6BUS1261 Leading and Sustainable Development Assignment Sample
Introduction
It is critical for organisations to adopt new leadership models and practises, as well as cutting-edge technologies and resources, if they are to retain long-term vitality. Each and every company is presented with social and environmental challenges on a regular basis, which is one of the factors contributing to the current trend in the sector (Lozano,2019).
Critically evaluate the organisation’s sustainability approach.
Currently available solutions, which are founded on conceptual frameworks and previous research, encourage the use of stakeholder-balanced approaches to leadership for sustainability in all of its many forms. Because of this research (Haque,2019), the proposed Global Leadership for Sustainability (GLfS) paradigm, which is founded on spiritual and being-centered leadership ideals, has arisen as a result of the findings. Self-transcendence and interconnectedness, according to our findings, are vital for the long-term viability and sustainability of the Global Leadership for Sustainability (GLS) effort (Global Leadership for Sustainability) (GLfS). It is also necessary to build a worldwide mentality for sustainability, as well as a global mindset for environmental sustainability. In this way of thought, two ethical notions are brought together and blended: one based on distant moral responsibility, and another based on compassion and care for one’s fellow human being. Therefore, they are becoming even more devoted to a triple bottom-line approach to sustainable growth that is also ecologically beneficial.. It is important to note that GLfS has repercussions in terms of theory, research, and practise, and we shall go into further detail about these ramifications in the second section of this study (Watz,2019).
Operations management
Organizations must adopt new business models and leadership styles in order to maintain long-term sustainability and to reverse the unfavourable trend that is becoming more widespread. Moreover, these models must be capable of effectively driving corporate performance while simultaneously fulfilling the increased demand for sustainable solutions from stakeholders that are strongly socially and ecologically concerned . Achieving success requires the ability to cross several boundaries and combine local responsiveness with global integration, which is not always easy (Rao,2019).
The search for answers to these complex socio-economic and environmental problems is now being carried out by a number of well-known individuals and organisations that are dedicating a large amount of time and money. Following these concerns, the business community has been slow to respond, and as a result, they are still a long way away from completely incorporating sustainability into their strategic planning and operational practises. Despite the fact that sustainable business models have the potential to create $12 trillion in economic and market opportunities by 2030, as well as to generate 380 million new jobs by the same year, this is still the case today (Rajamanickam,2019).6BUS1261 Leading and Sustainable Development Assignment Sample
Sustainability framework
In this article, a new paradigm of global leadership for sustainability (GLfS) is proposed with the purpose of aiding organisations dedicated to sustainability and sustainable development in making the necessary modifications while maintaining or improving their current levels of productivity. The development of spiritual talents, in addition to the development of spiritual skills, should be a priority for the Global Leadership for Sustainability, as we believe it is a sign of leaders who are becoming more conscious of their impact on society, the environment, and local and global economies. Creating spiritual attributes such as self-transcendence and interconnectedness in socially complex and causally complicated environments presents a unique challenge for leaders and their organisations. These attributes, which are difficult to recreate, are particularly difficult in complex environments. It has been compounded by the emergence of triple bottom line initiatives, which provide unique challenges for leaders and their organisations to overcome in order to succeed.
This leadership paradigm for organisational transformation promotes vision and value congruence across all levels of an organisation, including individuals, empowered teams, and stakeholder ecosystems, as well as across the entire stakeholder ecosystem, in order to achieve the overall goal of creating a conscious, flourishing environment that is beneficial to all stakeholders. This vision and value congruence across all levels of an organisation is promoted via the use of this leadership paradigm for organisational change in order to attain this aim (see Figure 1). Towards the realisation of sustainable development, an international mentality centred on two ethical principles that inspire optimism and confidence in a long-term vision, as well as the prospect of long-term progress, is necessary (Amrutha,2020). Therefore, it is vital to build an organisational culture founded on humanitarian ideals in order to effectively combat human trafficking. In order for both leaders and followers to be satisfied with their spiritual well-being on a spiritual level, they must have a sense of belonging in a loving, caring group that is committed to their long-term growth and progress and is devoted to their long-term development and advancement. Because the triple bottom line indicators are reflected in the indicators of spiritual well-being, the intrinsically expressed goals of attaining economic, social, and environmental sustainability are enhanced as a consequence of the triple bottom line indicators’ inclusion in them (Klapper,2019).
