Fostering Sustainability in Higher Education: Leveraging Human Behavior in Organizations (Psychology and Our Planet) 3031505549, 9783031505546

Citation preview

Psychology and Our Planet Series Editor: John Fraser

Elise L. Amel Christie M. Manning Catherine S. Daus Makayla Quinn

Fostering Sustainability in Higher Education Leveraging Human Behavior in Organizations

Psychology and Our Planet Series Editor John Fraser, President & CEO Knology New York, NY, USA

​ he book series Psychology and Our Planet comprises edited volumes, monographs, T and briefings that focus on the interaction between mental process and the environment. At present environmental, population, and conservation psychology represent broad areas of practice that tend to have a disaggregated publication record. While the work in past builds on a broad base of research, synthesis of these papers tends to only appear in service to a specific research publication, and more importantly, is seldom synthesized in ways that are useful to academic training and policy advancement. The series seeks to redress that gap by providing a forum and meeting place for psychologists from across disciplines to advance the exchange ideas, and, where appropriate, provide opportunities for collaboration. The aim of the series is to publish books on the many dimensions of how people conceive themselves within the biological and cultural systems that shape the world, and to expand the full range of human relationships to the conditions that have created the world we live in today, and the decisions that will guide anthropogenic impacts on the planet’s future. Topics covered in this series include: Synergies between human mental health and the ecology of the natural environment, and the psychological consequences of high population density. The role of mental processes and human behavior in advancing a thriving biosphere on which all life depends. The understanding of reciprocal relationships between well-being and the design of built spaces, landscapes and natural environments. The reciprocal relationships between environmental conditions, be that the natural or built world, and the shaping of mental process. Psychology and Our Planet welcomes book proposals representing the broad interest of the interdisciplinary and international focus of the series, and is particularly excited to receive proposals that address aspects of systems and habits that, at scale, may be able to describe and reverse the negative sequelae that are now placing people and populations in harm’s way.

Elise L. Amel • Christie M. Manning Catherine S. Daus • Makayla Quinn

Fostering Sustainability in Higher Education Leveraging Human Behavior in Organizations

Elise L. Amel University of St. Thomas - Minnesota St. Paul, MN, USA

Christie M. Manning Macalester College St. Paul, MN, USA

Catherine S. Daus Southern Illinois University Edwardsville Edwardsville, IL, USA

Makayla Quinn University of St. Thomas St. Paul, MN, USA

ISSN 2662-1916     ISSN 2662-1924 (electronic) Psychology and Our Planet ISBN 978-3-031-50554-6    ISBN 978-3-031-50555-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50555-3 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Paper in this product is recyclable.

We dedicate this book to our families, who have supported us unconditionally as we’ve invested passion, and countless hours, into it. To our children: Maya and Tess Amel, Clara and Maeve Schilder-Manning, Matthew and Luci Reinhard, and our amazing fourth author, Makayla (Mak) Quinn. You are our raison d’etre.

Preface

The scale of destructive human impacts on planetary systems threatens the well-­ being of all people, present and future. Rapid, transformative change is needed, and at a scope well beyond that of individual change. Our goal in writing this book is to spur organizational change toward sustainability, beginning with higher education institutions (HEIs), by summarizing what is known about the process of human behavior change within organizations. The book is intended for anyone interested in organizational change in service to sustainability, and in particular for employees of HEIs, human resource professionals, organizational scientists, and activists. We will cover classic organizational principles that can simultaneously create culture change and ensure the alignment of organizational features that will support it. Thus, after an introduction to sustainability in Chap. 1, Chap. 2 unpacks organizational culture. Much of the work involved in actually executing sustainability efforts can be spearheaded by human resource management (HRM) professionals, who have historically played a significant role in other types of organizational transformation including technological changes, cross-cultural competence, and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts. One key way to increase sustainability will be to integrate it into people’s jobs, which is the focus of Chap. 3. The HRM portfolio also directly addresses who is selected for jobs, addressed in Chap. 4, and employee skill development, found in Chap. 5. While HRM practices are as relevant for HEIs as for other organizational contexts, the relative importance of each area of influence is different for HEIs in some important ways. For instance, HEI employees are characterized by a high degree of specialized knowledge, skill, and ability as well as high levels of intrinsic motivation, so providing autonomy and opportunity to learn and perform may be the most valuable role of HRM for impacting in-role and extra-role sustainable behavior. In Chap. 6 we articulate key motivational principles that drive human behavior, and in Chap. 7 we describe established methods for managing motivation. Also, HEIs’ unique design of decentralized decision-making (e.g., selecting new faculty) means we can’t just rely on HRM professionals for these changes. Formal and informal leaders across the institution make daily decisions which influence the organizational structures that propel large-scale human behavior change, which we vii

viii

Preface

cover in Chap. 8. After addressing the various building blocks of organizational behavior, in Chap. 9 we address the process of managing change efforts. Working toward sustainability is hard; there is no way around it, with its two-­ steps-­forward, one-step-back rhythm. This exacerbates the stress that many individuals endure as they ponder the uncertain future of people and the planet. Thus, this book concludes with a summary in Chap. 10 of how HEIs can support the mental well-being of their employees in this collective fight for a sustainable future. St. Paul, MN, USA St. Paul, MN, USA Edwardsville, IL, USA St. Paul, MN, USA

Elise L. Amel Christie M. Manning Catherine S. Daus Makayla Quinn

Acknowledgments

We’d like to thank Dio Cramer, who provided the hand-drawn images in this book. Dio is an artist, organizer, and printmaker currently living on occupied Dakota lands in so-called Minnesota. A former student of Professor Manning’s, they have always been particularly interested in making academic work more beautiful and accessible through art and illustration. We are grateful for the keen insights from the following colleagues, friends, and family who so generously provided feedback on earlier versions of book chapters: Thomas S. Bateman, Richard T. Davies, Amir J. Nadav, Jennifer C. Theriault, and Leslie K. Vatne. We’d like to acknowledge our academic mentors—they’ve helped shape our worldviews, expertise, and our passion for sharing this information for the good of humanity and the planet.  In particular, we pay homage to the late Dr. Howard Weiss: your brilliant mind, sharp wit, and unfailing critical lens are both unparalleled and deeply missed.

ix

Contents

1

 Sustainability, Higher Education, and Human Behavior��������������������    1 1.1 Sustainability Defined����������������������������������������������������������������������    2 1.2 The Role of Individuals Within Systems������������������������������������������    3 1.3 The Role of Higher Education����������������������������������������������������������    6 1.4 The Psychology of Change ��������������������������������������������������������������    7 1.5 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    8 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    8

