Sustainable Selves: Shifting Paradigms within Individuals as the Core Driver to Reaching a Sustainable Society

(1)

Sustainable Selves: Shifting Paradigms within Individuals as the Core Driver

to Reaching a Sustainable Society

Zaida Bárcena, Jayne Bryant and Jenny Lind

School of Engineering Blekinge Institute of Technology

Karlskrona, Sweden 2009

Thesis submitted for completion of Masters in Strategic Leadership Towards Sustainability

Abstract: Many people have focussed on the physical or technical aspects of what needs to change in order for us to achieve a sustainable society. These approaches have been vital in addressing major challenges facing our world. This study adds that in order for us to move towards a sustainable society it is fundamental to address the root cause of our unsustainable ways. The focus is at the level of the individual and how they can shift to a new way of thinking, a new paradigm of sustainability as the core driver to reaching a sustainable society. An understanding of the old paradigm and new paradigm is defined, and from literature review and expert feedback, four qualities are proposed that individuals need to develop in order to operate within a new paradigm of sustainability. The study explores and presents some of the most effective ways to develop these qualities within individuals and as a result of this research the authors propose a tool – a guidebook with the intention to help inspire and empower individuals to effect change in their own lives and organizations, live more whole, meaningful and authentic lives and, in this way, move society towards sustainability.

Keywords: Sustainability, Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development, Sustainable Selves, Paradigm, Qualities, Guidebook.

(2)

Statement of Contribution

Our thesis group formed around concepts like creativity, transformational change, fun, education, passion and the desire to create something concrete, practical and meaningful together.

Group process and group dynamics were of primary importance to us, as was our desire to work in a caring, nurturing and supportive team. We wanted to be transparent in our process, and to work in an environment that was positive and optimistic. We wanted to have fun, and to learn and grow together on our journey.

For the first month after we decided to work together we had no thesis topic, but completely trusted each other and our process. We were working with the idea that there was something that wanted to emerge through us, something that could only emerge through us, as if each one of us had a piece of the puzzle. We had to listen to ourselves, and be true to ourselves, and communicate authentically what we think, feel, and see in each moment. We worked with the understanding that by clearly communicating what we „saw‟; our piece of the puzzle, and then listening carefully to each other in order to understand and see their pieces, it would help us get a clear picture of the greater whole or thing that wanted to be born through the three of us.

Our journey together, the growing of our group and process has been one of the most affirming and inspiring experiences for all of us. It has been an exploration of working within this „new paradigm‟ we describe, and we honestly believe it to be an amazing way forward.

Throughout the process, we all contributed equally to the discussions, research, analysis, and writing. As such, this thesis is a direct consequence of the three of us being present for every step of the journey, and present to what wanted to emerge through the three of us. This thesis and the guidebook that accompanies it is the result of that.

With warmth and much gratitude,

Zaida Bárcena, Jayne Bryant and Jenny Lind.

Karlskrona, Sweden 2009

(3)

Acknowledgements

This thesis is a result of inspired group work and teamwork that extends beyond the three authors. It is our support networks, friends and families that we would like to acknowledge here for the important contribution they have made to this process and product.

Firstly we would like to thank Sweden for giving us this opportunity to come and live and study in this marvellous country. It has been an amazing gift, and we hope that we will give us much back to the world in the work we do, as you have invested in us. Thank you.

Thank to all the people who have been involved in the development of this Master‟s programme from the visionaries who first developed it to the programme staff who are there putting in hours beyond pay giving it everything they can. We extend our thanks to our MSLS ‟09 family. We love you guys. Thank you.

We have been so fortunate with our advisors for this thesis. Tamara Connell and Andre Benaim have been essential part of the development of this thesis and the accompanying guidebook. Every time we left a meeting with our advisors we felt clearer, more confident, inspired and grateful. Thank you.

We are so grateful for the important and essential feedback that helped us readjust and realign our guidebook to become something that can be as effective as possible. Thank you.

We‟d like to give thanks and love to our families and friends who have helped us and supported us this year, and beyond. Thank you.

Finally, to and for each other, we are so grateful to have had the opportunity to learn, grow and share this journey together. It has been truly amazing, fulfilling, nurturing and inspiring for us all to work together in this way.

With enormous gratitude,

Zaida Bárcena, Jayne Bryant and Jenny Lind.

Karlskrona, Sweden 2009

(4)

Executive Summary

Introduction

Two different paradigms are presented, as a way to emphasize the kind of change that the authors believe is needed in order to move towards a sustainable society. The old paradigm refers to the current reality in which many of us live, with little understanding of the complex systems within which we function; with a limited mechanistic, reductionist, analytical and dualistic world view. The authors believe this paradigm is the root cause of our unsustainable ways, underlying all the choices we make and everything we do. The new paradigm presents a new way of thinking and a new understanding of the world and our place in it, the interconnectedness and interdependence of all things, and choose to live within the limits of the ecosphere. Within the new paradigm we understand the importance of our own actions and take responsibility for who we are in the world. By bending the metaphorical telescope into ourselves and facing our hidden assumptions and learned behaviours, the authors propose we can shift to this new way of thinking and in that way, move towards a sustainable society.

This thesis states our opinion that this shift of paradigm within individuals is the core driver to reach a sustainable society. The research undertaken in this study is around exploring the ways in which individuals can enter and engage in long term transformational change and become effective social change agents. The study explores this by asking these research questions:

Primary:

What would a tool to shift individuals‟ paradigms towards one aligned with sustainability look like?

Secondary:

1. What are the essential qualities of individuals that operate within a paradigm aligned with sustainability?

2. What are some of the most „effective ways‟ to develop these qualities?

(5)

Methods

Two different approaches were considered in the elaboration of this study.