Role of global leadership
As explained by the authors, the Leaders for Sustainability (GLfS) leadership strategy builds on existing practises and combines them in an effort to achieve long-term sustainability in a long-term, sustainable way. As a continuation of the argument that sustainability and sustainable development are difficult to achieve without self-transcendence and connection, we will go through several more points of dispute in greater detail, including, but not limited to, the following: To address the issue of leadership, we advocate for a stakeholder-balanced strategy that takes into account the triple bottom line in terms of sustainability and development, as well as the triple bottom line in terms of economic growth, among other factors. It is also examined how existing approaches to leadership for sustainability differ in terms of their conceptual breadth and the amount of research that has been conducted on them. Leadership theories that are spiritual or being-centered in nature may be included into the development of GLfS, with a particular emphasis on the key notions of self-transcendence and connection as essential themes. These are the findings of Wegwu, (2019) investigation, according to their conclusions: Our method is based on the results of global mindset research, which shown that world leaders can only acquire an international mentality after obtaining a higher level of awareness of the global environment (Akhtar,2018). The establishment of a global mentality of sustainability will necessitate the appointment of leaders who share a commitment to sustainability, a sense of self-transcendence and interconnectedness, as well as a sense of distant moral responsibility and an ethic of caring and compassion, among other characteristics (GMS). Additionally, the notion of Global Leadership for Sustainability (GLfS) is based on the idea of leadership for sustainability, and it is an extension of that concept. This paper examines and compares the many conceptual aspects of sustainability leadership in order to provide a more comprehensive picture of sustainability leadership.
A single, all-inclusive bundle that includes all of GLfS’s features is offered, which includes everything you could possible desire.
Conflict management
When it comes to finding a way to establish a balance between the conflicting needs of the economy, the environment, and society as a whole, the terms sustainability and sustainable development are interchangeable. Human beings and the Earth’s resources cannot be treated as if they are raw materials for industrial production, to be used once and then discarded as rubbish. This is just not acceptable. When it comes to discussing this approach, it is customary in the business world to refer to it as “triple bottom line” because of its significance to the bottom line of the organisation. Consider the following as an example of how it’s explained:
In order to create common ground between opposing demands for economic, social, and environmental sustainability, it is important to develop an ethical framework that goes beyond self-interest. Also essential is finding common ground between conflicting demands for social and environmental sustainability in order to achieve long-term success. Without regard to how they came to be, all sentient beings and the environment must be treated with courtesy, respect, and love, regardless of their circumstances. If you deprive someone of their well-being while at the same time causing damage to future generations, you are in breach of that person’s human rights. Developing a more in-depth spiritual awareness of our interconnections with one another and with the natural world, according to Leopold (2019), is essential in order to adopt an ethical perspective toward the natural world. According to -Mikkelsen (2018), who conducted an interview with spiritually oriented CEOs, the most important motivating factors for them were love, caring for others, a sense of purpose, compassion, and divinity, with love being the most significant driving factor of all. Love was the most significant driving factor for all of them.
Four Challenges of Sustainability
Following the “Four Challenges of Sustainability,” it is necessary to undergo a spiritual renewal in order to make the transition away from a worldwide addiction to consumerism and away from the Neoliberal economic model, which is based on continuous development, in order to achieve a more sustainable future. According to the author, in order to experience spiritual rebirth, it is necessary to have a greater understanding of global spiritual and religious traits such as compassion, courage, kindness, and humility, as well as other virtues, and this understanding can only be gained through personal experience. As the author points out, individuals should learn to empathise with others while still being able to laugh at their own mistakes. It has been proposed that paying more attention to one’s own inner self, as well as one’s social and environmental surroundings, is beneficial to both individuals and the environment. It is essential that while making decisions, the leaders of a society consider the long-term survival and success of their society in order to guarantee the long-term survival and prosperity of their society for future generations.