2

Organizational Culture����������������������������������������������������������������������������   15 2.1 What Is Organizational Culture?������������������������������������������������������   15 2.1.1 Shared Values and Assumptions ������������������������������������������   16 2.1.2 How Do Values Influence Behavior?������������������������������������   17 2.1.3 Cultural Artifacts������������������������������������������������������������������   20 2.1.4 Subcultures����������������������������������������������������������������������������   22 2.2 Why Does a Sustainable Culture Matter?����������������������������������������   22 2.3 Creating a Sustainability Culture in HEIs����������������������������������������   24 2.3.1 Signaling Values��������������������������������������������������������������������   24 2.3.2 Special Role of Human Resources����������������������������������������   26 2.4 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   26 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   27

3

 Sustainability as a Shared Competency ������������������������������������������������   35 3.1 What Is Sustainable Work Behavior?�����������������������������������������������   35 3.1.1 Voluntary Behavior ��������������������������������������������������������������   36 3.1.2 Work Requirements��������������������������������������������������������������   39 3.1.3 Moving from Individual to Systems Orientation������������������   40 3.1.4 Sustainability as a Shared Core Competency ����������������������   41 3.2 Aligning Behavior Through HRM Systems��������������������������������������   45 3.2.1 Managing Sustainability Performance����������������������������������   46 3.2.2 Doing Performance Appraisal Well��������������������������������������   47 3.3 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   48 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   48 xi

xii

Contents

4

 Finding and Hiring Sustainability Talent����������������������������������������������   55 4.1 Applicant Recruitment����������������������������������������������������������������������   56 4.1.1 Why It Is Important��������������������������������������������������������������   57 4.1.2 How to Do It Well ����������������������������������������������������������������   57 4.2 Candidate Selection��������������������������������������������������������������������������   61 4.2.1 Applications��������������������������������������������������������������������������   62 4.2.2 Interviews������������������������������������������������������������������������������   62 4.2.3 Work Samples and Situations ����������������������������������������������   64 4.2.4 Psychological Measures��������������������������������������������������������   65 4.3 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   68 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   69

5

Developing Current Talent����������������������������������������������������������������������   77 5.1 New Employee Onboarding��������������������������������������������������������������   78 5.2 What to Train������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   79 5.2.1 Awareness ����������������������������������������������������������������������������   80 5.2.2 Attitudes��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   81 5.2.3 Sustainability Literacy����������������������������������������������������������   81 5.3 Who Needs Training? ����������������������������������������������������������������������   84 5.4 How to Train so People Learn����������������������������������������������������������   87 5.4.1 Psychological Principles ������������������������������������������������������   88 5.5 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   91 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   91

6

Unpacking Motivation ����������������������������������������������������������������������������   99 6.1 Internal Forces����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   99 6.1.1 Basic Human Needs��������������������������������������������������������������   99 6.1.2 Deliberate Choices����������������������������������������������������������������  103 6.2 Situational Forces������������������������������������������������������������������������������  105 6.2.1 Antecedents��������������������������������������������������������������������������  105 6.2.2 Consequences������������������������������������������������������������������������  106 6.2.3 Habits������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  107 6.3 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  108 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  109

7

Managing Motivation������������������������������������������������������������������������������  115 7.1 Using Incentives Wisely��������������������������������������������������������������������  115 7.2 Magnifying Motivation ��������������������������������������������������������������������  116 7.2.1 Fairness ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  116 7.2.2 Goal Setting��������������������������������������������������������������������������  120 7.2.3 Feedback ������������������������������������������������������������������������������  120 7.3 Making Work Meaningful����������������������������������������������������������������  123 7.3.1 Job Characteristics����������������������������������������������������������������  123 7.3.2 Job Crafting��������������������������������������������������������������������������  125 7.4 Stages of Change������������������������������������������������������������������������������  126 7.5 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  127

Contents

xiii

References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  128 8

Leadership������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  135 8.1 Defining Leadership��������������������������������������������������������������������������  135 8.2 Leadership for Sustainability������������������������������������������������������������  136 8.2.1 Awareness ����������������������������������������������������������������������������  137 8.2.2 Collaboration������������������������������������������������������������������������  137 8.2.3 Resources������������������������������������������������������������������������������  138 8.2.4 Resistance ����������������������������������������������������������������������������  138 8.3 Who Should Be Leading? ����������������������������������������������������������������  139 8.3.1 Top-Down ����������������������������������������������������������������������������  139 8.3.2 Bottom-Up����������������������������������������������������������������������������  141 8.3.3 Middle-Out����������������������������������������������������������������������������  141 8.4 Leadership Models for Change��������������������������������������������������������  143 8.4.1 Transformational Leadership������������������������������������������������  143 8.4.2 Authentic Leadership������������������������������������������������������������  145 8.4.3 Servant Leadership����������������������������������������������������������������  146 8.4.4 Generative Leadership����������������������������������������������������������  146 8.4.5 Ecological Leadership����������������������������������������������������������  147 8.4.6 Shared Leadership����������������������������������������������������������������  147 8.4.7 Toxic Leadership������������������������������������������������������������������  147 8.5 Enhancing Sustainability Leadership in HEIs����������������������������������  148 8.5.1 Seeking New Leaders�����������������������������������������������������������  148 8.5.2 Developing Current Leaders ������������������������������������������������  148 8.6 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  151 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  151

9

Organizational Change����������������������������������������������������������������������������  161 9.1 Identify Gaps������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  162 9.2 Engage Diverse Stakeholders������������������������������������������������������������  164 9.3 Communicate Your Vision����������������������������������������������������������������  165 9.4 Enable Human Change ��������������������������������������������������������������������  167 9.4.1 Ability ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  167 9.4.2 Motivation����������������������������������������������������������������������������  167 9.4.3 Opportunity ��������������������������������������������������������������������������  168 9.5 Engage Social Networks ������������������������������������������������������������������  168 9.6 Experiment����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  170 9.7 Assess Progress��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  171 9.8 Institutionalize Change ��������������������������������������������������������������������  172 9.9 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  174 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  174

10 This Is Hard����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  181 10.1 Physical and Emotional Tolls of Unsustainability��������������������������  181 10.2 Stress at Work ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  184 10.2.1 Burnout ������������������������������������������������������������������������������  184

xiv

Contents

10.3 Attitudes and Motivational Experiences at Work���������������������������  186 10.3.1 Job Satisfaction ������������������������������������������������������������������  186 10.3.2 Work Engagement��������������������������������������������������������������  186 10.4 Fostering Resilience and Overall Well-Being��������������������������������  188 10.5 In Closing: The Ripple Effect of Change����������������������������������������  191 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  191 Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  199

