Positive Impact Blog

Thought provoking insights for change makers

Category Archives: Leadership


by

Mapping Responsible Leadership Competencies to LeadershipImpact in Business Sustainability

Katrin Muff & Thomas Dyllick

Read full article: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/18/2/793

Business decisions increasingly influence societal challenges like climate change, water scarcity, inequality or corruption. As a consequence leadership for sustainability requires competencies that go beyond internal performance and short-term effectiveness. It requires the ability to navigate ambiguity, build trust with diverse stakeholders, manage conflicts of interest, and understand systemic interdependencies. The question is not only how leaders behave, but how their competencies enable organizations to become more capable actors in sustainability transformation.

This article strengthens the bridge between responsible leadership and business sustainability by identifying where leadership can make a difference inside organizations—through specific “impact areas” that enable external contribution. We describe organizations that orient their strategy and value creation toward addressing societal and environmental challenges as Positive Impact Organizations (PIOs). PIOs aim to create products and services that solve relevant problems while maintaining financial viability. They are led by impact leaders: leaders who recognize that contributing to societal problem-solving can be integral to long-term business success and legitimacy.

Conceptual approach

In this article we develop a mapping between a responsible leadership competency model and a developmental sustainability model that share a compatible worldview: sustainability is not only a risk to be managed, but an opportunity to align organizational purpose and value creation with societal needs.

For leadership competencies, many established models explain effectiveness mainly in terms of individual performance, emotional intelligence, or organizational climate. By contrast, the Competency Assessment for Responsible Leadership (CARL) explicitly integrates ethical orientation, stakeholder relations, and systems thinking, and frames leadership in relation to sustainable development. CARL also distinguishes three action domains—knowing, doing, being—which enables competency development to be examined as knowledge bases, visible skills, and underlying value orientations. Here our emphasis is on the doing domain: observable leadership actions that influence organizational change.

For organizational sustainability development, reporting standards, assessment systems, and strategic concepts provide useful classification and benchmarking, but they often lack a developmental logic explaining how organizations progress toward higher levels of societal contribution. The PIO concept addresses this by describing transformation as a shift from an inside-out orientation (reducing negative impacts, managing risks) to an outside-in orientation (societal needs defining strategic priorities, innovation, and accountability).

This alignment supports the introduction of impact leadership: leadership that builds on responsible and sustainable leadership competencies but adds an explicit outcome orientation toward positive societal and environmental contributions via organizational transformation.

The impact cascade: How impact leadership functions

Leaders rarely create societal impact directly. They create it indirectly by shaping the organization that produces it. Their behavior influences governance, incentives, culture, and decision routines. These organizational conditions shape how products are developed, how supply chains operate, how partnerships are formed, and how trade-offs are handled. Only then do outcomes appear in the wider world. We call this the impact cascade.

This shifts sustainability leadership from moral aspiration to practical leverage. The key question becomes: which leadership behaviors strengthen which organizational levers so sustainability becomes part of value creation? Let’s now look at how this impact cascade is internally connected.

Competencies of impact leaders (CARL)

CARL conceptualizes responsible leadership through five competency dimensions:

  1. Ethics and values: integrity and fairness in dilemmas; values-based decision-making.
  2. Self-awareness: reflective practice; adapting communication; learning transparency.
  3. Stakeholder relations: trust-building; dialogue; consensus-oriented engagement across differences.
  4. Change and innovation: challenging the status quo; translating ideas into actionable sustainability change.
  5. Systems thinking: understanding interdependencies; navigating complexity and ambiguity; anticipating consequences.

These competencies matter because sustainability transformation increasingly involves extended value chains and multi-actor ecosystems. Leaders must collaborate beyond organizational boundaries and combine internal execution with external engagement.

Strategic leadership impact areas inside organizations

While sustainability impact is often discussed as external contribution, leadership impact operates first inside organizations. Leaders influence structures and processes that enable the organization to generate credible and scalable external outcomes. We identify five strategic impact areas in which leadership can have direct organizational influence:

  1. Governance alignment: embedding sustainability in decision rules, roles, accountability, incentives, and transparency mechanisms.
  2. Sustainability culture: establishing shared norms and routines that prioritize sustainable solutions, cross-functional collaboration, learning, and long-term orientation.
  3. External validation: integrating stakeholder perspectives into decision-making, supported by credible transparency and responsiveness.
  4. Higher purpose: translating purpose into product and service innovation aligned with societal and environmental challenges.
  5. Transformative sustainability: applying a transformational perspective across all domains—moving beyond incremental improvements toward systemic contribution.

These areas can progress developmentally: from compliance and episodic initiatives toward integrated decision-making, externally oriented priorities, and accountability for measurable outcomes.

Mapping competencies to organizational impact areas

A core contribution of this article is a mapping that connects each leadership competency to the organizational leverage point it most directly strengthens:

  • Ethics and values → Governance alignment. Values-based, fair decision-making builds trust and supports credible accountability structures, decision rights, and transparent performance assessment.
  • Self-awareness → Sustainability culture. Reflective leaders model learning, openness, and adaptive communication, enabling norms and incentives that make sustainability part of daily work.
  • Stakeholder relations → External validation. Trustful collaboration and structured dialogue integrate legitimate external perspectives into decisions, reducing symbolic engagement and strengthening legitimacy.
  • Change and innovation → Higher purpose. The capacity to challenge assumptions and implement solutions translates purpose into tangible offerings, partnerships, and business model evolution.
  • Systems thinking → Transformative sustainability. Systems awareness supports navigation of complexity, helps avoid unintended consequences, and aligns transformation efforts with system-level outcomes.

This mapping is intentionally simplified: competencies overlap, and contextual factors may moderate what leaders can achieve (e.g., organizational culture, sector pressures, geography, life circumstances, and geopolitical conditions). The framework is therefore best seen as a heat map of primary leverage points, not a full causal explanation.

Implications for leadership development and research

By mapping CARL leadership competencies to strategic organizational impact areas drawn from the PIO concept, this framework clarifies how leadership development can connect to concrete mechanisms of sustainability transformation—governance, culture, stakeholder integration, purpose-driven innovation, and transformative systems change.

For educators and leadership development specialists, the mapping enables two complementary approaches:

  • Strength-based focus: leaders can concentrate on the organizational impact area that matches their strongest competency.
  • Developmental scaffolding: leaders can actively develop weaker competencies through targeted learning and support.

Practical development might include ethical deliberation and policy implementation; 360-degree feedback and reflective routines; stakeholder mapping and co-creation workshops; pilot projects and innovation processes; and scenario planning and systems training.


by

Mehr Mut und weniger alte weiße Männer

Dieses Interview erschien am 22. Mai 2021 auf ZEIT ONLINE. Das Interview führte die Journalistin Petra Pinzler im Rahmen eines Fellowships am THE NEW INSTITUTE.

Notiz der Authorin: der Titel wurde von der Zeit gewählt und muss als kontextfreier, provokativer Anreiz zum Lesen gedeutet werden. Ich empfehle dem Leser, sich auf das Interview einzulassen und sich nicht unnötig am Titel zu reiben (auch wenn dazu Berechtigung besteht).

Frau Muff, The business of business is business – hat der Nobelpreisträger Milton Friedman mal gesagt und damit gemeint, das sich Unternehmen aufs Geldverdienen konzentrieren sollen. Was ist falsch an dem Satz?