Each of them had a unique purpose and acted as the foundation of the study; both approaches were essential not only at early stages but throughout the entire process. The Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD) was used as the primary method of a strategic approach to achieve the success, identified as the individual with the understanding of the new paradigm of sustainability. By using Backcasting, a planning procedure by which a successful planning outcome is imagined in the future was used, followed by the question: What do we need to do today to reach that successful outcome? Furthermore, the Interactive Model for Research served as a tool or template for conceptually mapping the design of this study, and was used to help guide the authors in their phases of research.

Research phases: Four phases were required to conduct this study. Phase one consisted of extensive literature research from: articles, journals, peer- thesis projects, books, and documentaries. The second phase consisted of analyzing, organizing and synthesizing the research findings which led the authors to define four qualities (the 1^stsecondary research question), and define some of the most „effective ways‟ to develop these qualities (the 2^nd secondary research question) leading to phase three: the creation of a tool (the primary research question). The final phase of the study consisted of collecting feedback from two groups and with the analysis of the information, the refining of the responses to the three research questions was undertaken.

Results

After having done a comprehensive literature review, the authors synthesized the characteristics of individuals that operate within the new paradigm of sustainability into four qualities: Knowing Thyself, Connecting with Others, Understanding the System and Committing to Serve, thus answering the 1^st secondary research question.

The authors then identified some of the most „effective ways‟ to develop the four qualities within individuals, using an extensive literature review.

The „effective ways‟ that the authors identified are:

(6)

 A 12-Week Guidebook: This was chosen as the structure for the tool, based on a best selling book by Julia Cameron, a writer, and a teacher who has spent more than 20 years of her life helping people to recover their creativity. According to Cameron‟s experience 12 weeks is essential to solidify new healthy habits.

 Framework for Understanding: Developed by researchers for Project Zero at Harvard University‟s Graduate School of Education. The Teaching for Understanding project says, in brief, that understanding “is a matter of being able to do a variety of thought-provoking things with a topic, such as explaining, finding evidence and examples, generalizing, applying, analogizing, and representing the topic in new ways” (Blythe 1998, 12). The project highlights the difference between knowing and understanding. The concepts of the Framework for Understanding have been adopted as the pedagogical basis for the tool, and consist of four parts: Topics, Learning Objectives, Activities and Ongoing Process.

 Learning Styles: By researching the way in which people accumulate and assimilate information, the authors gained knowledge about various learning styles to be considered in the creation of the tool.

 Storytelling: The use of storytelling was a conscious choice based on experience and literature, which expounds the power of storytelling as a way to communicate and teach and as an effective pedagogical approach.

Next, integrating the above pedagogical structures, the authors created a tool that can be used to help build the four qualities within an individual, thus shifting to a new paradigm of sustainability.

To answer the primary research question, a tool was created in the shape of a guidebook that consists of a 12-week journey, combining all the findings and results of the two primary questions. This thesis resulted in a skeleton of a 12-week guidebook called Sustainable Selves – A 12-week Journey and a prototype of four of the weeks.

The pilot and expert group who participated in the testing of a prototype of the tool provided the authors with feedback, which has been integrated into the design of the tool.

(7)

Discussion

In this section, the authors expose the interpretations, reflections, strengths, limitations and key findings of the results. First, a reflective section regarding the concepts of Sustainability and the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development; thereafter, the discussion is presented in the order of the research questions, starting with the 1^st secondary question, then the 2^ndsecondary question, and finally, an exploration of the primary question.

The four qualities are discussed and the authors propose that just as the four principles of sustainability are the minimum requirement for a sustainable society, the four qualities are the minimum requirement for individuals operating within the new paradigm of sustainability. The iterative process of the qualities is discussed as well as the reasoning behind the changes made.

The application of the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development as used in planning was the core method of this thesis; and it allowed the authors to plan for sustainable individuals within a sustainable society.

Backcasting, being a key concept within the framework, brought to the authors the possibility of being strategic in the long-term focus on achieving the vision of individuals operating within the new paradigm of sustainability.

The „effective ways‟ the authors chose to use in the elaboration of the tool were found to be solid, and the feedback and changes made in the refinement of the tool are discussed.

Conclusion

Extensive research through the entire process helped shape the responses to all three of the research questions and feedback from two groups: a pilot group of 53 people from five continents and five experts were extremely helpful in shaping the responses to the research questions.

The authors propose a 12-week guidebook: Sustainable Selves – A 12-week Journey as a response to the primary question: „what would a tool to shift

(8)

individuals‟ paradigms toward one aligned with sustainability look like?‟

The tool that the authors propose combines the answers to the two secondary questions; using the „effective ways‟ to develop the essential qualities.

The author‟s ambition is to now use all the feedback to complete the full 12-week guidebook, and then invite continued feedback and input from the initial participants as well as new participants and experts on the new iteration of the guidebook. Further research into the long-term effectiveness of the tool is also desirable. Research into how different pedagogical approaches could compliment or provide alternatives to those used in this study, as well as, possible adaptations of the guidebook for more specific groups of people, for example children could be undertaken. Possible collaborations with web-based online movements could be explored, as well as cross-cultural research into the applicability of the defined qualities.

Possible uses for the guidebook are mentioned, including personal and group work. The guidebook could be used within organizations that are endeavoring to move towards sustainability as a support tool, for the sustainability practitioner. The authors recommend the adoption of the tool within the Master‟s of Strategic Leadership towards Sustainability programme, as well as other educational institutions from high schools and universities to community adult education programs.

The authors intend to publish the guidebook and hope for its use and effect to be as far-reaching and widespread as possible. If the journey to create this is an indicator of the value of the product, then the authors believe they have created something worthy. The writing of the thesis and exploration of what this tool could look like has been an amazing journey in itself, one that has healed and taught, and given hope and inspiration. The authors intend this step it to be just the beginning.