About the Authors

Elise  L.  Amel  (she/her) earned a PhD in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from Purdue University. Elise is an award-winning Professor of Psychology at the University of St. Thomas. She is Past President and Fellow of the American Psychological Association’s  Society of Environmental, Population, and Conservation Psychology. She co-founded the St. Thomas Office of Sustainability Initiatives and has successfully led efforts at the University of St. Thomas to foster a culture of sustainability leadership through systems-level changes including committing to carbon neutrality, embracing sustainability as a strategic priority, developing a strategic sustainability action plan, and creating a system for integrating sustainability across the curriculum. Christie M. Manning  (she/her) has been teaching in the Environmental Studies Department at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, since 2008. She has a bachelor’s degree in Human Factors Engineering from Tufts University and a Ph.D. in Cognitive and Biological Psychology from the University of Minnesota. Christie’s research focuses on the psychological factors that motivate community-level action. She has co-authored several reports on the mental health impacts of climate change and environmental injustice. Christie is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association. Catherine S. Daus  (she/her) is a Fellow in the Society of Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Division 14 of APA, and Program Director of the I/O Master’s Program, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. She teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in I/O Psychology, Stress and Stress Management, and Psychology of Sustainable Behavior. She received her Doctorate in I/O Psychology from Purdue University in 1994. Her research expertise includes mood and emotion, stress, coping, wellness and humor at work, and diversity concerns. She also consults and trains in institutions on emotional intelligence and emotional labor in the workplace, stress management, organizational attitude/survey development, and multiple soft skills topics. Makayla Quinn  (she/her) is a social psychologist and recent graduate of the University of St. Thomas. She is a proponent of interdisciplinary research and how the study of psychology can positively impact a variety of fields, including sustainability. She hopes to achieve a PhD in Social Psychology with a focus on gender and sexuality studies and inclusive research methodology. She also plans on teaching psychology at the undergraduate level. Outside of research, Makayla is an award-winning poet, a lover of games, and a foodie.

xv

Abbreviations

AASHE Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education ADKAR awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, and reinforcement AMO ability, motivation, and opportunity ASA attraction-selection-attrition BARS Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales CSR Corporate Social Responsibility DEI Diversity, Equity, Inclusion EOCBs Environmental Organizational Citizenship Behaviors EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESG Environmental, Social, and Governance HEI Higher Education Institutions HEXACO honesty-humility, emotionality, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness HRM Human Resources Management IT Information Technology JCM Job Characteristics Model KSAO knowledge, skills, abilities, and other human qualities LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design NGOs Nongovernmental Organizations OCBs Organizational Citizenship Behaviors POF person-organization fit PTSD Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RJP realistic job preview SDT Self-Determination Theory SMART specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound goals STARS Sustainability Tracking, Assessment, and Rating System SWOT strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats UNSDGs United Nations Sustainable Development Goals

xvii

Chapter 1

Sustainability, Higher Education, and Human Behavior

The urgent need to bring about change for a sustainable future cannot be overstated. Most readers picking up this book likely already believe that higher education institutions (HEIs) can play a leading role in the society-wide transformation toward sustainability. Likewise, many readers are committed, at some level, to being a part of the solution, so we will skip describing the litany of crises (Richardson et al., 2023; IPCC, 2023) and get right to the goals of this book. There is no shortage of resources (e.g., Dave et  al., 2014; Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE)1) that identify innovative initiatives to drive sustainability in higher education (Zepeda Quintana et al., 2022). While unquestionably helpful, a significant problem is that they focus almost exclusively on content and process (e.g., baseline assessment, stakeholder engagement, target areas such as water and energy) but don’t provide psychological guidance that can make or break their effectiveness (for an exception, see Too & Bajracharya, 2015). We believe that initiatives will succeed more often and with greater impact when informed by the extensive knowledge base provided by psychology. It is with high hopes that this book will increase the understanding of what sustainable behavior means in the context of HEIs and illustrate how the tools of industrial/organizational psychology can create the kind of change within institutions that stimulates others to engage in the journey toward a more sustainable future.

 https://www.aashe.org/

1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. L. Amel et al., Fostering Sustainability in Higher Education, Psychology and Our Planet, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50555-3_1

1

2

1  Sustainability, Higher Education, and Human Behavior

1.1 Sustainability Defined We use the word sustainability approximately a bazillion times in the following chapters, but what is it? Sustainability is a relatively small word for a complex set of ideas (Beddoe et al., 2009; Levin et al., 2012), and how we define the concept of sustainability matters. First, sustainability is about taking the long view, or as they say “playing the long game”—a concept that immediately immerses us in psychological territory. We humans are biologically and evolutionarily wired to focus on what is right in front of us and respond to immediate danger, which makes long-term thinking and planning somewhat challenging (van Vugt et  al., 2014). Yet, it is imperative that we focus on the long term. The context of this book is higher education, which has survived for over 10 centuries. Ideas developed and perpetuated in all areas of inquiry (science, humanities, business, engineering, education, law, medicine) have contributed to our current state of unsustainability (Aung & Hallinger, 2023; Orr, 2004). However, higher education has also brought discovery and delight, health and happiness, innovation and inspiration. Perhaps the greatest value of higher education is its ability to develop expertise and capacity for self-reflection necessary to recognize and take responsibility for the precarious state we have created. Because of this, academia has a significant role to play in creating a sustainable future, and it is critical to redirect its academics and operations so it can be a resilient source of knowledge and ideas for centuries to come. Second, sustainability is an integrated, multidimensional understanding of our future. When we talk about sustainability, it includes social, planetary, and economic flourishing—all of them … together. While most models of sustainability include all three facets, their interdependence is not always clear. Depictions of the triple bottom line as the point of intersection within a Venn diagram (Savitz, 2013) or the three pillars (Adams, 2006; Purvis et al., 2019) present society, environment, and economics as separate but interconnected, and they are often studied as independent outcomes (Garavan & McGuire, 2010). Instead, it is critical to note that everything we do and have is completely dependent on a healthy planet and that economies do not work without healthy people (Giddings et al., 2002). These ideas are most clearly represented in the nested dependencies model (see Fig.  1.1). Because of our complete dependence on the natural world, ignoring planetary crises can lead only to our own social and financial detriment. And because we have already surpassed most of our planetary boundaries (Richardson et  al., 2023; Rockström et al., 2023), regeneration—or restoring what has been damaged—is the ultimate goal (Sonetti et  al., 2019), rather than simply preventing future degradation. Third, sustainability includes a healthy society in which everyone flourishes, not just people with privilege. Sustainability, therefore, highlights a need to focus on diversity, inclusion, and justice (Gramatakos & Lavau, 2019; Lu et al., 2018; Meikle, 2023). Our current environmental problems exacerbate social injustices as people who have contributed the least to current problems are disproportionately impacted

1.2  The Role of Individuals Within Systems

3

Fig. 1.1 Nested dependencies; economic flourishing depends 100% on healthy people and a healthy planet (Adapted from Giddings et al., 2002)

by them and have the fewest resources to manage them (IPCC, 2023). Of course, the impacts of inequality are worse for those who have the least, but well-being measures for the whole community also tend to be worse as a result (Deivanayagam et al., 2023; Roberts, 2001). Additionally,​​societal barriers keep some folks from contributing ideas just when we most need to “engage and unleash the genius of all people” (Jones, 2008, p.  73). Furthermore, social and environmental inequities erode relationships, which, in turn, interferes with the collaborative work needed to build a sustainable future. In organizations, concern for impacts on human flourishing often falls under the umbrella of corporate social responsibility (CSR); environmental, social, and governance (ESG); and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Note that CSR (Glavas & Radic, 2019; Jones, 2019; Jones & Rupp, 2018; Willness et  al., 2020) and DEI (Kohl, 2022; Shore et al., 2018) have been addressed extensively elsewhere, so our examples will focus on the environmental aspects less familiar to many. A comprehensive sustainability model that has spread globally, set forth by the United Nations and referred to as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs; see Fig. 1.2), helps provide a broad context. The 17 goals within are assumed to be interdependent and are built on a foundation of social and environmental justice (Arora & Mishra, 2019).