Das ist einfach zu simpel gedacht: Die Wirtschaft ist ein Teil der Gesellschaft und die wiederum ein Teil des Planeten. Wenn wir den ruinieren, dann funktioniert weder die Gesellschaft noch die Wirtschaft. Also müssen Unternehmen ihre Wirkung auf die Umwelt und die Gesellschaft mit im Blick haben.

Friedman glaubte an die Idee, dass alle Menschen egoistisch handeln, das aber in einer Marktwirtschaft trotzdem zu einem guten Ergebnis führt – weil der Markt die Wünsche aller koordiniert und das am Ende zur bestmöglichen Verteilung von Gütern führt. So ähnlich jedenfalls lernen das die meisten Ökonomie-Studierenden bis heute schon im ersten Semester.

In modernen Studiengängen lernen sie aber auch, dass auch das so einfach nicht stimmt. Die berühmte unsichtbare Hand des Marktes, die Angebot und Nachfrage so steuert, dass am Ende immer etwas Gutes herauskommt, funktioniert ja nicht. Es braucht Regeln, die der Staat bestimmt. Und es wird auch nicht alles gut, wenn in Unternehmen nur ans Geldverdienen gedacht wird.

Anscheinend überzeugt das auch immer mehr Leute in den Chefetagen. Kürzlich gelobten jedenfalls 180 Chefs namhafter US-Konzerne wie Amazon und Walmart in einem Statement of Corporate Purpose künftig auch ihrer Belegschaft, der Gesellschaft und der Umwelt nützen zu wollen – statt nur den Aktionären. Wird die Wirtschaft gerade grün und gut?

Na ja, die Ankündigungen sind das eine, Handeln das andere. Natürlich ist es erst mal positiv, wenn Chefs versprechen, dass sie beim Wirtschaften mehr Rücksicht auf die Natur und auf die Menschen nehmen wollen. Aber das ist nur der erste Schritt. Als nächstes muss das ganze Unternehmen umdenken und umlernen.

Was muss da konkret passieren?

In Unternehmen, die sich so auf den Weg machen, verändern sich vier Dinge.

Erstens, die interne Kultur, was sich nicht nur an neuen Kriterien für die Beförderung, sondern auch konkreten Unternehmenszielen zeigt. Klimaziele, zum Beispiel, müssen überprüfbar sein. Wenn ein Unternehmen verspricht, bis 2050 klimaneutral werden zu wollen, aber keine kurzfristigen Umsetzungspläne hat, dann geschieht nichts.

So was ist, zweitens, nur gemeinsam mit anderen erreichbar. Und dazu muss ein Unternehmen sich als Teil der Gesellschaft sehen, statt nur sich selbst im Mittelpunkt zu stellen. Es geht um mehr.
‍
Drittens, braucht es einen zukunftsfähigen Aufsichtsrat, in dem darf nicht immer der gleiche Typ Mensch sitzen, diversere Aufsichtsräte bringen strategische Gesellschaftsthemen stärker auf den Tisch. Da wird dann in einer Aufsichtsratssitzung nicht mehr nur nach der Umsatzrendite und Risikominimierung gefragt, sondern auch nach neuen Geschäftsfelder, die helfen, die Gesellschaft zu verbessern oder Umweltprobleme zu lösen.

Dies ist der vierte Punkt: Wie zeigt sich das alles in neuen Dienstleistungen?

Notiz der Authorin: hier wird auf den Strategischen Innovationscanvas der Positive Impact Organizationen verwiesen, dieser enthält vier Differenzierungsmerkmale sowie acht Innovationsanstösse. Ein kurzer Online-kurs dazu hier.

Wenn ich die Nachhaltigkeitsberichte von Unternehmen lese oder Begriffe wie Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) höre, dann gruselt es mich häufig. Da stehen so viele schöne Worte und so wenig harte Fakten …

Tatsächlich schleichen sich viele Unternehmen noch mit schönen Worten in ihren Nachhaltigkeitsberichten weg. Dabei gibt es längst wissenschaftlich fundierte harte Fakten, die man messen kann: beispielsweise die Diversität des Managements oder der CO2-Ausstoß des Unternehmens. Und es gibt Verbände, die ihren Mitgliedern dabei helfen, solche Nachhaltigkeitskriterien strategisch anzuwenden. Dort lässt sich auch von Vorbildern lernen, von Unternehmen, die visionäre Versuche wagen und sich wirklich richtig ehrgeizige Ziele setzen – beispielsweise ein 2030 Netto-Null Ziel, für sich und die eigenen Kunden, was im Unternehmen vieles auf den Kopf stellt.

Die Wirtschaft ist ein Teil der Gesellschaft und die wiederum ein Teil des Planeten. Wenn wir den ruinieren, dann funktioniert weder die Gesellschaft noch die Wirtschaft.

Müssen Unternehmen, die die Übernutzung der Natur wirklich ernst nehmen, nicht noch einen viel radikaleren Schritt gehen: Müssten sie nicht einfach eine Menge der Produkte aus ihren Katalogen streichen? Wer braucht in Zeiten der Klimakrise beispielsweise noch Privatjets oder in Zeiten der Wasserknappheit einen privaten Pool – um nur zwei Beispiele zu nennen.

Diese Beispiele zeigen genau die Größe des Problems. Man kann ja nicht einfach sagen: Schließt doch besser euren Laden! Das wäre ein sehr kurzes Gespräch. Aber machen wir es konkret, nehmen wir Coca-Cola. Die Welt wäre wahrscheinlich ein gesünderer Ort, wenn es keine hart beworbenen zuckerhaltigen Süßgetränke gäbe …

… zumindest hätten wir dann viel weniger Kinder mit Zahnschäden oder Übergewicht …

Genau. Wenn sich das Unternehmen aber zum Ziel setzt einen sinnvollen gesellschaftlichen Beitrag zu leisten, dann sollte es seine Kernkompetenzen klüger nutzen. Coca-Cola schafft es, ein perfekt gekühltes Süssgetränk bis ans Ende der Welt zu bringen. Das ist eine ungeheure logistische Leistung. Wer schafft das sonst schon? Könnte man diese Kompetenz nicht auch dafür nutzen, mit Nährstoffen und Vitaminen angereicherte Nahrungsmittel in genau diese Enden der Welt zu bringen? Das ist es jetzt nur eine Idee, und soll zeigen, welche Fragen sich Unternehmen stellen, die eine positive Wirkung haben wollen. Es geht nicht nur darum, den negativen Fußabdruck des aktuellen Geschäftes zu vermindern, sondern auch neue sinnvolle Geschäftsfelder zu entdecken und zu entwickeln. Wie der US-Ökonom Peter Drucker schon sagte:«jedes ungelöste gesellschaftliche Problem ist eigentlich nichts anderes als eine grosse unentdeckte Martkchance.»

Gibt es für solch einen Umbau auch Argumente, die den altmodischen Kriterien standhalten? Es heißt, nachhaltige Unternehmen seien langfristig auch ökonomisch stärker als andere …

Ja, und nicht nur das. Nachhaltigkeit ist auch wichtig, um gute Leute zu bekommen. Junge Leute finden es heute viel wichtiger als in der Vergangenheit, was und wie ihr Arbeitgeber im Markt anbietet. Sie bestimmen zunehmend, was verlangt wird. Bereits heute buhlen in einigen Industrieländern immer mehr Unternehmen um die besten hochqualifizierten Talente. Die wollen für inspirierende Unternehmen arbeiten, die wollen etwas Sinnvolles tun. Auch im Unternehmen motiviert ein Sinn jenseits der Rendite alle diejenigen, denen es nicht nur ums Geld geht.