(9)

List of Figures

Figure 1.1. Individuals within the ecosphere. ... 6

Figure 2.1. Interactive Model for Research Design ... .. 8

Figure 2.2. Summary of the FSSD ... .9

Figure 2.3. Application of the FSSD ... 11

Figure 2.4. Research phases ... 12

Figure 3.1. Jigsaw puzzle analogy ... 29

Figure 3.2. Cover of the guidebook... 33

Figure 3.3. 12-week guidebook Aspects and structure ... 35

Figure 3.4. Weekly lay out ... 36

Figure 3.5. Weekly lay out – body of text, ilustrations and Activities... 36

Figure 3.6. New cover of the guidebook ... 47

List of Tables

Table 2.1. List of Experts ... 15

Table 2.2. Number of pilot participants by country ... 16

Table 3.1. Overaching goals ... 30

Table 3.2. Weekly Learning Objectives ... 31

Table 3.3. Ongoing process in the form of a Quick Check In... 32

Table 3.4.12 Aspects by Essential Quality ... 32

Table 3.5. New Ongoing Process in form of Quick Check in ... 43

Table 3.6. 12 Final Aspects by Essential Quality ... 44

(12)

1 Introduction

“In reviews of sustainability/sustainable development over the past 15 years, an important area of endeavour has been neglected, that of our

personal development”

(Hay 2006, 2)

We are living in a society that has created unparalleled damage to our ecosystems, and the ability of future generations to live within them. The air we breathe, the water we drink, the land we harvest and mine are all a part of the ecosphere that we depend upon for our very own survival. We have been living with the perception that this world is infinite in its ability to self-repair, replenish, and support us. “We all depend on one biosphere [ecosphere] for sustaining our lives. Yet each community, each country, strives for survival and prosperity with little regard for its impact on others”

(WCED 1987).

In the last two hundred years of this Industrial Age, both the human population and the economic wealth have grown rapidly and have placed a significant demand on resource consumption. Currently more than six billion people populate the planet and every one of us has the same basic needs for survival. These needs are met in many different ways around the globe and although the difference between developed and developing countries regarding consumption of these resources is clear, every country plays an important role in the demands upon resources and our environment.

“Between 1970 and 1997, the global consumption of energy increased by 84%, and consumption of materials also increased dramatically. While the global population more than doubled in the second half of the last century, grain production tripled, energy consumption quadrupled, and economic activity quintupled” (Steffen, et al. 2004). According to the Living Planet Report "[o]ur global footprint now exceeds the world‟s capacity to regenerate by about 30 per cent. If our demands on the planet continue to increase at the same rate, by the mid-2030s we would need the equivalent of two planets to maintain our lifestyles" (Leape 2008).

There is no debate on the extraordinary achievements that humanity has had during the Industrial Age with regards to public education, human rights,

(13)

and material well-being, hence, “...the Industrial Age is not ending because of the decline of opportunities for further industrial expansion, it is ending because individuals, companies, and governments are coming to the realization that its side effects are unsustainable” (Senge et al. 2008, 8).

In addressing this current unsustainable way we are living, many leaders in the field of sustainable development have focussed on the physical and technical aspects of what needs to change, in order for us to achieve a sustainable society which are absolutely essential. Concepts and practices of applying „eco-efficiency‟, „substitution‟ and „dematerialization‟¹ for instance, are necessary for us to move towards a sustainable society, however, there is an underlying question that is not addressed within this approach: What is it that causes us to live in this way? “The technological approach has proven difficult to implement effectively on a global scale, as it does not delve into the root causes – the values and ethics underlying the decisions that are made – of the environmental (and social) crisis that faces humanity. A technological approach also fails to engage the human spirit...”

(Hay 2005, 311). The authors propose that addressing this root cause is fundamental to us achieveing a sustainable society.

How can we move individuals, and therefore, society towards a new paradigm as the core driver to reach a sustainable future? What kind of tool can be created to help, inspire and empower individuals to effect change in their own lives, organizations and communities, live more whole, meaningful and authentic lives and, in that way, gradually move society towards sustainability?

1.1 Old Paradigm

“[O]ur political and institutional leadership is losing respect and credibility, and core societal crises fester...grounded in a way of thinking about the world that is increasingly obsolete and counterproductive. Perhaps that is why they are falling apart” (Senge 1996, 8).

1 ‘Eco-efficiency‟: creating more goods and services with ever less use of resources, waste and pollution (Lehni 2000).

„Substitution‟: is the “exchange of type/quality of flows and/or activities” (Robèrt et al.

2002).

„Dematerialization‟: refers to “reduction of material flow” (Robèrt et al. 2002).

(14)

We have been living with little understanding of the complex systems within which we function. We have a limited mechanistic, reductionist, analytical and dualistic world view, based in the science of Descartes and Newton, which is now being pulled into question by new sciences such as systems theory and quantum physics (Capra and van Steenbergen 1985).

We create barriers between ourselves by our fragmentary thoughts in which we see ourselves as completely separate from each other (Jaworski 1996, 81). We do not see the interconnectedness of all things, nor the power we have within us to effect the change we want to see in the world. We have an anthropocentric worldview and are blind to it (Hay 2005). We forget the interdependence of all things. We look for leaders outside ourselves to save us, and blame them for not doing so. We judge societal welfare in terms of GDP and medicate the grief, confusion and sadness we feel for this world, for ourselves and a society that does not make sense to our souls. In this thesis, the authors call this way of being and understanding the „old paradigm‟ and see it as the root cause of our unsustainable ways, underlying all the choices we make and everything we do.

For some years now, other approaches have emerged to integrate sustainability into organizations; however, many of these attempts have been made partly within the understanding of the „old paradigm‟. For instance, many organizations taking the step to integrate sustainability into their work have used the term „Triple Bottom Line‟ refering to a strategy which not only includes the economic aspect of the organization, but also the social and the environmental dimensions. This is, without question, a broader approach that is needed in many organizations. However, the synergies between the different practices are often overlooked, and separated into simply social policies or only perceived as „green initiatives‟.