1.2 The Role of Individuals Within Systems When considering our relationship with sustainability, the position of this book becomes clear: the ecological systems upon which humans rely for life support are in crisis, and human behavior is the root cause (Schultz, 2011). Our problems are a result of how humans meet their needs and wants in ecologically disruptive ways. Without understanding this, change will be superficial at best. To combat global

4

1  Sustainability, Higher Education, and Human Behavior

Fig. 1.2  United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (Credit: Azote for Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University CC BY-ND 3.0 from this web address: https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2016-06-14-the-sdgs-wedding-cake.html)

environmental challenges such as climate change, people need to make different personal choices, such as walking, biking, and taking public transit instead of driving solo in automobiles. They certainly will help, yet even if many individuals make high-impact choices like eliminating flying, eating a vegetarian diet, or having fewer, if any, children (Wynes & Nicholas, 2017), the cumulative effect of these private-sphere, individual-level actions will not achieve the impact needed to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the next 10 years (IPCC, 2023; Masson-­ Delmotte et al., 2019). Individual action is simply no match for the massive and damaging infrastructure underlying energy, transportation, and agriculture (Chater & Loewenstein, 2022; Jackson, 2008). We build oil pipelines, then ask people to conserve energy. We design car-centric roads, then expect people to walk and bike along them. We subsidize global, monoculture crops, then ask individuals to eat local and organic at a higher personal financial cost. Changing behavior is hard even in supportive circumstances; it is especially difficult when working against giant systems that render more sustainable actions costly, dangerous, or impossible (Barr, 2018; Shove, 2010). In addition to physical perils, working against large systems is also cognitively punishing. Behaving in ecologically compatible ways within unsustainable systems requires conscious intentions and deliberate actions, both of which use extensive cognitive resources. Whenever we have to conduct a background investigation for a choice we want to make, it can quickly become overwhelming. The pace and scope

1.2  The Role of Individuals Within Systems

5

of individual private-sphere behavior change are just too slow, small, and unreliable to, by itself, rectify whole system crises (Amel et al., 2017; Rieg et al., 2021). System-scale change is more in line with what is needed. Luckily, behavior change on the part of individuals can create broader systemic change (Amel et al., 2017; Fritsche et al., 2018; Hallsworth, 2023; Stern, 2000; Swim et al., 2011). And so, in addition to encouraging individuals to engage in personal planet-friendly behavior, our efforts must also focus on individuals changing their communities, engaging in political processes, and transforming organizations, including the corporations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), governments, and schools that design, build, and perpetuate these systems (see Fig. 1.3). Organizations’ cultures, policies, and practices affect their sustainability by guiding the behavior of their individual members. Thus, even incremental improvements in systemic processes will have much broader impacts on sustainability than individual, private-sphere efforts (Maniates, 2001; Nielsen et al., 2021). Importantly, the benefits go both ways. Addressing sustainability typically benefits employees and organizations beyond the important goal of becoming sustainable since employees who work sustainably typically feel more satisfied with their work and are more likely to stick with their organization (Podgorodnichenko et al.,

Fig. 1.3  Individual behavior beyond the private sphere will increase its impact

6

1  Sustainability, Higher Education, and Human Behavior

2021). Sustainability work can also contribute to employees’ overall wellness (Mock et al., 2019). It truly can be a “win-win-win” situation (for individuals, HEIs, and the planet).

1.3 The Role of Higher Education HEIs present unique opportunities, and influencing them is crucial to future sustainability for a variety of reasons (Agyeman & Crouch, 2004; Cortese, 2003; Lin et al., 2021; Murray, 2018; Purcell et al., 2019; Ralph & Stubbs, 2014; Ruiz-Mallén & Heras, 2020), perhaps the most obvious reason being that HEIs will prepare our future workforce and thought leaders—an impact with implications for the lifetime of each student (Bertossi & Marangon, 2022; Gramatakos & Lavau, 2019; Leal Filho et al., 2018; Probst et al., 2019; Sonetti et al., 2019). HEIs are expected to be at the cutting edge of our ever-expanding knowledge (Ferrer-Balas et al., 2008; Too & Bajracharya, 2015), and they are social systems that employ and influence large numbers of people (Berchin et al., 2017; Bertossi & Marangon, 2022; Blok et al., 2015). HEIs also impact the broader culture through the dissemination of information (Albareda-Tiana et al., 2020). They are the source of many technological, business, and cultural innovations, and they model a new way forward (Ferrer-Balas et al., 2008). Many educational institutions are already leading the way toward sustainability … but many more still have substantial work to do (Menon & Suresh, 2020). Often the changes are scattershot, relying on grassroots efforts. To truly become sustainable, however, a coordinated, systemic transformation of culture, policies, and procedures is needed (Azizi, 2023; Cebrián, 2018; Franco et al., 2019; Lozano et al., 2015; Rieg et al., 2021). HEIs also present unique challenges compared to other organizations. HEIs are comprised of a complex set of systems that extend beyond academics, including campus operations that resemble small cities and connections with communities beyond campus (Cebrián, 2018; Lozano et al., 2013). As is appropriate for workers who are motivated and highly skilled, HEI employees, especially faculty, expect a high level of autonomy in their jobs. Yet, paradoxically, HEI-specific benefits, such as tenure protections, create long-term legacies that can lead to inertia or resistance through a lack of incentive to change (Bien & Sassen, 2020; Blanco-Portela et al., 2018). And several challenges lie specifically with leveraging HEI leadership. For example, HEIs rely on both strong, top-down administration and diverse, decentralized decision-making, which can lead to muddled expectations (Hancock & Nuttman, 2014). Often, HEIs are comprised of siloed disciplines, with policies that keep people from pursuing the interdisciplinary work needed to tame wicked— super-wicked2 in the case of climate change—problems (Blanco-Portela et  al.,  Wicked problems are unique, complex and dynamic problems for which there are no clear solutions or endpoints (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Levin et al. (2012) describe super-wicked problems as those that also are enormous, worsened by waiting, key actors don’t realize it’s happening, and include a diverse set of stakeholders, some of which cannot be consulted (e.g., future generations). 2