Es geht nicht nur darum, den negativen Fußabdruck des aktuellen Geschäftes zu vermindern, sondern auch neue sinnvolle Geschäftsfelder zu entdecken und zu entwickeln. Regierungen müssen sich schon fragen, was gut für ihre Gesellschaft und die Umwelt ist. Und dann müssen sie das auch in verbindlichen Regeln festschreiben.

Können Sie das belegen?

Ich habe erst vor ein paar Tagen mit dem Chef eines großen internationalen Konzerns gesprochen und der hat mir gesagt, dass Klimaschutz und ein inspirierender Purpose bei der Mitarbeiterwerbung einen noch viel höheren Stellenwert als noch vor 10 Jahren haben. Es gibt auch eine Studie der Young Presidents Organization, in welcher CEOs nach der Bedeutung von Nachhaltigkeit gefragt werden – und die zeigt, wie sehr sich auch bei denen die Stimmung in den vergangen fünf Jahren verändert hat: 93 Prozent finden, dass ein Unternehmen einem gesellschaftlichen Zweck dienen muss, was dem neuen Verständnis von Nachhaltigkeit entspricht und wo auch das Klimaproblem dazugehört. Und dies aus drei Gründen: erstens wegen Druck von Mitarbeitern, zweitens wegen Druck der eigenen Kinder und drittens wegen Druck der Kunden.

Ist das Klima jetzt so wichtig, weil alle jetzt darüber reden? Oder erleben wir da wirklich einen grundsätzlichen Wandel, eine Moralisierung der Märkte, setzt sich da die Idee der planetaren Grenzen durch – also die Idee, dass wir die Erde in vielfacher Hinsicht überlasten und daran etwas ändern müssen?

Immer mehr Leute, egal an welcher Stelle im Unternehmen, wollen etwas Sinnvolles tun. Dies hat oft mit Nachhaltigkeit zu tun und kann das Klima betreffen, die Umwelt, oder die Biodiversität. Es kann aber auch die wachsende Ungleichheit in der Gesellschaft oder andere soziale Themen betreffen.

Welche Rolle spielen dabei die Finanzmärkte? Vor allem bei Aktiengesellschaften heißt es immer wieder, dass die gar nicht anders können, als den Gewinn zu maximieren. Würden sie sich anders verhalten, würden die Aktionäre die Vorstände und Aufsichtsräte davonjagen.

Da habe ich gute Nachrichten. Was da im vergangenen Jahr passiert ist und in diesem Jahr auch noch passieren wird, wird die Welt verändern. Die Verwalter der großen Fonds haben begriffen, dass man mit Nachhaltigkeit Geld verdienen kann und dass die Renditen bei nachhaltigen Unternehmen langfristig gut und sicher sind. Schweizer Großbanken wie die UBS oder auch die Black Rock, der weltweit grösste Investor, verändern ihre Kriterien für Investitionen gerade stark, nicht nur wegen den Vermögenstransfers an die nächste Generation, die einfach andere Prioritäten hat und das Geld bewusst anlegen will.  Jedenfalls ist der Zuwachs bei sogenannten nachhaltigen Geldanlagen und beim Impact Investment rasant.

Impact Investment bedeutet …

… dass Menschen ihr Geld dort investieren, wo es es etwas bewegt und zwar nicht philanthropisch sondern als profitables Geschäftsmodell mit gutem Zweck.

Reden Sie sich die Welt da nicht schön und ist die Realität nicht doch noch eine andere? Kürzlich hat RWE, das große deutsche Energieunternehmen, die niederländische Regierung vor einem Schiedsgericht auf Schadenersatz verklagt – weil die Niederlande schnell aus der Kohleverstromung aussteigen wollen. Gleichzeitig wirbt RWE in großen Anzeigen, dass das Unternehmen künftig ganz grün werden will. Das passt doch nicht. Das Argument für diese Art von Klagen ist dann immer: Wir müssen das tun, sonst werden wir von den Aktionären verklagt.

Einerseits fordern gewisse Investoren nun was anderes. Auf der Aktionärsversammlung von Unilever wurde dem Unternehmen vor Kurzem der Auftrag gegeben, die Klimastrategie ins Zentrum der Unternehmensstrategie zu stellen. Es spielen jedoch tatsächlich die Aufsichtsräte häufig noch eine hinderliche Rolle. Den Aufsichtsräten geht es zu oft nur um die eigene Risikominimierung, die wollen nicht von den Aktionären verklagt werden und haben eine zu kurzfristige Perspektive. Da wünsche ich mir mehr Mut und weniger weiße alte Männer. Denn schon wenn Sie die Gremien anders zusammensetzen, würde das viel verändern.

Das klingt verblüffend einfach. Eine andere Personalpolitik in den Chefetagen und damit dort eine andere Sicht auf die Welt – und alles wird gut?

Wir sind im Moment tatsächlich in der glücklichen Lage, dass Unternehmen von allen Seiten Druck bekommen. Und für ein solches Umdenken bringen jüngere, weiblichere und insgesamt diverse Chefetagen und Aufsichtsräte den nötigen frischen Wind und Weitblick.

Wäre das leichter, wenn wir strengere staatliche Regeln hätten, die von allen Unternehmen verlangen, dauerhaft und nachprüfbar anders mit der Umwelt umzugehen?

Ja, das wäre sicherlich hilfreich. Regierungen müssen sich schon fragen, was gut für ihre Gesellschaft und die Umwelt ist. Und dann müssen sie das auch in verbindlichen Regeln festschreiben. Der New Green Deal der EU setzt ein hervorragendes Zeichen,  der einen schonenderen Umgang mit der Umwelt für die Wirtschaft verbindlich zu machen will. Diese signalisieren der zögerlichen Wirtschaft: Euer Sandkasten wird gerade verschoben. Und unterschätzen Sie dann die Unternehmer nicht. Die sind sehr innovativ, wenn es darum geht, ihr Spielzeug dann auch zu verschieben.

Es kursieren im Moment viele Ideen für andere Unternehmensformen. Da gibt es Social Entrepreneurship, in den USA die B-Corps, in Deutschland die Bewegung der purpose economy. Bei allen geht es im Kern darum, dass schon in den Statuten des Unternehmens nicht nur die Gewinnmaximierung steht, sondern auch andere sinnvolle Ziele. Für wie wirkmächtig halten Sie die?

Die stoßen auf jeden Fall etwas an. Und sie knüpfen im Grunde an eine alte Idee von Unternehmertum an. Nehmen Sie beispielsweise den Gründungsgedanken von Unilever oder Nestle. Die wurden gegründet, weil sie ein gesellschaftliches Problem lösen wollten. Bei Nestle ging es darum, die Kindersterblichkeit zu senken, Unilever wollte die Hygienestandards in England verbessern.

Ich kenne Nestle vor allem, weil es immer wieder für die Privatisierung von Wasser kritisiert worden ist – und dafür, dass es viele Tonnen unnötiger Plastikflaschen produziert. Also nicht gerade als Modell.

Stimmt, da müsste wohl einiges passieren, damit der Ursprungsgedanke wieder stärker in den Fokus kommt. Unsere Forschung zeigt, dazu braucht es einen CEO mit entsprechenden Zukunftskompetenzen und ein Unternehmen, welches ko-kreativ mit anderen Akteuren arbeiten kann.