More importantly “[t]he focus on the triple bottom line may draw people away from the qualities and attitudes they need if they are to genuinely make a difference in developing sustainable organizations, practices, and communities…It also allows people to ignore the „inner work‟ – the personal practices and disciplines that provide the perspective and internal stability needed to make a difference in the long run” (Senge et al. 2006, 96). It is this „inner work‟ of sustainability that is the key factor of this new paradigm of sustainability.

(15)

1.2 New Paradigm

“Nothing will change in the future without fundamentally new ways of thinking.” (Senge 1996, 9)

In order for us as a society to move towards sustainability, we need new ways of understanding the world and our place in it. We need to bend the metaphorical telescope into ourselves and become aware of our assumptions and understandings about ourselves, each other, and the reality upon which we base our decisions. We need to make conscious the inner place from which we operate, or the „blind spot‟² as described by Otto Scharmer (Sharmer 2007b). In this new way of thinking, we understand the complex system within which we live and see the interconnectedness and interdependence of all things (Capra 1985). We value and continue to seek understanding of the systems and relationships within the ecosphere upon which we depend and work with them, not dominate, control and manipulate them. We see ourselves as both central and essential, yet a part of a greater whole, which is not limited to the human species but indeed all life on earth and the earth as well (Hay 2005, 2006). We understand the importance of our own actions and take responsibility for who we are in the world. We understand that learning can come from the past, as in reviewing what has happened before, or from the future, as in presencing³ (Scharmer 2007a). “The answer lies in the inner work of sustainability. A reinforcing process is set in motion when people start to deliberately slow down their lives to cultivate broader awareness and reflective practices” (Senge et al.

2006, 96). In this thesis, we call this way of thinking and being the „new paradigm‟.

2Blind Spots are also defined as: “a lack of knowledge of the source from which effective leadership and social action come into being…Successful leadership depends on the quality of attention and intention that the leader brings to any situation. Two leaders in the same circumstances doing the same thing can bring about completely different outcomes, depending on the inner place from which each operates” (Scharmer 2007a, 1).

3 “The term presencing can be used as either a noun or a verb and designates the connection to the deeper source of self and knowing” (Scharmer 2007b, 192).

(16)

1.3 A Sustainable Society

A sustainable society will be one that lives within the limits of the ecosphere and operates in a way that people are able to meet their needs.

One of the most widely accepted definitions of sustainable development is the one stated in the United Nation's report Our Common Future, which says it is the: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”

(WCED 1987). Forum for the Future⁴ defines sustainable development as

“a dynamic process which enables all people to realize their potential, and to improve their quality of life, in ways which simultaneously protect and enhance the Earth‟s life support systems” (Forum for the Future n.d.).

A scientific exploration of what a sustainable society would be like has been developed, and it is being continually retested and refined, by a collaboration of numerous scientists. It defines four system conditions or basic principles essential for our society to be sustainable. The first three conditions address the mechanisms by which society can destroy the ecosphere and its ability to sustain society. The fourth condition addresses social sustainability in which the social fabric is not undermined. With this in mind, the system conditions for sustainability state that: “...in a sustainable society nature is no longer subject to systematically increasing...

i ...concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth‟s crust, ii ...concentrations of substances produced by society,

iii ...degradation by physical means And, in that society...

iv...people are not subject to conditions that systmematically undermine thier capacity to meet thier needs.” (Robèrt et al. 1997; Ny et al. 2006).

The definition of Sustainability by Robèrt et al (1997) and Ny et al (2006) has been used for this thesis.

4 Forum for the Future is a british charity committed to sustainable development that focus on the root causes and connections between big issues such as climate change, social inequality and environmental degradation (Forum for the Future n.d.).

(17)

1.4 Purpose, Scope and Limitations

With the vision of a sustainable society in mind, the purpose of this thesis is to help move society towards this new paradigm by focussing on the individuals within society. We live in a complex system where each part is a piece of a larger whole. Individuals exist within our society, which in turn exists within the ecosphere, the life-support system of our planet, and our planet is a part of the larger solar system. Each part of the system is complete within itself, yet affects the larger wholes of which it is a part (Macy 1995). For an illustration of this see Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1. Individuals within the ecosphere

Considering that “...we each need to change ourselves to be able to make fundamental and lasting changes to the world that we have created” (Hay 2005, 312), the authors will focus on this part of a sustainable world, that of the individual. We propose that focussing on the individual and shifting the paradigm within which individuals function, will create change within society, thus affecting the ecosphere within which we live.

The authors first asked what qualities would define individuals that will best help us reach this sustainable society. To define these individuals that have a personal vision and goals operating within a new paradigm of

(18)

sustainability, and have developed these qualites the authors have chosen the term Sustainable Selves. The authors then explored pedagogical approches, activities, and skills that any individual can practice in order to develop these qualities. The final outcome of this study, a skeleton of the tool and a four week prototype, is designed with the purpose to act as a connector between individuals and their Sustainable Selves, helping to guide its readers to open the door to transformational change, reflection and self-knowledge. Furthermore, it is important to note that this project is presented as one of many possible ways to assist the move towards a new paradigm of sustainability.

The authors are aware that empowerment cannot be imposed on individuals (Thompson 2007, 22). This kind of shift within individuals is something that cannot be done to or for people: it is a shift that only can take shape from an individual actively choosing to participate and being open to embrace the material given.

Personal experience and intuition complemented the literature reviewed and feedback received during this study. It is important to mention that the authors recognize that the use of personal experience and intuition might be seen as a limitation. However, the content of the thesis and the nature of the subject matter call into question traditional ways of accessing knowledge.

Therefore, in alignment with the „new paradigm‟ presented in this thesis, the integration of personal experience and intuition has been a conscious choice by the authors.