1.4  The Psychology of Change

7

2018; Ferrer-Balas et al., 2008; Hancock & Nuttman, 2014; Hull et al., 2021; Levin et al., 2012). Also, many HEIs adhere to very old traditions that define their identity. Finally, HEIs are still recovering from the disruptions caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic (Crawford & Cifuentes-Faura, 2022) and simultaneously are facing the uncertainty of the pending demographic cliff (Boeckenstedt, 2022). This, coupled with the fact that HEIs operate within a highly competitive marketplace (Haddock-Fraser et al., 2018), means that few are willing or able to invest in the kind of transformation needed (Boeckenstedt, 2022; O’Leary & June, 2023). Furthermore, activism among employees typically is not rewarded, and even shunned in the case of sciences, reducing the motivation to galvanize change from within (Brinkhurst et  al., 2011; Hancock & Nuttman, 2014). Understanding and rethinking these organizational processes, practices, culture, and norms will be critical to fostering systemic, sustainable change (Cebrián, 2018)—understanding that can be gained by learning some basic principles of psychology.

1.4 The Psychology of Change The good news is that we know psychology can help us move through the morass of change needed! Psychology is a potent tool for understanding the internal and external drivers of human behavior. Psychological research has established that humans can move toward a sustainable society by creating conditions that motivate environmentally responsible behavior—conditions that help us surmount cognitive limits, create new situational forces, and foster motivation (Abrahamse & Steg, 2013). And the humans of academia have the potential to create such conditions. HEIs can foster low-cost sustainable behavior—actions that are convenient or inexpensive like recycling—by providing the foundational information that affects knowledge, awareness, attitudes, values, and norms (Steg & Vlek, 2009). HEIs can also provide the processes that are most likely to influence high-cost behaviors like attending extensive training programs or redefining jobs (Steg & Vlek, 2009) or encouraging job crafting among employees—where employees are encouraged to modify aspects of their jobs to align with their personal goals and values (Oldham & Hackman, 2010). For example, faculty can autonomously allocate their “service” workload, which they could transform into an opportunity to engage in university sustainability committees. Administrators have the capacity to adjust the physical, financial, and social context in which behaviors occur—by changing infrastructure or instituting new motivational structures (e.g., rewards), for instance, emphasizing sustainability initiatives as critical service opportunities. Importantly, all organizational structures, policies, and processes are designed and implemented by people. Thus, it is especially crucial to empower transformational leaders who are committed to sustainability and who will step outside of current norms to inspire institutional action (Ralph & Stubbs, 2014). All of this is possible.

8

1  Sustainability, Higher Education, and Human Behavior

In order to transform HEIs into sustainable institutions, we need to understand organizational behavior—the reciprocal impacts of organizations and humans (Jones, 2023; Klein & Huffman, 2013; Zacher et al., 2023). There are many organizational levers, such as job design, leadership, and organizational development processes that can transform individual behavior within the larger institution. Although we must acknowledge the unique challenges organizational change efforts have when addressing global sustainability (van Velsor & Quinn, 2012), the bottom line is that organizations are social systems (Katz & Kahn, 1978), which until now have largely been complicit in unsustainability but have enormous potential as drivers of sustainability. Therefore, the ideas reviewed in this book heavily rely on research from the fields of industrial/organizational psychology as well as human resource management (HRM) and organizational behavior.

1.5 Conclusion This book is a snapshot of the state of the psychological science specific to sustainability in HEIs. Psychology has much value to add to sustainability initiatives. In fact, ignorance of the psychology underlying successful organizational change can make for suboptimal progress. We have designed this book to illustrate useful psychological strategies and inspire the courage needed to effect change at any college or university. We hope that the research summarized in this book will inspire psychologists to use their skills in service to sustainability (Howard-Grenville, 2021). Yet being a trained psychologist is not a prerequisite for using this material! We ardently hope that this book will help people throughout the HEI realm—staff, students, faculty, and administration—to identify opportunities and build processes that positively influence the sustainability of these critical institutions. The future depends on it.

References Abrahamse, W., & Steg, L. (2013). Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23(6), 1773–1785. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.029 Adams, W. M. (2006). The future of sustainability: Re-thinking environment and development in the twenty-first century (pp. 1–18). World Conversation Union. Agyeman, J., & Crouch, C. (2004). The contribution of environmental justice to sustainability in higher education. In P. B. Corcoran & A. E. Wals (Eds.), Higher education and the challenge of sustainability (pp. 113–130). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-­306-­48515-­X_10 Albareda-Tiana, S., Ruíz-Morales, J., Azcárate, P., Valderrama-Hernández, R., & Múñoz, J. M. (2020). The EDINSOST Project: Implementing the sustainable development goals at university level. In W. Leal Filho, A. L. Salvia, R. W. Pretorius, L. L. Brandli, E. Manolas, F. Alves, U. Azeiteiro, J. Rogers, C. Shiel, & A. Do Paco (Eds.), Universities as living labs for sustainable development (pp. 193–210). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­15604-­6_13

References

9

Amel, E., Manning, C., Scott, B., & Koger, S. (2017). Beyond the roots of human inaction: Fostering collective effort toward ecosystem conservation. Science, 356(6335), 275–279. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal1931 Arora, N.  K., & Mishra, I. (2019). United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 2030 and environmental sustainability: Race against time. Environmental Sustainability, 2(4), 339–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42398-­019-­00092-­y Aung, P. N., & Hallinger, P. (2023). Research on sustainability leadership in higher education: A scoping review. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 24(3), 517–534. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-­09-­2021-­0367 Azizi, L. (2023). Which leadership processes encourage sustainable transitions within universities? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 24(1), 46–68. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJSHE-­12-­2021-­0510 Barr, S. (2018). Personal mobility and climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 9(5), e542. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.542 Beddoe, R., Constanza, R., Farley, J., Garza, E., Kent, J., Kubiszewski, I., Martinez, L., McCowen, T., Murphy, K., Myers, N., Ogden, Z., Stapleton, K., & Woodward, J. (2009). Overcoming systemic roadblocks to sustainability: The evolutionary redesign of worldviews, institutions, and technologies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(8), 2483–2489. https:// doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0812570106 Berchin, I. I., dos Santos Grando, V., Marcon, G. A., Corseuil, L., & de Andrade, J. B. S. O. (2017). Strategies to promote sustainability in higher education institutions: A case study of a federal institute of higher education in Brazil. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18(7), 1018–1038. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-­06-­2016-­0102 Bertossi, A., & Marangon, F. (2022). A literature review on the strategies implemented by higher education institutions from 2010 to 2020 to foster pro-environmental behavior of students. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 23(3), 522–547. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJSHE-­11-­2020-­0459 Bien, C., & Sassen, R. (2020). Sensemaking of a sustainability transition by higher education institution leaders. Journal of Cleaner Production, 256, 120299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2020.120299 Blanco-Portela, N., R-Pertierra, L., Benayas, J., & Lozano, R. (2018). Sustainability leaders’ perceptions on the drivers for and the barriers to the integration of sustainability in Latin American higher education institutions. Sustainability, 10(8), 2954. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082954 Blok, V., Wesselink, R., Studynka, O., & Kemp, R. (2015). Encouraging sustainability in the workplace: A survey on the pro-environmental behaviour of university employees. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.063 Boeckenstedt, J. (2022, March 22). Will your college survive the demographic cliff? The Chronical of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle-­com/article/ will-­your-­college-­survive-­the-­demographic-­cliff Brinkhurst, M., Rose, P., Maurice, G., & Ackerman, J. D. (2011). Achieving campus sustainability: Top-down, bottom-up, or neither? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(4), 338–354. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371111168269 Cebrián, G. (2018). The I3E model for embedding education for sustainability within higher education institutions. Environmental Education Research, 24(2), 153–171. https://doi.org/10.108 0/13504622.2016.1217395 Chater, N., & Loewenstein, G. (2022). The i-frame and the s-frame: How focusing on individual-­ level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1–60. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x22002023 Cortese, A.  D. (2003). The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. Planning for Higher Education, 31(3), 15–22. Crawford, J., & Cifuentes-Faura, J. (2022). Sustainability in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Sustainability, 14(3), 1879. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su14031879