Kennen Sie eigentlich ein Unternehmen, bei dem alles stimmt – das gute Produkte hat, gutes Geld verdient, gut für die Umwelt ist und für die Gesellschaft? Oder ist das die Quadratur des Kreises?

Wir nennen solche Unternehmen „Positive Impact Organisationen“. Es gibt alternative Banken, die ihr Geld nachhaltig und nach ethischen Kriterien anlegen. In der Schweiz gibt es Choba-Choba, welches die Kakaobauern am Unternehmen beteiligt. Und die SV-Gruppe, ein Catering-Unternehmen, das seinen Klimaimpact dank einer Umschulung der Chefköche massiv reduzieren konnte, mit gleichem Profit. Oder es gibt Climeworks, ein Zürcher Unternehmen das CO2 aus der Luft holt und nicht nur bindet, sondern auch Mineralwasser-Herstellern weiterverkauft. Wir sammeln einerseits Beispiele solcher Unternehmen um zu inspirieren (Kurzvideos hier auf Sustainability-Today.com) und helfen Unternehmen andererseits beim Entdecken solcher neuer Geschäftschancen. Packen wir’s an, denn die Zeit läuft!


by

Reimagining capitalism – Three concrete options for business

Rebeccca Henderson is a University Professor at Harvard Business School in the area of sustainable business. In her passionate new book “Reimagining capitalism” she looks at a world on fire and develops a model of what sustainable business in a fundamentally transformed capitalism would require and look like.  She distinguishes three strategy levels for business, which I find very helpful and which I link to my experiences in Switzerland.

Massive environmental degradation, skyrocketing economic inequality, and institutional collapse (by looking at the USA and other nations turning increasingly autocratic, but also at multilateral organizations like the WHO or the WTO) grow more important by the day. She argues convincingly that this is something that cannot be left to governments and civil society alone, as classical economic thinking declares, while companies continue with business-as-usual. If we fail in transforming capitalism and putting its significant power and resources to better use, we will not be able to effectively address these problems. And business will put its own – but also our future at risk.

What can be done in such a situation? What are the available options for business?

Three different progressively more far reaching but also more demanding strategy levels can be found in the book, although in a somewhat different logic and argumentation as presented here.

Creating Shared Value

A first strategy level is based on the idea of creating shared value, a concept championed by Michael Porter and Mark Kramer. They define shared value creation as creating economic value in a way that also creates value for society by addressing its needs and challenges. “In today’s world, reimagining capitalism requires embracing the idea that while firms must be profitable if they are to thrive, their purpose must be not only to make money but also to build prosperity and freedom in the context of a livable planet and a healthy society.” (R. Henderson) However, as long as shared values are defined by business looking from the inside out, their perspective will focus on reducing the bads of their existing activities. They will reduce waste, resources, or risks and happily report on newly created shared values. This cannot be sufficient. Only when they start to look from the outside in, starting from the problems society is facing and finding economic solutions for them, will their contributions address problems of real social relevance. Only then, they may be approaching what Katrin Muff and I call “true business sustainability”. For this, they clearly will have to follow a larger purpose than simply maximizing their profits.

Cooperative Self-Regulation

A second strategy level is based on cooperative self-regulation. It engages firms with each other, with the third sector, and with government partners in the pursuit of solutions to common problems, which cannot be solved by any of the partners alone, often prototyping solutions that prove to be a model for subsequent practice. Famous examples are Nike trying to get child labor out of its supply chain by creating the Sustainable Apparel Coalition or WWF and Unilever which spearheaded the creation of the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil, both as a response to the massive critique by NGOs. A current example on a national level, where the author is personally engaged, is PRISMA, an inter-industry cooperation of major companies in the food production, retailing, and packaging sector engaged in bringing about a circular economy solution in Switzerland for consumer goods packaging. While the existing system of materially separated collection systems has been working well in the past, it has reached its limits of including new packaging materials and of demanding an increasingly difficult contribution from the consumers to separate and collect the different materials. The new model developed and promoted by the PRISMA-coalition is an innovative One-For-All collection and recycling system. It consists of a blueprint for a future collection system, prototypes of different elements of a practical solution, and a roadmap for developing and promoting an industry agreement.

Supporting Inclusive Political Action

Cooperative self-regulation is a powerful new way to mobilize the business community in support of promoting collective goods. The increased reach, however, comes at a price. It is hard to achieve and even harder to sustain over time. It needs to be carefully managed. To create more stability and to counter market deficiencies, we need to turn to the third strategy level which is supporting inclusive  political action. Environmental degradation, climate collapse, inequality, and public health are systemic problems that cannot be solved without government action. Free markets need democratic, transparent and effective governments, if they are to survive, as well as the other institutions of an open, inclusive society including the rule of law, shared respect for the truth, and a commitment to vigorous free media. Free markets need free and effective politics to continuously balance and rebalance the evolving rules of the market in light of changing conditions and challenges.

The challenges are huge

Energy demand is projected to double over the next 50 years. Stopping global warming will mean ensuring that every new plant that’s built is carbon-free. It also means shutting down or decarbonizing the world’s existing fossil fuel infrastructure. Inequality, poverty, and migration present a similarly tough set of intertwined systemic problems that can only be fully addressed through government action. Most of these challenges are beyond the reach of individual countries and need international political cooperation. A good example is the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to phase out ozone-destroying chemicals which became effective 1989. It has been remarkably successful. It proved to be possible to find CFC substitutes relatively quickly, despite strong opposition from major business players, and the Antarctic ozone hole is expected to return to its 1980 status by 2030. It has also reduced global Green House Gas emissions by about 5,5%.

The systemic problems we are facing today confront us with the fact that we must build effective global institutions. Business must become an active partner in shoring up the institutions that we have and in building the new ones that we need. And to be clear, this is not about improving the framework conditions for one’s own business or industry. It is about supporting the foundations of our society and of its healthy development. It is about protecting and developing the institutions that have made business and all of us rich and free.

A current example from Switzerland is the public vote on a popular initiative holding Swiss corporations legally accountable for environmental and human rights violations outside Switzerland. While 50,7% of the people voted in favor of the initiative, the second condition for an acceptance – the majority of cantons – was not achieved. The strong lobby of multinational corporations, their business associations and political allies prevented a move that could have paved the way for a more responsible and accountable form of supply chain management in a developing world context. In this case, it was a missed chance to go beyond simply reporting good news and demonstrate real engagement in one of the current hot spots of global development, although public and political pressure in Switzerland and on an international level will not go away It demonstrates how challenging it is for business to find a new role in this profound process of social change and business transformation.

Different strategy levels – different reach – different competences

Creating shared value, cooperative self-regulation, and supporting inclusive political action – on a national or an international level, depending on the issue at case – must be seen as three crucial sustainability strategies for business. While the first strategy is located on an organizational level and allows companies to act by themselves, this is easier to do, but its reach is also limited. Cooperative self-regulations offer a wider reach, often including whole industries or multi-industry and stakeholder coalitions. But this is clearly more challenging and demands very different competences and resources in the collaborative field to practically succeed. And a strategy of supporting inclusive political action aims at the political level and needs again very different competences and resources to act effectively. Here it will need political coalitions with business being only one player among many. But this level may prove to be the most important in the years to come.


by

Anybody can contribute to the mindset shift that is needed to create a positive impact!