1.5 Research Questions

Primary:

What would a tool to shift individuals‟ paradigms towards one aligned with sustainability look like?

Secondary:

1.What are the essential qualities of individuals that operate within a paradigm aligned with sustainability?

2.What are some of the most effective ways to develop these qualities?

(19)

2 Methods

Two different approaches were considered in the elaboration of this study.

Each of them had a unique purpose and acted as the foundation of the study; both approaches were essential not only at early stages but throughout the entire process. The Interactive Model for Research that served as a tool or template for conceptually mapping the design of this study was used, upon which the authors based the phases of research (Maxwell 2005). Furthermore, the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD) was used as the primary method of a strategic approach to achieve the success, identified as the individual with the understanding of the new paradigm of sustainability, mentioned in chapter one.

2.1 Interactive Model for Research Design

An interactive design model guided the qualitative research for this study, which is an ongoing process that involves tacking back and forth between the five components of the design (see Figure 2.3.). This model illustrates the fact that collecting and analysing information, developing theory, defining the research questions and ensuring validity are processes that occur iteratively and simultaneously (Maxwell 2005, 3).

Figure 2.1. Interactive Model for Research Design (Maxwell 2005)

Goals Conceptual

Framework

Research Questions

Validity Methods

(20)

2.2 Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development

In order to create a strategic approach for the thesis, the authors used the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development, a framework developed for planning for sustainability within the whole society within the ecosphere (Robèrt et al. 1997). The framework consists of five levels, which can be seen in Figure 2.1.Summary of the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development.

Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development

System

Society within the ecosphere, including the social and ecological laws/rules/norms which govern this system.

Success

Society within the ecosphere compliant with the conditions for socio-ecological sustainability: the 4 principles.

Strategic Guidlines

Backcasting from success for socio-ecological sustainability and the associated 3 prioritization questions as a minimum: Will it…Give a return on investment? Provide a flexible platform? Move society/an

individual in the right direction?

Action

The actions that help move the global socio-ecological system toward success.

Tools

The tools and concepts that support efforts to achieve global sustainability.

Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development

System

Society within the ecosphere, including the social and ecological laws/rules/norms which govern this system.

Success

Society within the ecosphere compliant with the conditions for socio-ecological sustainability: the 4 principles.

Backcasting from success for socio-ecological sustainability and the associated 3 prioritization questions as a minimum: Will it…Give a return on investment? Provide a flexible platform? Move society/an

individual in the right direction?

Action

The actions that help move the global socio-ecological system toward success.

Tools

The tools and concepts that support efforts to achieve global sustainability.

Figure 2.2. Summary of the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (Waldron et al. 2008)

The first level consists of understanding the system we live in, understanding the interrelationship between ecological and social systems

(21)

and the fundamental principles and laws of the ecosphere. In the second level, the envisioned future of success is defined. It is based on the desires within an organization / individual, working within the constraints of the principles for sustainability, previously mentioned in chapter one. Strategic Guidelines is the third level and it includes Backcasting and prioritization questions. Backcasting is a planning procedure by which a successful planning outcome is imagined in the future followed by the question: “what do we need to do today to reach the successful outcome?” This is where actions are planned to strategically move from the current situation towards the desired future. John Robinson first introduced the Backcasting terminology in 1990, where he takes the reader through the flexible approach to move towards success step by step, recognizing what one must do in the present to move towards that point (Robinson 1990). To help the backcasting process, the FSSD introduces the use ofstrategic questions to help prioritize the measures (see Figure 2.1.). The fourth and fifth levels are actions and tools that, supported by the strategic guidelines, helps to achieve success within the system (Robèrt et al. 1997).

For the purpose of this study, the authors defined the desired future - the success level - (see Figure 2.1.) as the new paradigm, where an individual defines his/her own personal vision and goals, complying with the four principles of sustainability. At this level the authors placed the 1^st secondary question: What are the essential qualities of individuals that operate within a paradigm aligned with sustainability?

Within the third level, the strategic guidelines level, the authors applied the concept of Backcasting; positioning themselves in the future, asking: “what did individuals need to do in order to develop the essential qualities in order to achieve a sustainable future?” At this level the authors placed the 2^nd secondary question: “what are some of the most „effective ways‟ to develop these qualities?” and focused on the specific pedagogical approaches as strategies to achieving success.

Within the action level, the specific actions and activities, guided by the pedagogical approaches respond to the 2^nd secondary question. Within the fifth level, the authors placed the primary research question: “what would a tool to shift individuals‟ paradigms towards one aligned with sustainability look like?”

(22)

Application of the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development

System

Any Individual within society in the ecosphere, along with the social and ecological laws/rules/norms which govern the system.

Success

Individual with a personal vision and personal goals that operates with the understanding of the new paradigm (which

includes the sustainability principles) and has developed the essential qualities.

Backcasting from success associated 3 prioritization questions for sustainability (see Section 3.1.2).

Action

The actions that help move the individual towards compliance with success and global sustainability (see Appendix B).

Tools

A

Tools that help move the individual towards compliance with his /her personal goals and global sustainability (12 week

guidebook).

Application of the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development

System

Any Individual within society in the ecosphere, along with the social and ecological laws/rules/norms which govern the system.

Success

Individual with a personal vision and personal goals that operates with the understanding of the new paradigm (which

includes the sustainability principles) and has developed the essential qualities.

Backcasting from success associated 3 prioritization questions for sustainability (see Section 3.1.2).

Action

The actions that help move the individual towards compliance with success and global sustainability (see Appendix B).

Tools

A

Tools that help move the individual towards compliance with his /her personal goals and global sustainability (12 week

guidebook).

Figure 2.3. Application of the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development to this study and its relationship to the research questions

2.3 Research Methods

Four phases were required to conduct this study (see Figure 2.4.). Even though each activity within the phases is specific, it is worth mentioning that some of these overlapped in time. As mentioned before, the findings and reflections during the phases affected different aspects of the process, enriching the results.

