Leadership concepts and practices

Sustainability Science

Phase 4 Discussion Board

The article that I will be reviewing is "Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development." This article was published in the journal Sustainability Science and directly covers the development of the academic discipline. The authors note that as the discipline matures into a full-fledged academic discipline, there is a need to understand the nature of sustainability science and what the key competencies are going to be to understand the discipline. The authors have studied a number of journal articles on the subject to make a determination about what competencies are required: systems thinking, anticipatory, strategic, interpersonal and normative.

The authors have a good understanding of what sustainability science is. They point out rightfully that systems thinking is critical, because sustainability science is about the systems that support human life. Strategic competencies is required because interventions are required to save us from ourselves, and this also requires a high level of interpersonal competence as well. Anticipatory competence is also identified, and that makes sense in the context of sustainability science, as the discipline is almost entirely concerned with anticipating future outcomes, both in terms of identifying risks and in terms of designing effective interventions. The authors define normative competence as "the ability to collectively map, specify, apply, reconcile and negotiate sustainability values, principles, goals and targets." I am not sure how this is any different from combing systems competence and interpersonal competence.

The argument is structured on a meta-analysis of sustainability science literature, to determine what competencies have identified and what competencies might have been missed -- a gap analysis. This paper makes a clear argument, supported by evidence. While it could be viewed as a starting point for discussion, it is a strong starting point that helps to bring together a lot of the different thought on what sustainability science is.

Phase 4, Discussion Board 2

Fresh water availability reflects the structure of the global hydrological cycle and how this affects the ability of human beings to have fresh water available for our use (Engelman & LeRoy, 1993). To this I would add that drinking water and irrigation are the uses most important -- even though we use clean water in our toilets, technically, we don't need to do this. Fresh water access as I understand it pertains directly to sustaining life, not comfort.

The environmental perspective looks at fresh water from the point-of-view of the hydrological cycle. Understanding the hydrological cycle is critical to developing a sustainable pathway for freshwater usage, in particular as fresh water resources are in the largest countries. Some, such as Brazil, Canada and Russia, rank among the highest in the world for freshwater resources per capita (World Bank, 2014). The social science perspective looks at other factors affecting freshwater resources. This includes usage and development patterns, and also potential outcomes where there are freshwater sources. It is well-known that water resources are not dispersed evenly around the world, so political barriers are important to consider when examining freshwater sustainability.

From an economic perspective, there has been some examination of the issue of capitalizing water, something many corporations are in favor of. Some studies focus on gathering data where water is subject to charge (Saal & Parker, 2001) while other studies focus on hypotheticals with regards to capitalizing water.

Climate change and adaptation are critical issues with respect to water. First, climate change is affecting rainwater patterns, and it is also affecting groundwater. Some areas are going to be badly affected by climate change with respect to water. Further, since two-thirds of fresh water is locked in polar ice caps, melting of those ice caps will dramatically alter the amount of and availability of fresh water on this planet. Entire books can be dedicated to the study of how climate change is going to affect freshwater resources, and further study could elaborate on the intersection between the hydrological cycle, social and political factors contributing to water sustainability and the role that business can play in bringing about positive change to water policy.

Phase 4 Discussion Board 3

Companies can measure their own water usage fairly easily, since many utilities already measure this. When you read through the sustainability reports of companies, when they talk about water they tend to know how much they use. It is easy to measure water flow, and most companies like to know what the inputs to their processes are. Often, they have to by law, when there is wastewater that must be handled properly. Efforts to measure water usage are likely to be more complicated in the developing world, but this doesn't seem to be a huge issue.

Some companies definitely seek to reduce their water usage, in particular when they have to pay for that usage. The current efforts are a positive step, but as of now they are entirely voluntary. Further, some companies are saving water in areas where availability is not a concern -- what good does it do for a company in Canada to reduce water usage? Not much. At the end of the day, efforts are still just voluntary and not nearly enough companies are interested in serious change. Coca-Cola can boast about cutting water usage, but their products are a waste of good water. And most companies don't care at all -- they still build golf courses in the Southwest.

The longer time frame is more interesting, because when water becomes scarce, it will represent a constraint on business. As such, we are starting to see the development of new technologies and concepts that will help reduce water usage, at least in certain industries. But this needs to go a lot further in order to have a serious and positive impact on freshwater resources in the world.

Phase 4 Individual Project

I will look at Coca-Cola and its sustainability report to discuss the issue of fresh water. The United States has adequate fresh water resources, but not everywhere Coke does business can say the same. The report contains a section on water stewardship. Before I get into it, the front of that section has a photo of an African woman carrying a large jug of water on her shoulders. This is sort of the problem, no? People must travel, sometimes miles in a day, to get fresh water, and carry it, without vehicles or animal transport. This seems like Coca-Cola is basically bragging about this situation, or reminding people that unlike the woman in the picture, Coca-Cola never has to do this to get water to make its products. I am actually kind of floored by this image.