10

1  Sustainability, Higher Education, and Human Behavior

Dave, M., Gou, Z., Prasad, D., & Li, F. (2014). Greening universities toolkit V2.0. Transforming universities into green and sustainable campuses: A toolkit for implementers. UN Environment Program. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/11964/Greening%20 University%20Toolkit%20V2.0.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Deivanayagam, T. A., English, S., Hickel, J., Bonifacio, J., Guinto, R. R., Hill, K. X., Huq, M., Issa, R., Mulindwa, H., Nagginda, H. P., de Sato, P. M., Selvarajah, S., Sharma, C., & Devakumar, D. (2023). Envisioning environmental equity: Climate change, health and racial justice. Lancet, 402(10395), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-­6736(23)00919-­4 Ferrer-Balas, D., Adachi, J., Banas, S., Davidson, C.  I., Hoshikoshi, A., Mishra, A., Motodoa, Y., Onga, M., & Ostwald, M. (2008). An international comparative analysis of sustainability transformation across seven universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(3), 295–316. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370810885907 Franco, I., Saito, O., Vaughter, P., Whereat, J., Kanie, N., & Takemoto, K. (2019). Higher education for sustainable development: Actioning the global goals in policy, curriculum and practice. Sustainability Science, 14(6), 1621–1642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-­018-­0628-­4 Fritsche, I., Barth, M., Jugert, P., Masson, T., & Reese, G. (2018). A social identity model of pro-environmental action (SIMPEA). Psychological Review, 125(2), 245–269. https://doi. org/10.1037/rev0000090 Garavan, T.  N., & McGuire, D. (2010). Human resource development and society: Human resource development’s role in embedding corporate social responsibility, sustainability, and ethics in organizations. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(5), 487–507. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1523422310394757 Giddings, B., Hopwood, B., & O’Brien, G. (2002). Environment, economy and society: Fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 10(4), 187–196. https:// doi.org/10.1002/sd.199 Glavas, A., & Radic, M. (2019). Corporate social responsibility: An overview from an organizational and psychological perspective. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. https:// doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.90 Gramatakos, A. L., & Lavau, S. (2019). Informal learning for sustainability in higher education institutions. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 20(2), 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-­10-­2018-­0177 Haddock-Fraser, J., Rands, P., & Scoffham, S. (2018). Leadership for sustainability in higher education. Bloomsbury Publishing. Hallsworth, M. (2023). A manifesto for applying behavioural science. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(3), 310–322. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-­023-­01555-­3 Hancock, L., & Nuttman, S. (2014). Engaging higher education institutions in the challenge of sustainability: Sustainable transport as a catalyst for action. Journal of Cleaner Production, 62, 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.062 Howard-Grenville, J. (2021). Caring, courage and curiosity: Reflections on our roles as scholars in organizing for a sustainable future. Organization Theory, 2(1). https://doi. org/10.1177/2631787721991143 Hull, R. B., Robertson, D. P., & Mortimer, M. (2021). Teaching leadership skills to sustainability professionals. In W. L. Filho, A. L. Salvia, & F. Frankenberger (Eds.), Handbook on teaching and learning for sustainable development (pp. 152–162). IPCC. (2023). Climate change 2023: Synthesis report. Summary for policy makers. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee, & J. Romero (Eds.)] (pp. 1–34). IPCC, Geneva. https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-­9789291691647.001 Jackson, T. D. (2008). The challenge of sustainable lifestyles. In G. Gardner & T. Prugh (Eds.), 2008 State of the world: Innovations for a sustainable economy (pp.  45–60). Worldwatch Institute. Jones, V. (2008). The green collar economy. HarperCollins.

References

11

Jones, D.  A. (2019). The psychology of CSR.  In A.  McWilliams, D.  E. Rupp, D.  S. Siegel, G. K. Stahl, & D. A. Waldman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility: Psychological and organizational perspectives, Chapter 2, Part II (pp.  19–47). Oxford University Press. Jones, R. G. (2023). Why organizational psychology should be a leading force for sustainability. The Industrial/Organizational Psychologist, 61(1). Jones, D. A., & Rupp, D. E. (2018). Social responsibility in and of organizations: The psychology of corporate social responsibility among organizational members. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 333–350). Sage. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (Vol. 2). Wiley. Klein, S. R., & Huffman, A. H. (2013). I-O psychology and environmental sustainability in organizations: A natural partnership. In A. H. Huffman & S. R. Klein (Eds.), Green organizations: Driving change with I-O psychology (pp. 3–16). Routledge. Kohl, K. (2022). Driving justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. Auerbach Publications. Leal Filho, W., Pallant, E., Enete, A., Richter, B., & Brandli, L. L. (2018). Planning and implementing sustainability in higher education institutions: An overview of the difficulties and potentials. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 25(8), 713–721. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2018.1461707 Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: Constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sciences, 45(2), 123–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-­012-­9151-­0 Lin, J., Stoltz, A., Aruch, M., & Rappeport, A. (2021). Decolonization and transformation of higher education for sustainability: Integrating indigenous knowledge into policy, teaching, research, and practice. Journal of Comparative & International Higher Education, 13(Summer), 134–156. https://doi.org/10.32674/jcihe.v13iSummer.3255 Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F.  J., Huisingh, D., & Lambrechts, W. (2013). Declarations for sustainability in higher education: Becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2011.10.006 Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K., Alonso-Almeida, M., Huisingh, D., Lozano, F. J., Waas, T., Lambrechts, W., Lukman, R., & Hugé, J. (2015). A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable development in higher education: Results from a worldwide survey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.048 Lu, F., Rosser, R.  H., Renteria, A., Kim, N., Erickson, E., Sher, A., & O’Connor, L. (2018). Inclusive sustainability: Environmental justice in higher education. In W.  Leal Filho, R. W. Marans, & J. Callewaert (Eds.), Handbook of sustainability and social science research (World Sustainability Series) (pp. 63–81). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­67122-­2_4 Maniates, M.  F. (2001). Individualization: Plant a tree, buy a bike, save the world? Global Environmental Politics, 1(3), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1162/152638001316881395 Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.  O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P.  R., Pirani, A., Moufouma-Okia, W., Péan, C., Pidcock, R., Connors, S., Matthews, J. B. R., Chen, Y., Zhou, X., Gomis, M.  I., Lonnoy, E., Maycock, T., Tignor, M., & Waterfield, T. (2019). Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/ SR15_Citation.pdf Meikle, P. (2023). Social justice as a dimension of university social responsibility. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109792 Menon, S., & Suresh, M. (2020). Synergizing education, research, campus operations, and community engagements towards sustainability in higher education: A literature review. International

