp.
configurations and paths to sustainable competitive advantage. 85–98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Strategic Management Journal, 15, 131–148. Foddy, M., & Crettendon, A. (Eds.). (1994). Leadership and group
Blake, R., & Mouton, J. (1964). The managerial grid: The key to identity as determinants of resource consumption in a social
leadership excellence. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company. dilemma. Berlin: Springer.
Boerner, S., Eisenbess, S. A., & Greisser, D. (2007). Follower Forgas, J. P. (2001). The affect infusion model (AIM): An integrative
behaviour and organisational performance: The impact of theory of mood effects on cognition and judgments. In L.
transformational leaders. Journal of Leadership & Organisa- L. Martin & G. L. Clore (Eds.), Theories of mood and cognition
tional Studies, 13(3), 16–26. (pp. 99–134). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics. MIT Press: Cambridge
and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616. Massachusetts.
Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical Foster, R., & Kaplan, S. (2001). Creative destruction. New York:
leadership: A social learning perspective for construct develop- Double Day.
ment and testing. Organisational Behaviour and Human Deci- Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. The Academy of
sion Processes, 97(117), 134. Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Funke, J. (2010). Complex problem solving, a case for complex
Campbell, J. L. (2006). Institutional analysis and the paradox of cognition? Cognitive Processes, 11, 133–142.
corporate social responsibility. American Behavioral Scientist, Gemmil, G., & Oakley, J. (1992). Leadership: An alienating social
49, 925–938. myth? Human Relations, 45(2), 113–130.
Cavaleri, S., & Seivert, S. (2005). Knowledge leadership: The art and George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional
science of the knowledge-based organization. Burlington, MA: intelligence. Human Relations, 53, 1027–1055.
Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann. Gleick, J. (1998). Chaos. London: Vintage Books.
Churchman, C. W. (1967). Wicked problems. Management Science, Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to
14(4), 141–142. leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX)
Collis, D. J. (1991). A resource-based analysis of global competition: theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-
The case of the bearings industry. Strategic Management domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.
Journal, 12(winter):49–68. Gray, B., & Wood, D. J. (1991). Collaborative alliances: Moving
Cramer, J., van der Heijden, A., & Jonker, J. (2006). Corporate social from practice to theory. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
responsibility: Making sense through thinking and acting. 27(1), 3–22.
Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 380–389. Hambleton, R. K., & Gumpert, R. (1982). The validity of Hersey and
Crossan, M., & Hulland, J. (Eds.). (2002). Leveraging knowledge Blanchard’s theory of leader effectiveness. Group & Organiza-
through leadership of organisational learning. New York: tion Studies, 7, 225–242.
Oxford University Press. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162,
Crook, C. (2005, January). The good company. Economist, 37, 41–31. 1243–1248.