We know that it takes an enlightened leader to reposition an organization to provide also value for society and the planet. And we also know that there aren’t enough such leaders. However, latest research shows that there is hope: any engaged employee can increase their changemaker potential by inviting external stakeholders to traditionally internal decisions-making meetings. The current digital meetings are a great bridge for this. Learn here more about the magic of external stakeholders in triggering the organizational mindset shift towards creating positive value.

What lesson does COVID-19 crisis have for business?

Covid has shown us how important it is for organizations to become resilient. There is one guaranteed way to increase your resilience, and that is by orienting yourself to the burning challenges that society and the world face today. Pioneering organizations do this by matching their core competencies with these challenges in order to develop new business models and revenue streams for their business. This requires you to create value, no longer just for your shareholder, or even stakeholders, but to think beyond the existing markets and clients to think broader. The question becomes: How can you as an organization with all the competencies, resources, and capacities you have contribute to solving societal and environmental challenges that are out there?

How do leading positive impact organizations accomplish this?

The pioneers show that in order to transform from a traditional organization to a positive impact organization, there are two predictors of success:

  1. an enlightened leader, meaning somebody who gets the benefits of contributing value to society beyond just looking for creating value for your business, and
  2. an organization that is capable to work outside of its business boundaries, as effectively as internally. I call this the co-creative organization. In addition to managing your business internally, you need to learn how to be co-creative outside, and not just the CEO, but actually many people in your organization.

So that’s why I talk about two mindset shifts: 1) one of the leader who needs to shift somehow the purpose of the organization to want to create more value than just for shareholders. And 2) the mindset shift of the organization where suddenly a sufficient number of employees in the organization learn how to work creatively outside of their boundaries and make sense for their own organization out of it. This external fluency is an entirely new expertise that typically doesn’t get developed in business schools.

But there aren’t enough such leaders, are there?

Indeed, there are unfortunately there aren’t enough leaders. But our research offers great hope. Since it takes two things, the leader, and a co-creative organization, I have some ways to make sure that your organization can become co-creative. Even if you don’t have an enlightened leader, at least you now have one of the two success factors. And we have seen that process of becoming co creative co creative becomes a mindset shift trigger for the CEO. By engaging in the practices to become co-creative, there is a transformation. Even with the leader so you may have initially a leader who doesn’t get it.

Are you saying anybody can bring about change?

Indeed, we are calling them intrapreneurs or change-makers. It could be the head of sustainability, the head of strategy, head of innovation, who says: «Hey, we’re going to bring in such new practices».  In addition, there is a younger generation, an amazing amount of changemakers that are already kind of intrapreneurs that are ready to bring in a lot of energy, new thinking and dynamism, to be the changemakers that can bring in that that can work on that co-creation part.

But what would such a change agent do?

There is a method for turning a traditional organization into a co-creative one. There is a specific way to bring in external stakeholders. I call them Collaboratory events. The change agent invites constructive external stakeholders and together with them the company participants develop a solution to a problem that is out there. In that one-day workshop, particularly if you have the CEO present, our research shows that something happens with people. Exposure to different thinking, arguments, ideas, perspectives opens your mind. And sometimes, the little opening that happens triggers a mindset shift. A mindset shift is nothing else than an expansion of mind. The key to the organizational mindset shift is all about creating triggering incidents where participants minds expands. There are specific proven processes for this. My book «Five Superpowers for Co-creators» is all about it.

So what do you suggest for changemakers out there?

If you have an appetite for helping your organization to identify what are the positive opportunities in there and get together with the innovators and the strategists in your business together, what you need to do is to find a professional facilitator, ideally somebody trained with the SDGXCHANGE methodology, and organize a multi-stakeholder meeting. You pick a day, invite some external stakeholders and a diverse range of your work colleagues – new and long-time serving your organization, all ages, genders, backgrounds and skills. And together with a skilled facilitator, the group has a conversation about what could be the positive role or contribution of your business to address these issues out there. This is what it would mean to put yourself on the «offense» team.

Take-away message

Even if you work in an organization that currently isn’t focused on creating a positive impact for society and the world, and your leader doesn’t necessarily get the importance of such an orientation, there is something you can do: find ways to bring in external stakeholders to your next meeting you have in your department. Any meeting that benefits from a broader perspective and new ideas will be perfect for this. With this simple act, you will start broadening the mindset of your colleagues and help position your organization for a mindset shift. Be surprised with how the positive benefits start to spread in your organization.

If you need help in how to go about this, feel free to reach out to me katrin@katrinmuff.com.


by 2 Comments

Listening – deepening a capacity

In the spirit of continued authentic communication as initiated in my last blog, I would like to share my reflections about the competency that was in highest demand in my past two months: listening!

 

Let me provide a bit of context. Having stopped my roles at Business School Lausanne at the end of July has brought an abrupt end to the previous demand of my leadership skills. I had chosen to let go of leading already three years prior when we introduced self-organization at the school. Yet I had not been able to drop the reporting function of leadership towards the owners and was in many ways still carrying the full weight of responsibility. It took August and September for me to appreciate how much lighter I started to feel, with human interaction being simplified to the person to person contact, rather than facing the projections and expectations that people would associate with me as a holder of a institutional role. With all of that gone, there was space for something new. 

 

I have discovered listening in many forms: professionally listening was a core competency when facilitating stakeholder meetings or chairing panel sessions, and when conducting interviews of best practice companies. Personally, as I reconnected to my purpose asking myself what would come next, I listened to signs of my body to guide me in deepening my intuition. I am also learning to listening to my emotional, cognitive and physical demands when it comes to freeing myself of my cognitive restrictions when it comes to eating. Behavioral scientists have unveiled to what degree modern times have disconnected many of us from a natural and healthy sense of what our physical needs are when it comes to food and how to listen to these. A multi-layer journey as I am discovering.

 

Listening to myself and to others has been complemented with my more conscious listening to what is around me in the city and in nature. A deeper listening, I am discovering, is slowing me down, grounding me and generating an instant deep connection to the core of what unites us all: the energy field that vibrates and pulsates if only we listen. 

3 x

 active listening

  • It is in that energy field that the solutions lie when I seek a transformative turning point in a multi-stakeholder meeting. Depending on the vibration and pulse, it becomes clear what the group needs to step forward in the direction they seek. 
  • It is also in that energy field that the right question, comment or exercise emerges when coaching a person in their journey. Guiding the coachee to connect to that field allows the person to find her answers herself. 
  • It is in this energy field that I am reconnecting to my deeper purpose and my passion. Be it in nature, be it simply by taking a few slow and deep breaths, be it by feeling my feet on the ground, my mind quiets down and I am operating at the speed of my body and its sensations. 

What are your experiences with listening?

 

For me, my core insight of these past two months of deep listening have let me to ponder the following question: “Why would I not live a life that follows the rhythm of my body, rather than racing through life at the speed of my thoughts always dragging my body behind?” I don’t yet have an answer and for the moment my courage is limited to sharing this question with you. 


by

Leadership vs. Citizenship

Re-defining the word in the 21st century context

Who is a leader in the context of the challenges in the era of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)? Business leaders, government leaders (speak politicians), non-government activist, social entrepreneurs, parents, or maybe all of them? And how do we define if somebody is a leader? Leaders have long been associated with organizational roles they hold; in a company, the CEO may be a leader, but not an accountant, salesman or marketer. But does this assumption still hold true in times where courageous action and responsible behavior is expected from almost anybody at any level of any type or organization, including at home?

Kathy Miller in her recent blog suggests that leadership entails “seeking solutions to wicked problems most always through collaboration with others”. She also reflected on how few true leaders there are on her horizon. Her definition suggests a much larger field of action of a leader than previously considered. When I went to business school in the early nineties, things were still clear. A leader is in charge of managing his company. Period. Ever the Rio Conference on Sustainable Development in 2012, it has become clear that business is expected to deliver far beyond only satisfying internal needs, including those of employees and shareholders. Having included external stakeholders in selected consultation has become a fashion since the start of this decade. And yet, the SDGs introduced in 2015, take the stakeholder engagement perspective even a step further suggesting that business may need to operate far beyond its current set of stakeholders.

I entirely concur with Kathy’s definition of leadership. Even a traditionally defined leader, a person who holds a top position in an organization, is expected today to not only manage her business, but also to engage with players in a growing ecosystem that represents the trillion dollar business opportunities of engaging in solving burning societal and environmental issues. For this, we need to replace the outdated idea that leadership is attached or connected to a specific role or position. Everybody, in every position and role of an organization, no matter how small, needs to embrace the responsibility to seek solutions to the “wicked problems” as Kathy suggested. Is that realistic or even necessary?

At BSL where I work, we see how demanding self-organization is on individual. Self-organization demands a high degree of personal responsibility and emotional independence to allow the organization to thrive. But that is not a realistic expectation. There are many people who for various reasons do much better in an environment where they can rely on emotional support, political support, and a bit of clarification on priorities from somebody better apt at defining these. We have learned the hard way that personal responsibility is not something that can be expected or necessarily developed in a person who is not open to this. We all have effective defensive systems that prevent change and development. Often for good reasons. So what does that mean?

I suggest that the word leader needs to be reinterpreted. Rather than being reserved to those holding a specific role or position, it should be used for those exceptional individuals who have the capacity, energy and competence to build on a high degree of personal responsibility so that they can not only do their day-job but can find synergies between what they do and what can help solve wicked global problems. Such people can be found everywhere, but – and this is a realization I must admit – they cannot be expected everywhere. They are exceptional human beings and I suggest that they fully embrace their responsibility as global citizens and can hence be considered as the 21st century leaders. Such a shift really means that we have come to consider Leadership as engaged Citizenship. And for this, we certainly need to adjust the way we educate such leaders in business and management schools. Or should they be called citizen-schools in future?

 

Photo by Ben White on Unsplash


by

The Superpowers of a Change Maker

What is it that makes change makers so impactful? And what can we learn from them? How does resilience turn into a strength that when combined with other strengths becomes a true superpower?

As I am adding the finishing touches on my upcoming book that answers these questions in the context of what makes co-creation successful, I would like to share an emerging bit of insight that hopefully adds value to you.

Kathy Miller has expanded the personal resilience story I have shared in January reflecting on my WEF experience with her insights on what makes organizations resilient, pointing out how few companies possess the cultural backbone that enables such resilience. Here I am turning the spotlight on a remarkable group of people that are emerging as the pillars of change in turbulent world: the change makers.

My book features six change makers from all walks of life. They have a few things in common:

  • They feel an increasing need to connect what they do at work with what concerns them in life in general
  • They are triggered and challenged by their environment (students, colleagues, kids, news) to acknowledge that what they do no longer works
  • They have a capacity to reflect and the courage to listen and learn
  • They are able and willing to engage with others, often strangers, to try old things in new ways and to collaborate in entirely new settings and with new approaches

What none of them had, however, were superpowers. And here is were we come in. All of us who care and who resonate with the above. Superpowers can be acquired and developed. Let me explain!

In his book “Building the bridge as you walk on it”, Robert Quinn offers a new way to look at leadership competencies. He suggests moving beyond a static view of preferred traits that we “should” possess, to a dynamic view of so-called competing strength that are both required but which need to be equally developed in order to achieve a higher state in which both strengths lead to a higher state of competency. Too complicated? Take the example of two strengths we are all familiar with:

  • Being tough and providing structure and limits
  • Caring about the other and being lenient and forgiving

Both of these are undoubtedly strengths, yet one without the other will not lead to an ideal outcome. Quinn argues that we need both of them and calls for a higher state of “tough love”. Makes sense, right! You got the concept that I use to define superpowers!

A superpower for me is when a strength polarity pair is overcome and super strength, or superpower, emerges!

In my research that has led to the sequel of the Collaboratory book, we have identified the following three superpowers of individual change makers in co-creation processes (see also Figure 1):

  • Appreciative curiosity results from being constructive and positive, overcoming self-righteous judgment.
  • Building bridges happens when an inclusive influencer stops being opinionated or unprincipled.
  • Empathic support comes from being open and caring, resisting the temptation to be distant and withdraw.

Figure 1: Extract of the Book “Secrets, Solutions and Superpowers of Co-creation”
due for publication in September 2018 by Routledge Publishing
From Strengths to Superpowers

 

From Strengths to Superpowers

We have developed the strengths by having identified the reasons why co-creation efforts among stakeholders fails most often. We have labelled these causes “limitations” and found out that these limitations are not failures or weaknesses, but rather strengths that have turned into a negative expression due to insisting too much. Each strength therefore has a negative expression when over-stretched (see Figure 2). This is something that you may have experienced when having either experienced somebody being too tough or somebody being too caring.

Figure 2: Extract of the Book “Secrets, Solutions and Superpowers of Co-creation”
due for publication in September 2018 by Routledge Publishing
From Limitations to Strengths

 

From Limitations to Strengths

The journey from limitations to strength and from strengths to superpowers is the development journey of the heroes of our times: the change makers. I am sure that you have used your inherent strengths in various combinations with other strengths to develop your very own personal superpowers. Here I invite you to take a look at the strengths we have identified in our research in Figure 2 and to ask yourself: where am I on the scale of these strengths and their respective limitations? Which limitation have I noticed in myself when I overstretch a strength and how can this overview help me return to my powerful expression of the strength again?

The book highlights two additional levels of superpowers that come into play when we co-create: the superpowers of a stakeholder group and the superpower of facilitating the space for solving shared issue. You will find out more about these in the book which is expected in a bookstore near you in September this year.

 

Picture credit: https://www.dumblittleman.com/7-superpowers-you-act-like-you-have-but/

References:

Robert Quinn (2004): Building the bridge as you walk on it. Jossey-Bass.

Katrin Muff (2013): The Collaboratory – A co-creative stakeholder process for solving complex problems. Greenleaf Publications.


by 1 Comment

Finding our space in a new place

Building personal resilience – an applied example

CEOs and HR Directors have consistently rated adaptability, authenticity and values as top leadership qualities for people at any level of an organization. These are also key ingredients for resilience. I define resilience as the capacity to respond to external pressure by adapting and recovering quickly and hence finding a new equilibrium.

Typically, we look at resilience in interaction with others in an organizational setting. I discovered last week, that I can apply these three ideas also in a challenging networking environment. As a way to launch our transatlantic blog into a new year, I wanted to dedicate this first blog to how we can build personal resilience while being in new challenging situations. I will demonstrate this with my personal experience and reflection from my first participation at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos last week.

Arriving in Davos for the World Economic Forum was hard. Hard for different reasons than I had anticipated – it had been raining and the slush on the street made it a real challenge to make it to the AirB&B my colleague had organized for us. And yet, all this struggle was nothing compared to the difficulty we had securing accommodation for the event! Unimaginable! My colleague Julia Christensen Hughes, Dean of the College of Business & Economics at the University of Guelph , persisted through all obstacles and miraculously found for our Female Deans Trio a fabulous apartment.

Figuring out networking in an event that is strictly structured around privileged access to select events was another eye-opener. The weather challenge which drowned the arrival in unbelievable masses of snow and rain meant that nothing worked as planned. Being simply in the moment and helping fellow attendees out, together finding registration and queuing for badges ended up being the best way to connect. The human element of together making it in a challenging moment created a connection far more important than a typical cocktail party ever would. I may even have attracted a new MBA student to BSL as a result of one such incident.

Nesting in and finding spaces that feel comfortable was a big thing for me too. Given such unfriendly weather conditions outside made it a necessity to find warm and dry spots. Ideally with a seating option and a coffee machine nearby. So finding comfort in the welcoming Female Quotient equity lounge, felt perfect despite my initial resistance to join a “feminine” movement. Admitting that, listening deeper to my intuition and overriding superficial mental judgement, was important. The previous night, I had ignored such intuition and in an attempt to do some networking and meet up with friends, I ended up roaming the Promenade getting wet feet in the slush and maybe a cold along the way – without ever catching up with my friends. I did have the intuition that I should have stayed in the apartment and caught an early night, but failed to listen.

So what am I saying here? I find that when we reach out into the world as change makers, we end up in new, unfamiliar spaces where we need to orient ourselves and find out how we can be effective in such a space. Being effective, I suggest here with my brief insight into my brief #WEF2018 Davos experience, involves these three things:

  • Adaptability: Arriving well and creating a space of comfort either by being with people or having accessories that create comfort (I always bring a candle when I travel)
  • Authenticity: Being in the present moment and embracing the encounter that presents itself wholeheartedly without trying to be elsewhere – trust serendipity!
  • Values: Listen to your intuition and go or stay where you feel well rather than where a program suggests you should or could be. Find your inner rhythm and stick with it as you dance with what is happening around and allow that duality with grace and joy!

And these three insights that I have gained in Davos link nicely back to what CEOs suggest are the backbone of resilience: adaptability, authenticity and values. I hope you find this reflection insightful in your own journey as a change maker both within your organization, and as you shape your own journey across new ground and landscapes!

 


by

How CEOs can inspire personal change

Imagine you had 30 minutes with 4 renowned CEOs in front of several hundred business practitioners and you wanted to use the time to create change in the audience. What would you do? I recently had the opportunity and here is what happened!

At the Swiss Green Economy Symposium, the largest event among sustainability enthusiasts in the German speaking part of Switzerland, I could facilitate a CEO panel. I had about six months to prepare which was necessary given the busy agenda of the CEOs. I contacted more than a dozen to have a confirmed gender balanced panel of 4 CEOs. One of the female CEOs had confirmed early and said she would participate with one condition: that there would be at least as many women on the panel as men. What a great condition! Imagine how things would shift if all women (and men) would demand this!

I wanted to create a panel that would serve as a trigger for change in the audience rather than a the usual story-telling inspiration sharing success stories of their organizations. Would I be able to convince the CEOs to give up the opportunity to position their company in front of an attractive audience in service of creating a space where change could happen in the audience? Yes, imagine that. CEOs were open to that idea, once I shared my idea with them and had talked them through the concept. Wonderful!

Figure 1: The Circle Model connecting the inner world of personal development with the outer world of organizational development as a transformative journey towards a world worth living in (Katrin Muff, 2016)

We split the 30 minutes in three parts. After a short introduction where I framed the conversation with a simple concept (see figure 1), we started the first part. Each CEO shared a personal story illustrating the question: “which challenges have influenced them personally and how have these shaped the way you are leading your organization?” As the audience collectively leaned forward, topics such as gender stereotypes, work-place injustice, product waste and power abuse were discussed with courage and vulnerability. I invited the packed auditorium to take moment and to individually reflect on what has shaped them most in your past and how this influences their priorities at work. Both in terms of what they currently do and what they wish you were doing. People came to me afterwards and said they have never experienced a room so quiet and so focused. The magic was starting.

In a second round, we had selected only two of the four CEOs share examples of what issues were challenging their organization in this VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous) world and what long-term business opportunities were emerging concerning the Sustainable Development Goals? To grant time to the audience, the generosity of the other CEOs to stand back was really touching. We were one and we had one common objective! I invited the audience to turn to their neighbor and to discuss what options their saw to implement change for their organizations to embed the SDGs into their strategy. On a background slide, I shared a support website for those needing help. The room exploded. Everybody talked and shared and exchanged. We sat in our chairs with our jaws wide open. What an energy in the room. And how were we going to get them back to listening to us? When the time was up, the CEOs and I spontaneously stood up together and loudly applauded the audience. They look up and stared at us in surprise. They stopped talking and we could continue.

In the last round, all CEOs shared which issue concerned them most in our society and where they saw opportunities to connect these to future business activities? Their stories addressed the top burning societal issues of Switzerland as addressed by the Gapframe: CO2 overuse, equal opportunity, sustainable consumption, social integration and clean energy. I invited the audience to take a moment and choose one action that they could implement in the next 3 days to close the gap of where we are today vs. where they thought we should be in an area important for them. I offered an online tool to share these actions, if anybody felt like it.

I wish we had more time at the end, the final reflection was a minute shorter than I had hoped but our 30 minutes were up. Nonetheless, I was happily surprised when I discovered the personal commitments coming in. Figure 2 provides an overview of them grouped into some categories I hope are helpful in reviewing.

Role modelling

  • I commit to dedicate my working time to a project that serves 100% to make our living more sustainable
  • Lead a topic coming out of SGES 2017
  • I will define my personal SDG‘s to be achieved by the end of 2018
  • Break the barriers, create sense of urgency and implement the much needed change
  • Prepare presentation about the legal implications of a meat tax as a ghg heavy good

Encouraging others for action

  • Communicate knowledge to peers
  • As corny as it may sound: foremost change minds
  • I commit to also encourage others to live more sustainably
  • Talk with my Patents about their travelling
  • Poll others on these questions
  • Roll out the sdgxchange in a world wide level
  • Make my sons understand that they also have a big responsibility for Equal Opportunity and that they must contribute to achieving it

Community building

  • Organize a non-hierarchical roundtable for a common sustainable mindset within my organization and outside
  • Partner to strengthen the capability to act
  • Launch SDSN Switzerland on 2 Nov, the network that mobilizes the Swiss research & innovation community for the SDGs
  • Keep engaging people for a sustainable future
  • I’ll ask my fellow Entrepreneurs how they care about Sustainability! And I’ll publish it later on!
  • Organize the startups around me in a matrix to share sustainability progress

More time for the soul

  • Slow down. I will lower my expectations towards myself and spend more time speaking with my employees
  • I will observe better!