Coca-Cola notes that it is reducing the amount of water it uses per liter of product. This is not sustainability, of course, as optimal efficiency is that one liter of beverage to drink would require one liter of water to produce. The company does note that it treats wastewater. Unfortunately it argues that it "sometimes returns it to nature cleaner than required by law," which sounds good, until you realize that in many countries the laws regarding wastewater are exceptionally lax. So again, the company seeks to frame its actions are being something more than what they are, which is unexceptional.

The company is correct when it points out that it is in a unique position to act as a steward for water, given its resources and its presence in almost every country in the world. No government or international body has this power, only multinational corporations. The company shows that it is improving its water use efficiency, though this is best in North America and Europe (which have good water resources) and relatively poor in Africa and the Pacific, the latter likely a function of small, inefficient plant. But Africa and the Middle East are areas where you would like to see Coca-Cola at its best.

So overall, the company makes some progress, but would be better off going out of business than using 2 liters of fresh water to produce 1 liter of carbonated syrup. Ultimately, the best and most efficient use of fresh water is to apply it directly to parched throats and thirsty crops, not to turn it into soda.

I wouldn't have much to say to the WWF about the issue of Coca-Cola's water use, or really water sustainability at all. Clearly animals need fresh water as well, and I'm in favor of having enough water for them, but this group is not well-positioned to fight this fight, and honestly has bigger fish to fry, so to speak, what with all the impending extinctions. I'd say I support his cause and donate some money, then get back to work on the water issue.

Climate change is going to, at the very least, redistribute water. This is going to be interesting because water resources are already poorly-distributed. There are a lot of risks, that nations will no longer be self-sufficient in water, for example. Melting ice caps will reduce the amount of fresh water on the planet. We might not have had a plan for using it, but losing it is going to cause a lot of problems, and will not make anybody feel good about the overall fresh water situation. Climate change should, however, give people an opportunity to rethink things like the modern nation-state, and maybe we can come together to face these problems, distributing human beings around the planet in a way that everybody can live sustainably. That may be dreaming, but climate change may prove a powerful crisis, big enough to spur such re-thinking of the way that we have structured our society.

Is there a link between my project and fresh water availability? Yes, because I am writing about fresh water availability. The link is 100%.

Part B

Phase 4 Discussion Board

Fielder's contingency theory holds that "there is no one best style of leadership" but rather that "leader's effectiveness is based on the situation." The leader might have a specific leadership style, but it will not always be effective, and instead that the leader might be entirely ineffective in one situation and highly effective in another without really changing his or her leadership style.

Authentic leadership should be important to contingency theory. As authentic leadership is sort of the idea that leaders should mean what they say and say what they mean, or something of that nature, there is a link with contingency theory. Authentic leaders are unlikely to deviate much in their leadership style, because they are not playing the role of actors. Their leadership style will remain consistent, and therefore might work well under some circumstances but be ill-suited in others. One could argue that authentic leaders are more likely to be successful because at least their charges can trust them, and know that they are doing their best under the circumstance. It could also be argued that authentic leaders, because they lack adaptive capabilities, can be respected for being genuine but still hopelessly out of their depth in some situations, leading to failure anyway.

I am task-oriented. I fit well with authentic leadership because I am not much of an actor. So for me, contingency theory would hold that there are some situations where, with my leadership skill set, I should excel. However, in other situations a relationship-oriented leader might be more likely to succeed. I am therefore better suited to situations where tasks are the more critical element and where I am maintain my task focus without being asked to play a role and pretend to be relationship-driven. Where success depends on relationships, I am probably going to be at a disadvantage because I am so authentic, but at least people might forgive me for that, if they know how I operate.

I see situational leadership and contingency theory as two sides of the coin. Contingency theory argues that effectiveness is determined by the situation. The leader might be a constant under contingency theory, or maybe not. The theory is only concerned with pointing out that any given leadership style is unlikely to be successful under all situations. Situational leadership sees the leader change in response to the situation. So the situation may or may not, but the leader is ready, able and willing to change, in order to meet the situation. In contingency theory, the situation will change; the leader might not. In situational leadership, the leader will change; the situation might not.

Phase 4, Discussion Board 2

I agree with the first rule completely, and the second one I do not necessarily agree. On the first rule, about delegating, I feel that this rule has advantages mainly. First, as a leader you can only make so many decisions, and some will need to be delegated. Further, you develop better talent underneath of you by empowering your team to make its own decisions. A weak organization is one where just one person has all the responsibility, but a strong one has many leaders capable of making decisions.

On the second rule, I am skeptical of procrastination. The advantages are clear -- you get more time to think things over and to gather new information and perspectives. All of that is valuable. The downside is that while you are waiting to make a decision, so is everybody else -- on that issue nothing is getting done. There are a lot of times in business when the first mover has an advantage so ceding that advantage makes little sense. Especially when the final decision is the one you would have made anyway. Also, delaying decisions weakens your leadership image after a while, and fails to provide your charges with a true sense of direction. Delay should be used judiciously. Things are constantly changing, so it is important to act and build in the flexibility to change later if it proves necessary.