It is necessary for people to take personal responsibility and initiative in order to be successful over the long run.
Leadership for sustainability is a relatively new area of academic inquiry that goes beyond more traditional leadership strategies that are focused on internal organisational processes and outcomes within confined or closed systems. Leadership for sustainability is a relatively new area of academic inquiry that goes beyond more traditional leadership strategies that are focused on internal organisational processes and outcomes within confined or closed systems. Leadership for sustainability is a concept that has just lately arisen as a focus of academic investigation. Instead of focussing on internal organisational processes and consequences, it focusses on external organisational processes and outcomes that occur outside of confined or closed contexts. You must be passionate and determined to bringing about long-term change in your company, community, and society as a whole if you want to be a great leader. A direct outcome of these activities, stakeholders from around the world are embracing sustainability leadership in dynamic global ecosystems of stakeholders within open systems as a result of their collaborative efforts. A main purpose of this essay is to voice opposition to corporate social responsibility standards that place a high focus on shareholder profit at the cost of those who fight for social and environmental issues and concerns.
Recommendations
Sustainable leadership focuses the attributes that separate a competent leader from others, as opposed to conventional leadership, which emphasises the necessities of a formal position and the authority that comes with it. Leaders must cooperate in order to co-create and generate synergies around a single purpose in the face of a broad range of opposing interests, both inside and external to the organisation. Over the past few decades, the topic of leadership has been the focus of various lines of investigation: the first two are concerned with sustainability, while the third is concerned with responsibility and conscience . Three unique circumstances are explored, and each one stresses the importance of adopting a bottom-up, multi-stakeholder approach to leadership in order to be successful in the long term. In today’s VUCA (volatile, unpredictable, complex, and ambiguous) global context, the skill to display responsible leadership while engaging stakeholders is becoming increasingly crucial for business and government leaders. Over the last fifteen years, research on “sustainable leadership” has evolved in a similar fashion to how research on “responsible leadership” has developed. In this corpus of research, which includes a variety of case studies, there is also acknowledgement and further development of these classic leadership styles (for example, transactional/transformational, ethical, real-world, and servant leadership) (e.g., within a closed organisational framework) (e.g., inside a closed organisational framework).
‘Management Gym’ framework
As a consequence of this scenario, there is no consensus on how to define and conceptualise responsible leadership, and as a result of this situation, there is no agreement on how to define and conceptualise responsible leadership There are three important theoretical methods that have emerged at the time of this writing. The following are some of these points of view: Responsible leadership is characterised as a way for connecting with multiple stakeholders that is deliberate, relational, inclusive, and ethical at many levels of analysis. Responsible leadership is characterised as a way for connecting with multiple stakeholders that is deliberate, relational, inclusive, and ethical at many levels of analysis. When it comes to interacting with varied stakeholders, responsible leadership is classified as a strategy for doing so that is thoughtful, relational, inclusive, and ethical at several levels of analysis. When it comes to creating connections with a broad variety of stakeholders, responsible leadership is characterised as a method for doing so that is deliberate, relational, inclusive, and ethical at many levels of scrutiny. When it comes to developing relationships with a varied range of stakeholders, responsible leadership is classed as a strategy for doing so that is thoughtful, relational, inclusive, and ethical at various levels of examination, as defined by the International Standards Organization. Business experts are typically aware that the main purpose is to maximise profits and shareholder value, with the primary goal being to maximise earnings and shareholder value. A comprehensive approach should be taken into consideration in dealing with the concerns of stakeholders in the economic, social, and environmental realms. In an attempt to bring these disparate interests closer together, numerous opinions on the triple bottom line are being investigated.
According to the results of a rising number of academics, when their managers conduct in line with ethical norms, their staff are encouraged to “do well by doing good,” as the saying goes.