Aligning corporate sustainability goals with national priority issues

  • Identify lacks in our sustainability goals by comparing them with the topic of gapframe.org
  • Build our new 150kW PV project in Bern – Solarify
  • Verity the strategic goals of my organization against the Agenda2030 for Sustainable Development and adapt if needed
  • I will create a personal project on how we can introduce GTDs with local partners and stakeholders in our projects worldwide
  • Make sure that we also talk about social innovations.
  • Apply the standard for sustainable construction (SNBS) in the area of buildings

Social integration action

  • Partner up to reach higher employee diversity (age, gender, education, etc.)
  • I would like to support employees who lost their jobs with improving their skill-set and find a new opportunity or career path.
  • Transparency and equality

Reducing the CO2 consumption (Switzerland’s no 1 sustainability issue)

  • Only travel by train to destinations in Europe (always!)
  • Rain or shine, I’ll bike to work.
  • I commit to eating only very little meat and buy organic food, to fly as little as possible and compensate my flights
  • Compensate my flight
  • No more elevator – taking the steps, staying fit and saving energy
  • Exchange my diesel into an electric car
  • Conscious Consuming
  • Cook local
  • Eating less meat
  • Renovate our old Windows in order to create more insolation
  • Commit to an organic “vegetable-abo” in order to support sustainable and local agriculture.
  • Before I buy something, to ask: what is the harm when I buy this?

Figure 2: List of shared personal commitments as a result of a 30 minute transformative CEO panel

I don’t think I have ever spent so much time preparing for a 30 minute intervention. I think I spent 30 hours, or 60 times the intervention time, in preparation. I needed not only prepare the CEOs, I also needed to get the organizer onboard. Among the CEOs, we had spent two months carefully scripting each statement of each person so that we could create an overall story that would hopefully allow a change in the audience. This resulted in a 3500 word document that everybody had approved, outlining minute by minute who would say what. If you attempt something similar, ensure you have plenty of lead-time available! It is worth it though!

Author: Katrin Muff, PhD

Active in thought leadership, consulting & applied research in sustainability & responsibility, and directing the DAS & DBA programs


by

The tricky interconnection of values and purpose

Being values-based implies a connection with oneself, a deep inner knowing. Embracing a purpose requires, so I argue here, a connection with the context in which we live and operate, a deep outer knowing. When these two senses are disconnected, we are in trouble, as individuals, as organizations and as societies at large. When the senses are aligned, thriving individually, as an organization and as a global community means thriving at all of these levels for the benefit and well-being of all.

Brené Brown recently said in an interview with Marie Forleo “our worth and our belonging are not negotiated with other people. We carry those inside of our hearts.” Brené is a widely recognized and respected psychologist in the domains of authenticity and vulnerability. She talks about how an individual can find herself, find her roots and core and how to stand up for herself and what matters to her. In many ways what she talks about has to do with finding one’s own purpose and identity or what she calls knowing who you truly are. To her, the importance of knowing who you are is key in living an authentic life as it ensures that you can always belong to yourself, rather than fitting in with what others might expect.

I can resonate with this and I understand the importance of what she says. How are we supposed to know what is right and what is wrong if we don’t know who we are and what that means in the context of what happens around us? This journey of self-knowing, of self-awareness, is a key component in the journey of being a responsible leader. It may well be the first and most important one, the dimension without which all the rest doesn’t really make sense. It certainly is critical to create role models that can serve others to find the courage to adapt their behavior and attitudes in order to re-connect with who they truly are. Or, as Lena Faraguna claims: “Lighthouses don’t go running all over the island looking for boats to save. They just stand there shining.”

Quote and image by Lena Faraguna

Let me zoom out a bit. How would we translate this self-knowing, this inner self of self-belonging in the context of working with others, of teams, and of organizations? How can a sense of belonging among a group of people, be it a family of a company, be created without negotiating with others? How can a group of individuals that belong first and foremost to themselves ever belong to a greater cause? I am troubled when I imagine how a particularly purpose-oriented company, such as those that Kathy Miller described in her last blog, might do if it decides to “not negotiate with others because its self-worth is inside of its own purpose”. Isn’t that what we are accusing the modern corporation of doing? Of putting its own priorities first and to forget about the rest? Where is the line drawn? If investors and owners are part of the inner core, then profit-maximization sure makes sense. If they are not part of it (and how might they not?), then how can a company protect its interest from investors without negotiating? Tricky.

When adding a further dimension and zooming out to an entire society, what changes in that frame? If a society decides that it needs to first and foremost belong to itself, its citizens, and not negotiate with others, what might that mean? Wouldn’t we be moving very close to the explosive sense that nationalists are expressing when they say “my country first”? And when they start protecting themselves from perceived outside threats, such as immigrants, refugees and trade agreements?

There is something dangerous in all of this. And this might well also be the dangerous in purpose-oriented firms. Purpose, after all, means what? The dictionary says purpose is “the reason for which something is done”. Well, and that is the entire problem. That is not good enough. There are excellent reasons to do something and there are incredibly stupid reasons for doing other things. Let me take the three-step zoom back from society, to the organization to the individual.

A society that defines a purpose, or “raison d’être” as something that is distinctive from what is around it, will in the worst case create harm to other societies and possibly even to itself. Global well-being can only be achieved if a society, a nation, embraces the idea that it is fundamentally and indisputably a part of the larger context in which it operates. And finding a purpose that does not take this into account is potentially harmful, as the Swiss President and many other statesmen have pointed out after President Trump gave his disturbing “America First” speak at the UN SDG forum last week.

Zooming now in to an organization or a team, what does this mean? If an organization chooses a purpose that is purely self-serving and that may seem like the best way to survive and ride the increasingly turbulent waves of change, then this organization is also very likely to harm those around it, and as a result, potentially itself. The metaphor is the cancer cell that builds its growth on eating into the very organism that is providing its living substance until that organism has been emptied out and can no longer sustain the ongoing growth of these cells. That sounds ugly and I apologize. What I mean to say is that a purposeful organization is not good enough, if that purpose does not imply taking into account the well-being of the context in which the organization operates.

Further zooming in and back to the individual, I struggle to see how an individual can and should have a sense of identify to herself that is limited to herself only. It appears limiting and potentially dangerous. As it if was necessary to put up guards against something outside. As if that sense of inner belonging needed protecting. An inward journey of discovery will uncover, I am certain, that there is both nothing and everything that can shake you and me in our core. Nothing in the sense that we are who we are irrespective of what happens outside of us, our sense of self is based on how we see and talk to ourselves. Everything in the sense that we are shaped by the events in our lives and we respond to them, in the full understanding that we have no idea what lies ahead of us.

The Circle Model (Katrin Muff 2016)

Let me attempt to conclude. In order for purpose and values to be aligned, an ongoing journey between the inner and the outer world in which we live is needed, allowing an emergent transformation as we advance. This allows a development of the inner knowing and the values we build on. In addition, purpose will need to be defined not just as the “reason for which something is done” but “the reason for which what is done serves the well-being of the next larger holon” or unit. Arthur Koestler coined the term holon (“whole”) as something that “simultanesouly a whole and a part”. Holacracy, which is founded on the principle of Holons, embraces this nicely as an operating system. A holon is a unit that is contained in another holon and that may (or not) contain other holons. Each sub-ordinate holon by definition must embrace the purpose of the holon of which it is a part and the entire system is guides by an overarching missing that should – and here Holacracy stops – again serve the next larger holon. Imagine if individuals would understand that we are holons, as parts of organizations, which in turn are holons as a part of societies, which in turn form a part of a global community, all while being in and of itself a whole that again contains other smaller holons. This understanding would allow an alignment of purpose and values based on the understanding that we are all a part of another, infinitely interconnected.

Author: Katrin Muff, PhD

Active in thought leadership, consulting & applied research in sustainability & responsibility, and directing the DAS & DBA programs