123
Leadership for Sustainability: An Evolution of Leadership Ability 383

Hazy, J. K. (2006). Measuring leadership effectiveness in complex Lockett, A., Thompson, S., & Morgenstern, U. (2009). The devel-
socio-technical systems. Emergence: Complexity and Organiza- opment of the resource based view of the firm: A critical
tion, 8(3), 58–77. appraisal. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1),
Heath, R. (2002). Can people predict chaotic sequences? Nonlinear 9–28.
Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 6(1), 37–54. Lord, R. G., De Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-
Herbert, B. (1999). Decision making and chaotic sensitivity in analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership
humans. Unpublished Honours thesis, Department of Psychol- perception: An application of validity generalisation procedures.
ogy, University of Newcastle, Australia. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 402–410.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1974, February). So you want to Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information
know your leadership style? Training and Development Journal, processing: Linking perception and performance. Boston:
1–15. Unwin Hyman.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1982). Management of organiza- Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2005). United Kingdom: An explicit model
tional behavior: Utilizing human resources (4th ed.). Englewood of business–society relations. In A. Habisch, J. Jonker, M.
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Wagner, & R. Schmidpeter (Eds.), Corporate social responsi-
Hobbes, T. (1651, 1985). Leviathan. Penguin Books: Aylesbury, bility across Europe (pp. 51–66). Berlin: Springer.
England. Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). ‘‘Implicit’’ and ‘‘explicit’’ CSR: A
Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden order: How adaptation builds conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of
complexity. Reading, MA: Perseus Books. corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review,
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. 33, 404–424.
(2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE McElroy, J. L. (2006). Small island tourist economies across the life
study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. cycle. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 47(1), 61–77.
Ireland, R. D., & Hill, M. A. (2005). Achieving and maintaining McKelvey, B. (2001). Emergent order in firms: Complexity science
strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic vs. the entanglement trap. In E. Mitleton-Kelly (Ed.), Organi-
leadership. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 63–77. zations are complex social systems. Oxford, UK: Elsevier
Jackson, B. (2005). The enduring romance of leadership studies. Pergamon.
Journal of Management Studies, 42(6), 1311–1324. McKelvey, B. (2003). Energizing order-creating networks of distrib-
Jackson, B., & Parry, K. (2008). A very short, fairly interesting and uted intelligence. International Journal of Innovation Manage-
reasonably cheap book about studying leadership. London: ment, 5, 181–212.
Sage. Messick, D. M., & Brewer, M. B. (Eds.). (1983). Solving social
Jonas, E., Schulz-Hardt, S., & Frey, D. (2005). Giving advice or dilemmas: A review. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
making decisions in someone else’s place: The influence of Metcalf, L. (2001). Chaos prediction ability and intelligence: An
impression, defense, and accuracy motivation on the search for initial examination. University of Newcastle (Australia) Press:
new information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Newcastle.
31, 977–990. Metcalf, L., & Benn, S. (2012). The corporation is ailing social
Jonas, E., Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., & Thelen, N. (2001). technology: Creating a ‘fit for purpose’ design for sustainability.
Confirmation bias in sequential information search after Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1201-1.
preliminary decisions: An expansion of dissonance theoretical Miller, D. (2003). An asymmetry-based view of advantage: Towards
research on selective exposure to information. Journal of an attainable sustainability. Strategic Management Journal, 24,
Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 557–571. 961–976.
Keller, T. (2003). Parental images as a guide to leadership Miller, D., & Shamsie, J. (1996). The resource-based view of the firm
sensemaking: An attachment perspective on implicit leadership in two environments: The Hollywood film studios from 1936 to
theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 141–160. 1965. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 519–543.
Khuntia, R., & Suar, D. (2004). A scale to assess ethical leadership of Noda, T., & Collis, D. J. (2001). The evolution of intraindustry firm
Indian private and public sector managers (Author Abstract). heterogeneity: Insights from a process study (in special research
Journal of Business Ethics, 49(1), 13–26. forum: Change and development journeys into a pluralistic
Kickul, J., & Neuman, G. (2000). Emergent leadership behaviours: world). The Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 897–925.
The function of personality and cognitive ability in determining Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing
teamwork performance and KSAS. Journal of Business and the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Psychology, 15(1), 27–51. Plowman, D. A., Solansky, S., Beck, T. E., Baker, L., Kulkarni, M., &
Klein, G. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Human Factors, 50, Travis, D. V. (2007). The role of leadership in emergent, self-
456–460. organisation. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 341–356.
Klein, G., Orasanu, J., Calderwood, R., et al. (Eds.). (1993). Decision Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new
making in action: Models and methods. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. dialogue with nature. University of Michigan: Bantam Books.
Learmonth, G. P., Smith, D. E., Sherman, W. H., White, M. A., & Rubin, R. S., Bartels, L. K., & Bommer, W. H. (2002). Are leaders
Plank, J. (2011). A practical approach to the complex problem of smarter or do they just seem that way? Exploring perceived
environmental sustainability: The UVa Bay Game. The Public intellectual competence and leadership emergence. Social
Sector Innovation Journal, 16(1), 1–8. Behaviour and Personality, 30(2), 105–118.
Levinthal, D. A. (1997). Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Manage- Rutte, C. G., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1984). Social dilemmas and
ment Science, 43, 934–950. leadership. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14,
Linnenluecke, M. K., Russell, S. V., & Griffiths, A. (2007). 294–309.
Subcultures and sustainability practices: The impact on under- Samuelson, C. D., & Messick, D. M. (1986a). Inequities in access to
standing corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the and use of shared resources in social dilemmas. Journal of
Environment. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.609. Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 960–967.
Lipshitz, R., Klein, G., Orasanu, J., et al. (2001). Taking stock of Samuelson, C. D., & Messick, D. M. (1986b). Alternative structural
naturalistic decision making. Journal of Behavioural Decision solutions to social dilemmas. Organizational Behavior and
Making, 14, 331–352. Human Decision Processes, 37, 139–155.

123
384 L. Metcalf, S. Benn

Schein, E. H. (1985). Organisational culture and leadership. San Van Rooy, V. D., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence:
Francisco: Jose-Bass. A meta-analytic investigation of predictive validity and nomo-
Schwarz, N. (1990). Feelings as information: Informational and logical net. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 71–95.
motivational functions of affective states. In E. T. Higgins & Van Vugt, M., & De Cremer, D. (1999). Leadership in social
R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition dilemmas: The effects of group identification on collective
(pp. 527–561). New York: Guilford Press. actions to provide public goods. Journal of Personality and
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conser- Social Psychology, 76, 587–599.
vation and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Van Vugt, M., Jepson, S. F., Hart, C. M., & De Cremer, D. (2004).
Management Journal, 46(6), 703–714. Autocratic leadership in social dilemmas: A threat to group
Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management of stability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1),
meaning. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 18, 257–273. 1–13.
Stacey, R. D. (1996). Complexity and creativity in organizations. San Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organisa-
Francisco, CA, US: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. tional learning. The Academy of Management Review, 29,
Stacey, R. D. (2000). Strategic management and organisational 222–240.
dynamics: The challenge of complexity (3rd ed.). London: Waddock, S., & Bodwell, C. (2007). Total responsibility manage-
Pearson Education. ment: The manual. Greenleaf Publishing: Sheffield, UK.
Stewart, G. (2002). Uncovering implicit leadership beliefs: Variation Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. (2008). Defining the socially
between information technology (IT) executives and business responsible leader. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 117–131.
executives in a public service agency. International Journal of Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S., & Javidan, M. (2006). Components of
Organisational Behaviour, 5. Viewed July 1, 2009, from http:// CEO transformational leadership and corporate social responsi-
www.openjgate.org/browse/ArticleList.aspx?issue_id=153698 bility. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1703–1725.
&Journal_id=103817. Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. J., Wernsing, T. S., &
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and
survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35–71. validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management,
Sully de Luque, M., Washburn, N. T., & Waldman, D. A. (2006). 34(1), 89–126.
Unrequited profits: Evidence for the stakeholder perspective. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and
Paper presented at the Gallup Leadership Institute Summit. the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4),
Thietart, R., & Forgues, B. (1995). Chaos theory and organisation. 409–421.
Organisation Science, 6, 19–31. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic
Thomas, T., Schermerhorn, J. R., Jr., & Dienhart, J. W. (2004). Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.
Strategic leadership of ethical behavior in business. Academy of Westaby, J. D., Probst, T. M., & Lee, B. C. (2010). Leadership
Management Executive, 18(2), 56–66. decision-making: A behavioral reasoning theory analysis. The
Thompson, J. P., & Cavaleri, S. (2010). Dynamic knowledge, Leadership Quarterly, 21, 481–495.
organizational growth, and sustainability: The case of prestwick Wilke, H. A. M. (Ed.). (1991). Greed, efficiency and fairness in
memory devices. International Studies of Management & Orga- resource management situations (Vol. 2). Chichester: Wiley.
nization, 40(3), 50–60. Yukl, G. (2001). Leadership in organisations. Upper Saddle River,
Trevino, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. (2000). Moral person NJ: Prentice-Hall.
and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for Ziller, R. C. (1965). Toward a theory of open and closed groups.
ethical leadership. California Management Review, 42, 128–142. Psychological Bulletin, 64(3), 164–182.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity Zsambok, C. E., & Klein, G. A. (Eds.). (1997). Naturalistic decision
leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to making. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298–318.

123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

You might also like