Research Questions

First Secondary Question

Second Secondary Question

Primary Question

(23)

* 1stSQ: Qualities (Exploratory Feedback)

* 2ndSQ: Effective Ways

* PQ: Creation of the Tool (Prototype 1)

Experts Feedback

Pilot test Feedback

Refine Tool (Prototype 2)

Literature Review Phase Two:

Synthesis

Phase Four:

Feedback & Refinement

Literature Review

Phase Three:

Tool Development

* 1stSQ: Qualities (Exploratory Feedback)

* 2ndSQ: Effective Ways

* PQ: Creation of the Tool (Prototype 1)

Experts Feedback

Pilot test Feedback

Refine Tool (Prototype 2)

Literature Review Phase Two:

Synthesis

Phase Four:

Feedback & Refinement

Literature Review

Phase Three:

Tool Development

Figure 2.4.Research Phases

( *1st. SQ: First secondary question, 2nd. SQ: Second secondary question, PQ: Primary question).

2.3.1 Phase One: Literature Review

In order to be able to answer the research questions, the research consisted of a literature review from which the authors studied the elements of the

„old paradigm‟, the „new paradigm‟ as well as, probable personal qualities of individuals that operate within the new paradigm. At this point of the study, information as to the most „effective ways‟ to develop these qualities in individuals was also obtained by these sources.

Diverse sources of the literature reviewed included scientific articles, journals, books, lectures, online resources and documentaries. During this research phase, notes were taken about potential categories and relationships within the qualities that the authors were searching for, as well as the activities to develop these qualities. The information was gathered from diverse fields such as sustainability, leadership, pedagogy, health, creativity, behavioural change, mental models, paradigm shifts, spirituality, food, and systems thinking.

As Figure 2.4. shows, the literature review was not only essential at the beginning of this study but also along the last two phases of the research, enriching the continual development of the tool, which allowed the authors to follow up on the feedback collected from the pilot testing group and the expert group in order to improve it.

(24)

2.3.2 Phase Two: Synthesis

The second phase consisted of analysing, organizing and synthesizing the research findings, in order to answer the two secondary questions. Besides the continual literature review and analysis, two methods that the authors recognized as essential elements of the study were included in this phase until the last phase of the study: personal experience and intuition. As mentioned before, these two methods are recognized by Browne and Keeley (2004) as a way to discover evidence.

Qualities and Exploratory Feedback. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the level of success within the FSSD was defined as an individual who follows his/her own personal vision and goals while operating within the new paradigm. The focus was to specifically identify the elements of individuals operating within the new paradigm, in order to synthesize them into personal qualities that any individual can develop within him/herself.

In order to arrive at the selection and definition of the qualities, the authors conducted many group-brainstorming processes. As a result four qualities emerged. In this phase, the authors also defined the characteristics of the qualities that give support to the reasoning behind the synthesis and development of the four qualities.

Exploratory feedback was essential during this phase, free from the authors‟

assumptions that had been created at this point. The purpose was to explore the thoughts, feelings, and attitudes of more than 20 international sustainability experts from the Master‟s Programme in Strategic Leadership towards Sustainability (MSLS) regarding this study and to receive feedback about the definition of the qualities. The feedback process consisted of a structured presentation, followed by a thirty-minute open session of questions and answers. The diverse responses contributed to further development of the qualities and the tool.

Effective Ways. At this point, having in mind the success defined within the FSSD, the authors applied the concept of Backcasting in order to answer the question “what did individuals need to do in order to develop the qualities?” From the literature review, personal experience and intuition, the authors selected some of the most „effective ways‟ to develop the four qualities.

(25)

As a result of the synthesis and defining of the four qualities, as well as the selection of „effective ways‟ to develop these, the authors had established a foundation to the response of the primary question: “what would a tool to shift individuals‟ paradigms towards one aligned with sustainability look like?” This was the grounding for the development of a tool, sustained by pedagogical approaches and other essential elements.

2.3.3 Phase Three: Tool Development

Creation of the Tool. Many group-brainstorming processes conducted the exploration of what this tool might look like. The authors explored diverse and creative ways of synthesizing and presenting the information to the reader. The intention of the authors was to explore how a tool could shift individuals‟ paradigms towards one aligned with sustainability and what it might look like. The authors designed the skeleton of a tool in the form of a 12 week guidebook called Sustainable Selves – A 12-week Journey and a four week prototype which includes everything from the cover page to the weekly topics, structure, language style, colours, figures, fonts and content and incorporates the pedagogical approaches.

2.3.4 Phase Four: Feedback and Refinement

The final phase of the study consisted of refining the tool and creating a second prototype, in order to solidify the answer to the research questions.

This action was based on feedback received from two sources: a new group of „experts‟ and a group of „pilots‟. The participants from both groups were not directly connected with the MSLS programme, and the intention of the authors was to reach the wider community at large.

The correspondence with both groups occurred by e-mail and both groups received the first prototype of the guidebook as a PDF attachment. The expert group received the „expert package‟ including an executive summary of the academic thesis, a diagram outlining the learning objectives for the tool, a table of the chosen activities and their background, the prototype of the guidebook including the first three weeks and the last week. The intention was that the experts were to spend three to four hours reading the material and provide constructive feedback on the material given. The pilot group received the „pilot package‟, which included a prototype of the

(26)

guidebook‟s introduction and the first two weeks. The pilots were to do the activities of only one week, and then answer questions. Questionnaires were used as the method to gather the feedback from both groups.

Expert Feedback. Five experts were involved in the testing of the tool (see Table 2.1.). The open questions (overall impression, opinion on the old/new paradigm, research questions and methods, synthesis and definition of the qualities, learning objectives and the weekly activities) were attached as a word document and sent together with the „expert package‟ by e-mail.