12

1  Sustainability, Higher Education, and Human Behavior

Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 21(5), 1015–1051. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJSHE-­03-­2020-­0089 Mock, M., Omann, I., & Panno, A. (2019). “Something inside me has been set in motion”: Exploring the psychological wellbeing of people engaged in sustainability initiatives. Ecological Economics, 160, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.02.002 Murray, J. (2018). Student-led action for sustainability in higher education: A literature review. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(6), 1095–1110. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJSHE-­09-­2017-­0164 Nielsen, K.  S., Clayton, S., Stern, P.  C., Dietz, T., Capstick, S., & Whitmarsh, L. (2021). How psychology can help limit climate change. American Psychologist, 76(1), 130–144. https://doi. org/10.1037/amp0000624 O’Leary, B., & June, A.  W. (2023, May 31). These were higher ed’s biggest finanacial losses from the pandemic. The Chronical of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/ these-­were-­higher-­eds-­biggest-­financial-­losses-­from-­the-­pandemic Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (2010). Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of job design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2–3), 463–479. https://doi. org/10.1002/job.678 Orr, D. W. (2004). Earth in mind: On education, environment, and the human prospect. Island Press. Podgorodnichenko, N., Edgar, F., Akmal, A., & McAndrew, I. (2021). Sustainability through sensemaking: Human resource professionals’ engagement and enactment of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Cleaner Production, 293, 126150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2021.126150 Probst, L., Bardach, L., Kamusingize, D., Templer, N., Ogwali, H., Owamani, A., Mulumba, L., Onwonga, R., & Adugna, B.  T. (2019). A transformative university learning experience contributes to sustainability attitudes, skills and agency. Journal of Cleaner Production, 232, 648–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.395 Purcell, W. M., Henriksen, H., & Spengler, J. D. (2019). Universities as the engine of transformational sustainability toward delivering the sustainable development goals: “Living labs” for sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 20(8), 1343–1357. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-­02-­2019-­0103 Purvis, B., Mao, Y., & Robinson, D. (2019). Three pillars of sustainability: Zin search of conceptual origins. Sustainability Science, 14, 681–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-­018-­0627-­5 Ralph, M., & Stubbs, W. (2014). Integrating environmental sustainability into universities. Higher Education, 67, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-­013-­9641-­9 Richardson, K., Steffen, W., Lucht, W., Bendtsen, J., Cornell, S. E., Donges, J. F., et al. (2023). Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Science Advances, 9(37), eadh2458. https://doi. org/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458 Rieg, N.  A., Gatersleben, B., & Christie, I. (2021). Organizational change management for sustainability in higher education institutions: A systematic quantitative literature review. Sustainability, 13(13), 7299. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137299 Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/ellendo/rittel/rittel-­dilemma.pdf Roberts, J. T. (2001). Global inequality and climate change. Society & Natural Resources, 14(6), 501–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920118490 Rockström, J., Gupta, J., Qin, D., Lade, S. J., Abrams, J. F., Andersen, L. S., Armstrong McKay, D. I., Bai, X., Bala, G., Bunn, S. E., Ciobanu, D., DeClerck, F., et al. (2023). Safe and just Earth system boundaries. Nature, 619, 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-­023-­06083-­8 Ruiz-Mallén, I., & Heras, M. (2020). What sustainability? Higher education institutions’ pathways to reach the agenda 2030 goals. Sustainability, 12(4), 1290. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su12041290 Savitz, A. (2013). The triple bottom line: How today’s best-run companies are achieving economic, social and environmental success-and how you can too. Wiley.

References

13

Schultz, P.  W. (2011). Conservation means behavior. Conservation Biology, 25(6), 1080–1083. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-­1739.2011.01766.x Shore, L.  M., Cleveland, J.  N., & Sanchez, D. (2018). Inclusive workplaces: A review and model. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. hrmr.2017.07.003 Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning, 42(6), 1273–1285. https://doi.org/10.1068/a42282 Sonetti, G., Brown, M., & Naboni, E. (2019). About the triggering of UN Sustainable Development Goals and regenerative sustainability in higher education. Sustainability, 11(1), 254. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su11010254 Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004 Stern, P.  C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424. https://doi. org/10.1111/0022-­4537.00175 Swim, J.  K., Stern, P.  C., Doherty, T.  J., Clayton, S., Reser, J.  P., Weber, E.  U., Gifford, R., & Howard, G. S. (2011). Psychology’s contributions to understanding and addressing global climate change. American Psychologist, 66(4), 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023220 Too, L., & Bajracharya, B. (2015). Sustainable campus: Engaging the community in sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 16(1), 57–71. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJSHE-­07-­2013-­0080 United Nations. (2015). The 17 goals. UN.org. https://sdgs.un.org/goals van Velsor, E., & Quinn, L. (2012). Leadership and environmental sustainability. In S. E. Jackson, D.  Ones, & S.  Dilchert (Eds.), Managing human resources for environmental sustainability (pp. 241–262). Jossey-Bass. van Vugt, M., Griskevicius, V., & Schultz, P. W. (2014). Naturally green: Harnessing stone age psychological biases to foster environmental behavior. Social Issues and Policy Review, 8(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12000 Willness, C. R., Jones, D. A., Strah, N., & Rupp, D. E. (2020). Corporate social responsibility at the individual level of analysis: Research findings that inform responsible management “in the wild”. In O. Laasch, R. Suddaby, P. B. Gustavson, R. E. Freeman, & D. Jamali (Eds.), Research handbook of responsible management (pp. 375–391). Edward Elgar. Wynes, S., & Nicholas, K.  A. (2017). The climate mitigation gap: Education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environmental Research Letters, 12(7), 074024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-­9326/aa7541 Zacher, H., Rudolph, C.  W., & Katz, I.  M. (2023). Employee green behavior as the core of environmentally sustainable organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 465–494. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-­orgpsych-­120920-­050421 Zepeda Quintana, D.  S., Esquer, J., & Munguía, N. (2022). Factors that hinder the implementation of sustainability initiatives in higher education institutions. In K.  A. A.  Gamage & N. Gunawardhana (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of sustainability in higher education learning and teaching (pp. 79–98). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119852858.ch5