Under the triple bottom line (also known as the triple bottom line strategy), a higher emphasis was made on the well-being of all stakeholders (for example, profit maximisation) than was focused on rewarding top executives and shareholders under the triple bottom line
Conclusion
A vibrant stakeholder network among business executives involves the ability to engage in open and honest negotiation and communication with one another. They must also complete additional jobs such as those of steward, citizen, visionary, and servant in addition to the obligations outlined above in the previous section, such as those of steward and citizen.
After much deliberation, the authors have come to the conclusion that the term “responsive leadership” can now be used to describe the management of both micro and macro difficulties by leaders who accept responsibility for the long-term profitability of their company as well as the welfare of all of the stakeholders to whom they are accountable for their decisions.6BUS1261 Leading and Sustainable Development Assignment Sample
References
Akhtar, S., Arshad, M.A., Mahmood, A. and Ahmed, A., 2018. Gaining recognition of Islamic spiritual intelligence for organisational sustainability. International Journal of Ethics and Systems. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJOES-01-2017-0003/full/html
Amrutha, V.N. and Geetha, S.N., 2020. A systematic review on green human resource management: Implications for social sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 247, p.119131. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652619340016
Chiabrishvili, M. and Zaim, H., 2018. The role of knowledge management for long-term sustainability in Kuwait companies. Middle East Journal of Management, 5(4), pp.340-355. https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/MEJM.2018.095586
Demir, A., Budur, T., Omer, H.M. and Heshmati, A., 2021. Links between knowledge management and organisational sustainability: does the ISO 9001 certification have an effect?. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, pp.1-14. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14778238.2020.1860663
Haque, A., 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic and the role of responsible leadership in health care: thinking beyond employee well-being and organisational sustainability. Leadership in Health Services. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/LHS-09-2020-0071/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest
Klapper, R., Berg, L. and Upham, P., 2020. Probing alignment of personal and organisational values for sustainability: An assessment of Barrett’s organisational consciousness model. Sustainability, 12(18), p.7584. https://www.mdpi.com/827074
Lozano, R. and Garcia, I., 2020. Scrutinizing sustainability change and its institutionalization in organizations. Frontiers in Sustainability, 1, p.1. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsus.2020.00001/full
Lozano, R., 2018. Proposing a definition and a framework of organisational sustainability: A review of efforts and a survey of approaches to change. Sustainability, 10(4), p.1157. https://www.mdpi.com/281556
Rajamanickam, E., Measuring the Organisational Sustainability to Increase the Performance of Small and Medium Textile Enterprises in Coimbatore Region. https://www.ijres.org/papers/Volume-9/Issue-12/Ser-4/I09125459.pdf
Rao, I. and Thakur, P., 2019. Knowledge workers, organisational ambidexterity and sustainability: a conceptual framework. International Journal of Business Excellence, 19(3), pp.415-428. https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJBEX.2019.102832
Taljaard, A. and de Beer, E., 2019. Integrative communication for organisational sustainability—An integrative communication relationship model as communication management tool. Journal of Public Affairs, 19(4), p.e1957. https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjrl_Ttls73AhVqzTgGHSZYDnIQFnoECAYQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fscholarexpress.net%2Findex.php%2Fwbss%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F462%2F434&usg=AOvVaw38PLJehiXGUog0CWn0RgCz
Watz, M. and Hallstedt, S.I., 2020. Profile model for management of sustainability integration in engineering design requirements. Journal of Cleaner Production, 247, p.119155. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652619340259
Wegwu, M.E., 2022. Employee Relations Policies and Organisational Sustainability. Global Journal of Social Sciences Studies, 8(1), pp.1-10. https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjrl_Ttls73AhVqzTgGHSZYDnIQFnoECAMQAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.growingscience.com%2Fuscm%2Fonline%2Fuscm_2022_23.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2cLEs90ziuvGeIXRup_atA
Assignment Services Unique Submission Offers:
