and skills for sustainable high level organizational performance and for community and societal well-being” (Dunphy et al, 2000:6). The external demands for responsible corporate behavior continues to propel the corporate sustainability agenda up the corporate ranks. According to the Edelman Trust Barometer 2016, 80 percent of the general public expect that businesses can both increase and improve economic and social conditions in the communities in which they operate. In other words, involvement in sustainability activities would positively boost a As a business’s reputation. matter of fact, sustainability-based reputation management would result in the highest creation potential in the next five years (McKinsey, 2014). Implementing corporate sustainability to some extent within business seems inevitable then. Changes need to be made at the organizational level to support this. However, these cannot be accomplished in a straightforward manner due to the interconnecting web of multiple stakeholders and business functions involved. The complexity tends to decrease the chance of change success. Research by Doppelt (2004) indicated that sustainability efforts struggle to get off the ground, ‘most peak early or fail Nevertheless, sustainability change has to proceed because outright”. companies want to be perceived as good corporate citizens and upkeep their positive image. In fact, public scrutiny creates added pressure for organizations not only to adopt corporate sustainability but for corresponding changes to stick because it is much more difficult to get away with reneged promises. Making change stick is the ultimate aim The idea of making change stick originated from the last stage of Kurt Lewin’s widely quoted theory of change (cited in Weick & Quinn, 1999), whereby he describes change as unfreeze, As Winsemius and Guntram (2002:122) put it, purpose of change change and refreeze. “the management is to induce and stabilize a desired organizational The ultimate goal behavior”. of implementing organizational change is to shift people from an old way of doing things to a new one, and making sure the new way sticks. This is illustrated in Kotter’s (2007:99) step transformation model whereby the last is new “institutionalizing approaches” attained by the connections between the new behaviors and corporate “articulating success” and the means to ensure leadership development and the “developing succession”. Along same line of thinking, Beer, Eisenstat & Spector (1990:164) indicate that it is important to
and skills for sustainable high level organizational performance and for community and societal well-being” (Dunphy et al, 2000:6). The external demands for responsible corporate behavior continues to propel the corporate sustainability agenda up the corporate ranks. According to the Edelman Trust Barometer 2016, 80 percent of the general public expect that businesses can both increase and improve economic and social conditions in the communities in which they operate. In other words, involvement in sustainability activities would positively boost a business’s reputation. As a matter of fact, sustainability-based reputation management would result in the highest potential in the next five years (McKinsey, 2014). Implementing corporate sustainability to some extent within business seems inevitable then. Changes need to be made at the organizational level to support this. However, these cannot be accomplished in a straightforward manner due to the interconnecting web of multiple stakeholders and business functions involved. The complexity tends to decrease the chance of change success. Research by Doppelt (2004) indicated that ‘most sustainability efforts struggle to get off the ground, peak early or fail outright”. Nevertheless, sustainability change has to proceed because companies want to be perceived as good corporate citizens and upkeep their positive image. In fact, public scrutiny creates added pressure for organizations not only to adopt corporate sustainability but for corresponding changes to stick because it is much more difficult to get away with reneged promises. Making change stick is the ultimate aim The idea of making change stick originated from the last stage of Kurt Lewin’s widely quoted theory of change (cited in Weick & Quinn, 1999), whereby he describes change as unfreeze, change and refreeze. As Winsemius and Guntram (2002:122) put it, “the purpose of change management is to induce and stabilize a desired organizational behavior”. The ultimate goal of implementing organizational change is to shift people from an old way of doing things to a new one, and making sure the new way sticks. This is illustrated in Kotter’s (2007:99) transformation model whereby the last step is “institutionalizing new approaches” attained by “articulating the connections between the new behaviors and corporate success” and “developing the means to ensure leadership development and succession”. Along the same line of thinking, Beer, Eisenstat & Spector (1990:164) indicate that it is important to creation
8881295.docx