Tag: change

Posted on

CSR Change Agents

CSR Change Agents:

Experts, Facilitators, Catalysts and Activists

Article by Wayne Visser

In research conducted for my PhD on CSR, I identified four types of Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility (CSR) change agents: Experts, Facilitators, Catalysts and Activists.

Each type represents a constellation of attributes. It is expected that any individual CSR change agent will embody elements of all of these types, but that the relative influence of each type will differ per individual. Hence, the dominant type can be thought of as a centre of gravity for each CSR change agent’s work, i.e. the mode of operating in which they feel most comfortable, fulfilled or satisfied …

Continue reading

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”download” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.waynevisser.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/inspiration_csr_change_agents_wvisser.pdf”]Pdf[/button] CSR Change Agents (article)

Related websites

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”tick” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.csrinternational.org”]Link[/button] CSR International (website)

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”tick” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.waynevisser.com/books/the-age-of-responsibility”]Link[/button] The Age of Responsibility (book)

Cite this article

Visser, W. (2008) CSR Change Agents: Experts, Facilitators, Catalysts and Activists, CSR International Inspiration Series, No. 2.

Love this page

Click on the pink heart in the heading if you LOVE this page

Share this page

Share
Posted on

CSR Change Agency

CSR Change Agency:

Making a Difference

Paper by Wayne Visser

In the face of unprecedented global challenges like financial market instability, persistent poverty and climate change, can individuals make a difference? This article looks at what motivates people to devote their time and energies to addressing social, environmental and ethical issues.

In particular, it shows how corporate sustainability and responsibility (CSR) can provide a powerful way to address what I called in a previous article for Ethical Corporation (‘Five corporate sustainability challenges that remain unmet’, EC 31, July 2004), the ‘existential gap’, i.e. the lack of a deeper sense of personal meaning and job satisfaction felt by many employees today.

A survey a few years ago by the London PR agency, Fish Can Sing, already hinted at the extent of the problem. They found that 66 per cent all 18-35 year-olds are unhappy at work, and the proportion rises to 83 per cent among 30-35 year-olds. According to their results, one in 15 has already quit the rat race and 45 per cent are seriously contemplating a career change.

They labelled this group of people ‘TIREDs’ – or Thirty-something Independent Radical Educated Drop-outs. In analysing this market segment, they discovered that these otherwise highly successful and motivated professionals were lacking something in their corporate life. This they called the ‘LDDR factor’ – they wanted Less Demand (i.e. less work-related stress, shorter working hours) and Deeper Reward (i.e. more job satisfaction, higher quality of life).

What‟s more, this existential crisis doesn’t appear to be confined either to the thirty-something age group, nor to the UK. According to the Worldwatch Institute, about a third of Americans report being ‘very happy, the same share as in 1957, when Americans were only half as wealthy. And in Japan, there is a word for ‘death from overwork’ (karoshi).

In fact, the industrialised world in general fares much worse than expected on some measures of wellbeing. For example, in the New Economics Foundation’s 2006 Happy Planet Index, which measures the relative efficiency with which nations convert the planet’s natural resources into long and happy lives for their citizens, Italy is 66th, Germany 81st, Japan 95th, the UK comes 108th, Canada 111th, France 129th, United States 150th and Russia 172nd.

So what is going on here? Victor Frankl, author of Man’s Search for Meaning and a personal survivor of four Nazi concentration camps, suggests that our Western pursuit of economic growth may be to blame: ‘Consider today’s society,’ he says. ‘It gratifies and satisfies virtually every need – except for one, the need for meaning. This spreading meaning vacuum is especially evident in affluent industrial countries. People have the means for living, but not the meanings.’

Management guru, Charles Handy, puts it another way: ‘We seem to be saying that life is about economics, that money is the measure of things. My hunch is that most of us don’t believe any of this, and that it won’t work, but we are trapped in our own rhetoric and have, as yet, nothing else to offer, not even a different way to talk about it’ …

Continue reading

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”download” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.waynevisser.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/paper_csr_change_agency_wvisser.pdf”]Pdf[/button] CSR Change Agency (paper)

Related pages

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”info” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.waynevisser.com/books/making-a-difference”]Page[/button] Making a Difference (book)

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”tick” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.csrinternational.org”]Link[/button] CSR International (website)

Cite this article

Visser, W. (2008) CSR Change Agency: Making a Difference, CSR International Paper Series, No. 1.

Share this page

Share
Posted on

A Typology of Meaning

A Typology of Meaning

Chapter by Wayne Visser

Extract from Making a Difference

Chapter Objectives

  1. To define what is meant by “typology of meaning”;
  2. To introduce a typology of meaning for sustainability managers, including its four proposed types and key features;
  3. To use the interview data to illustrate the applicability and workings of the typology; and
  4. To conclude with a summary of the possible management implications of the typology of meaning for sustainability managers.

For the purposes of my research, “typology of meaning” refers to the classification of typical sources of meaning derived by sustainability managers in their work into four types, each associated with distinctive roles within the organisation.

Introducing the Typology

The typology grew out of a realisation that four of the six sources of meaning in the work of sustainability managers were strongly related to organisational roles. The typology  was included in the Sustainability Managers Research Model (Figure 4.1) that was presented to participants in the Phase 3 follow up interviews and received positive feedback. This section will introduce the four types that I identified, as well as the dynamics of the model.

The Four Types

We can begin by identifying the four types: Expert, Facilitator, Catalyst and Activist. Each type represents a constellation of meaning. It is expected that any individual sustainability manager will embody elements of all of these types, but that the relative influence of each category will differ per individual. Hence, the dominant type can be thought of as a centre of gravity for meaning in the sustainability managers’ work, i.e. the mode of operating in which they feel most comfortable, fulfilled or satisfied.

We can visually represent the idea that people derive meaning from a variety of sources by showing the types as boxes in four quadrants. The relative size of the shaded boxes simply indicates how much meaning the individual derives from each type. Hence, in the case depicted, the individual is perfectly balanced, showing equal preference for each of the types.

An Expert derives relatively more meaning from the constellation of characteristics associated with this type.

There is considerable overlap between the Expert type and specialist input as a source of meaning in work (Chapter 6). Therefore, rather than repeat the illustrative quotations from the interviews in full, Table 8.1 presents typical statements and phrases indicative of Expert type sustainability managers.

These quotes illustrate some of the themes that characterise the way Experts find their meaning, namely by engaging with projects or systems, giving expert input, focusing on technical excellence, seeking uniqueness through specialisation, and pride in problem solving abilities.

Characteristics of the Expert

  • Aligned to specialist input as a source of meaning;
  • Concerned mainly with the individual level;
  • Focuses on personal development;
  • Derives satisfaction from delivering quality through their work;
  • Skills are mainly technical in nature;
  • Emphasise specialist knowledge; and
  • The legacy they wish to leave behind is successful work projects …

Continue reading

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”download” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.waynevisser.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/book_mad_chap8_typology_of_meaning.pdf”]Pdf[/button] A Typology of Meaning (chapter)

Related pages

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”info” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.controlatest1.co.uk/waynevisser/making-a-difference/”]Page[/button] Making a Difference (book)

Cite this chapter

Visser, W. (2008) A Typology of Meaning, In Making a Difference: Purpose-Inspired Leadership for Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, Saarbrücken: VDM, 218-237.

Share this page

Share
Share
Share