The authors chose this way of collecting the feedback in order to provide a flexible platform for the expert to answer as much and/or little as they wished. The purpose of contacting experts was to expand the authors‟

vision and understanding of the diverse areas that are explored in the thesis, as well as to receive insights on the strengths and weaknesses and the applicability of the pilot guidebook.

Name Occupation

David Heppe Managing Director, Environmental Capital Group. USA.

Pauline McMinn Clinical Psychologist. Australia.

Anna Palminger Environmental Analyst, Landstinget Blekinge. Sweden.

Natalie Safra Master Student, Strategic Leadership towards Sustainability. Sweden.

Bob Willard Sustainability Author and Speaker. Canada and USA.

Table 2.1. List of Experts

Pilot Feedback. The purpose of conducting a pilot group was to get a reader‟s point of view and to obtain feedback and reflections on the experiences that the activities were hoped to offer. Online questionnaires were sent one week after the prototype of the tool was delivered to the group, with a mix of closed and open questions. The questionnaires were focused towards the participants‟ experience with the tool, as a way to create an organized and structured feedback-loop. Through the feedback, the authors were able to obtain attitudes, thoughts, feelings and experiences of the effectiveness of the tool from the participants and get a feel of what level of impact it had on them and how it may better be refined.

To minimize bias in the information gathered there were:

 Eleven countries within five continents (see Table 2.2.)

 Diverse professions and backgrounds

 Ages ranging from 15 to 65

(27)

 Anonymous participation

Australia Brazil Canada China Finland Germany

15 5 2 5 1 1

Ireland Mexico Netherlands Sweden USA

1 14 1 3 5

Table 2.2. Number of pilot participants by country

Refining the Tool. The insightful feedback from both groups was gathered and analysed by the authors. This analysis combined with the continual literature review led the authors to continue to refine the overall structure of the guidebook, and create a new prototype with a new cover, colours, fonts, structure, style of language, content, qualities, learning objectives, activities and target audience.

2.4 Expected Results

The authors expected and hoped that both groups, pilots and experts, would find the tool useful in the sense that it had been able to create a space for questioning, reflecting, learning and taking actions. It was hoped that the tool would provide evidence that it could empower individuals to start – or continue – a journey in their lives, in which they will become more and more connected to their Sustainable Selves and become empowered as an agent of change in the world.

It was speculated that perhaps the audience most receptive and responsive to the Sustainable Selves message may be women, due to two factors.

Firstly, as everyone operates from their own „blind spots‟ and given that personal experience and intuition is used in this thesis it may cause the authors to choose activities that resonate more with other females, although not intentionally. Secondly, the target audience for the sustainability message is often women, who are open and receptive to messages of health and sustainability. With regards to the „sustainability message‟ the broad population falls into these groups:

(28)

 15% = The „Choir‟ – Sold, they know the sustainability message.

 67%= The „Congregation‟ – Receptive to the message. Often women, open to health messages.

 16% = „Heathens‟ – Oblivious to the sustainability message.

 2% = „Atheists‟ – Reject the message. Often older, educated men.

(Bertner 2009)

Given this, the authors expected the group most responsive to their tool would come from „The Congregation‟.

(29)

3 Results

In this section, the authors give response to the three research questions.

These results are presented as shown below in the same order of the research phases presented in Figure 2.4.

3.1: Synthesis from Literature Review

3.1.1: Essential Qualities – 1^st Secondary Question

3.1.2: Effective Ways to Develop the Qualities – 2^nd SecondaryQuestion 3.2: Tool Development (Guidebook) - Primary Research Question

3.2.1: Content

3.2.2: Presentation of the Content

3.3: Feedback and Refinement of Guidebook 3.3.1: Content

3.3.2: Presentation of the Content

3.1 Synthesis from Literature Review

Having in mind the framework for planning for sustainability (FSSD) described in chapter two, the authors described the System level as the individuals‟ role within the society within the ecosphere. In this phase, the literature review was used to begin the response to the two secondary questions. The 1^st secondary question: “what are the essential qualities of individuals that operate within a paradigm aligned with sustainability?” and the 2^nd secondary question: “what are some of the most effective ways to develop these qualities?”

3.1.1 Essential Qualities – 1^st Secondary Question

The authors described Success as a new paradigm where individuals operate within the four principles of sustainability and have developed the four qualities of Know Thyself, Social Connector, Understanding the System and Commitment to Serve. The four qualities are the result of research guided by questions such as: What are the essential elements of

(30)

these individuals operating with a paradigm aligned with sustainability?

What kind of understanding do they have? What are these individuals like?

Extensive literature review of articles and books by authors such as Peter Senge, Otto C. Scharmer, Betty Sue Flowers, Joseph Jaworski, Adam Kahane, and William Isaacs who have provided literature and research into the field of leadership, organizational learning and transformational change provided insight and inspiration for the essential qualities developed in this thesis. Ken Wilber, Jim Collins, Robert Greenleaf, Stephen Covey, Joanna Macy, Sharon Eakes, Julia Cameron, Martha Beck, Paramahansa Yogananda, Eleanor Rosch, Willis Harman, Michael Ray, Vaclav Havel, Francisco Varela and many others provided grounding on the qualities from fields ranging from personal development to creativity and spirituality to health. Ilya Prigogine, Fritjof Capra and Bart van Steenbergen helped to solidify the thinking needed in a new paradigm and were foundational in their development. A previous MSLS thesis by Cabeza-Erikson, Edwards, and Van Brabant (2008) on the Development of leadership capacities as a strategic factor for sustainability was used as a platform for the qualities developed in this thesis, as did readings and lectures in the MSLS programme from academics in sustainability and leadership such as Karl- Henrik Robèrt, Göran Carstedt, Göran Broman and Rigmor Robèrt. The authors integrated their personal experience and intuition to synthesize this literature reviewed.

The following characteristics were defined to support the process of the synthesis of the qualities. By following these characteristics, the authors made sure that the qualities were as clear and simple, yet bold as possible.

Characteristics of the qualities:

 Concrete: Each quality is tangible, and actions can be taken to build this quality within any individual.

 Distinct: Even though there is interconnectedness between the qualities - by working on any one quality, you build strength for the others - each quality is unique.

 Sufficient for reaching this desired future: The authors believe that practicing these qualities, as principles in daily life will positively affect the whole society.

 General: The qualities are general enough to be applicable and accessible to any individual from any background or culture.

(31)

 Based on literature: The qualities are based on extensive literature review.

From this process, four essential qualities for individuals were synthesized (giving an initial answer to the first secondary research question). The initial inspiration, references and a definition for each of the four qualities is presented next. Please note that the final version of the four qualities is presented in section 3.3.

Know Thyself

This quality is about developing awareness, understanding of, and connection to one’s ‘Self’: body, mind, emotions and spirit. A wider sense of ‘Self’ is expanded that pulls more of that which is unconscious into consciousness, allowing us to grow into more connected, empowered, whole and authentic human beings.

In exploring different philosophies and theories on the „Self‟, Stephen Covey (1992) explains that although they will call them by different names, there are four dimensions that are repeated within all the literature, they are:

physical, mental, emotional and spiritual. The authors have chosen to explore these dimensions within this quality.

Otto C Scharmer‟s Theory U and his work in describing presencing and blind spots was a great influence in the development of this quality.

Scharmer describes blind spots in leadership as not concerning the „what‟

or „how‟ of what a leader does, but the „who‟. Scharmer describes the greatest factor being who we are, and expounds the importance of being aware of the inner place or source from which we operate, both as individual and a group (Scharmer 2007b).

Scharmer describes presencing as a “state we experience when we have opened our minds, our hearts and our intentions or wills and can, as a result, view things from the source” and that “[i]t allows us to connect and move with emerging new realities and rapid change that cannot be addressed by reflecting on past experiences” (Scharmer 2007b, 62).

Willis Harman describes the importance of „inner work‟ in creating transformation in our world, and says that “[t]he driving force for transformation comes from the individual level” in that “when there is enough individual change, organizations of necessity change” (Harman

(32)

1996, 76). In the introduction to Joseph Jaworski‟s book on leadership, Synchronicity, Peter Senge makes it clear why we need to do this inner work of getting to Know Thyself: “Most of us aren‟t very good at perceiving reality as it is. Most of what we „see‟ is shaped by our impressions, our history, our baggage and our preconceptions. We can‟t see people as they really are because we‟re too busy reacting to our own internal experiences of what they evoke in us, so we rarely actually relate to reality” (Senge 1996, 8). Cabeza-Erikson, Edwards and Van Brabant (2008) identify self- awareness and self-management as being essential skills to develop developed for a successful sustainability change agent, as well as the ability to constantly challenge and develop oneself. These are all capacities that have been connected to the quality of Know Thyself.

Social Connector

This quality is defined as the understanding of the integral connection between individuals and how individuals interface with others; it is the power of how to read, listen, engage, inspire and connect with people. It is the ability to be a skilled leader and profound facilitator who shares their experiences and knowledge in order to bring people together and create the space for them to see their true potential.

Cabeza-Erikson, Edwards and Van Brabant (2008, vii) describe the need for sustainability leaders need to develop the capacity to listen, coach, connect with others in a meaningful way and meet people where they are”.

They also identify emotional intelligence such as social awareness and social skills as being essential for successful sustainability change agents, who “…must be able to hold a space for co-creation as a way to build shared intention among a group of people… they need to develop abilities to support, facilitate and help create change among others” (vii). Margaret Wheatley talks about the kind of leadership in a new paradigm: “A leader these days needs to be a host – one who convenes people, who convenes diversity, who convenes all viewpoints in creative processes where our intelligence can come forth” (1999). In his book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen Covey describes the need for people to really listen to understand and develop empathic communication (1992).

These are all traits we associate with the quality Social Connector.

(33)

Understanding the System

This quality empowers a new worldview, a new paradigm of thinking. This new philosophy sees the interconnectedness of all things, and embraces systems thinking. A person who has developed this quality will value knowledge, education and information that support new paradigm thinking. They will review and reflect upon their basic assumptions, be flexible in continually learning and growing, as well as, continually renewing their mental models and learned behaviour. Within this new worldview is the understanding of the need for sustainability.

Tilbury and Cooke (2001) point at some core skills that are essential for individuals to meet the challenges of sustainability, including thinking critically, systematically and with a futures orientation. Cabeza-Erikson, Edwards and Van Brabant concur and add “[t]o reach a state of sustainability, we require a combination of capacities to linearly think, plan and do, and to think systematically by stepping back and thinking about our actions, processes and their place in the bigger systems”(2008, vii).

In the introduction of Joseph Jaworski‟s book Synchronicity: The Inner Path of Leadership, Peter Senge writes: “The new leadership must be grounded in fundamentally new understandings of how the world works.

The sixteenth-century Newtonian mechanical view of the universe, which still guides our thinking, has become increasingly dysfunctional in these times of interdependence and change” (1996). Fritjof Capra (1985) in his article Criteria of Systems Thinking also describes this new paradigm of thinking: systems thinking. He talks about the need to focus on understanding the whole and not separating things into their parts, on process more than structure and nature as an interconnected, dynamic network of relationships.

This new paradigm of understanding includes a shift in perspective with regards to the relationship of humans to the environment. An individual who develops the quality has a new perspective where he/she realizes the current unsustainable reality in which resources are decreasing, costs are increasing and the ever-diminishing size of areas within which we have to manoeuvre represent our „sustainability challenge‟.

Sustainable Selves: Shifting Paradigms within Individuals as the Core Driver to Reaching a Sustainable Society