Chapter 2

Organizational Culture

2.1 What Is Organizational Culture? Transforming an institution of higher education (HEI) to be more sustainable is challenging. Period. Just how challenging it will be depends on the institution’s culture. Organizational culture is a system of shared meaning, developed within a group, that guides people’s thoughts and behaviors (Schein, 1985; van Zomeren & Louis, 2017). It includes the values, beliefs, and assumptions that underlie “the way we do things around here.” When people travel, they often experience a difference between their own behaviors and those of the locals. Violating a culture’s expected behaviors can elicit strong responses that lead to confusion, discomfort, and embarrassment. Travelers tend to quickly shift accordingly to better blend in. Organizational culture works the same way. Culture can differ dramatically from organization to organization (Cameron & Quinn, 2006; Hofstede, 1984; Marquardt, 2002; Schwartz, 1999). In some institutions, leadership operates democratically, while in others, it is hierarchical (Bess & Dee, 2012). In some workplace cultures, people lean into conflict, while in others, they avoid it. Among HEIs, some see their fundamental purpose as knowledge generation, while others see themselves as agents for change. And some HEIs privilege independent academic fields, while others promote interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary pursuits (Niedlich et al., 2020). Adjusting organizational culture to be more sustainable can feel confusing and uncomfortable to those who are accustomed to the status quo (Lozano et al., 2013; Sylvestre et  al., 2013; Verhulst & Lambrechts, 2015). The factors that initially make culture a barrier to transformation, however, tend to strengthen desirable behaviors once a new culture takes hold. It is also often possible to work with an HEI’s culture rather than against it to facilitate a sustainability transition. Either

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. L. Amel et al., Fostering Sustainability in Higher Education, Psychology and Our Planet, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50555-3_2

15

16

2  Organizational Culture

way, it helps to unpack organizational culture’s various manifestations. Cultural manifestations range from abstract, invisible, and slow to change, such as values and assumptions, to more tangible artifacts that can be changed relatively quickly (Ostroff et al., 2003).

2.1.1 Shared Values and Assumptions Just like individuals, organizations subscribe to certain values (Corner et al., 2014; de Groot & Thøgersen, 2018). Values are guiding principles that provide a framework for evaluating options and prioritizing decisions (Schwartz, 1992, 2012; Kohl, 2022; Steg, 2023). Discovery, innovation, academic freedom, excellence, and truth are among the standard values at HEIs, as are student-centeredness, critical thinking, integrity, and inclusiveness. Prioritizing sustainability means that an HEI embraces one set of values, like environmental justice, and rejects others, like materialism (Callewaert & Marans, 2018; Niedlich et al., 2020). It may mean expanding the educational and research mission of a university to include a focus on sustainability issues in local, regional, and global communities (Aung & Hallinger, 2022). Sustainability can be linked to values already embraced by many institutions, such as a holistic orientation and making a positive contribution to society (Adams et al., 2018; Niedlich et al., 2020). Other, more general values, such as learning, integrity, long-term decision-making (Schönborn et al., 2019), transparency (Adams et  al., 2018), transdisciplinarity, and collaboration (Aung & Hallinger, 2022; Lozano, 2006), are also fundamental to a sustainability culture. Institutions can capitalize on these by making explicit and strategic connections to the shift toward sustainability. Shared values must be commonly understood yet flexible enough to make sense to a variety of people with diverse perspectives and within different contexts (Bien & Sassen, 2020; Sammalisto et al., 2015). Developing a shared understanding of values that undergird complex concepts such as sustainability can be challenging since, at first glance, they may seem to clash with some established values (Bien & Sassen, 2020; Gough & Scott, 2008). Sustainability, for instance, is fundamentally about responsibility (Leiserowitz et al., 2006), which is not often an explicit academic value. It may also feel counter to values like productivity. In an HEI, for example, investing in sustainability-­ related change may appear to divert limited resources from key priorities such as student recruitment and retention. If commitment to investing in a more sustainable future appears to conflict with an organization’s long-standing values, people may react with hesitance or skepticism. Working out how values coincide is essential to moving forward successfully.

2.1  What Is Organizational Culture?

17

2.1.2 How Do Values Influence Behavior? Cultural values define the behavioral “rights and wrongs” that people should follow. Cultural cues, such as what is openly admired, help people navigate the world around them. Over time, experiences turn into a set of shared assumptions about “how things work here.” These unwritten, and often unconscious, guidelines for behavior encourage consistency, which builds trust in working relationships (Guadagno & Cialdini, 2010). While shared assumptions make day-to-day work interactions more predictable, they also have disadvantages that can stymie change. For example, entrenched assumptions about whose voices should hold power in decision-making discourage people with different experiences from speaking up. In this case, offering an alternative perspective risks violating shared assumptions. In addition, challenging old ways of thinking can create negative emotions like guilt or fear and cause physiological stress such as an upset stomach, both in those behaving differently and in those observing the new behavior. If any aspects of sustainability deviate from the values people have become accustomed to, or that they committed to upon joining the organization, then adopting sustainability is likely to feel threatening. As an institution embraces new, sustainability-oriented values, the discrepancies that some may feel between their values and their employer’s may cause them to experience dissonance, or the uncomfortable feeling of being hypocritical (Festinger, 1957; Hejjas et  al., 2019). Under these circumstances, people have only a few choices. They may adjust their values to match the organizational shift, or they may engage in coping strategies, such as avoiding or retaliating, to relieve the discomfort, or, finally, they might keep their values and sever ties with the institution. A few folks will participate but identify other reasons for engaging that better match their values. This suggests that diversifying the reasons why one’s organization is pursuing sustainability (e.g., it makes financial sense in the long run and it appeals to the upcoming demographic of students) can positively engage people who do not yet hold sustainability values (Hejjas et al., 2019). Reorienting shared values within an organization is possible, but it takes time, patience, and strategic effort. One place to begin is shifting the rules. In any organization, there are both formal rules and informal norms in place that guide people’s behavior (Raineri & Paillé, 2016; Schneider et al., 2013). They are concrete manifestations of culture that communicate what is important through what is expected, supported, and rewarded (Ehrhart et  al., 2014), and individuals interpret them to determine how to behave appropriately (Parker et al., 2003). Formal Rules Daily behavior within an institution is formally guided through policies, procedures, systems, codes of conduct, incentives, programs, and practices. These mechanisms coordinate people, provide guidance for decision-making, and direct

18

2  Organizational Culture

compliance with various regulations (Zepeda Quintana et al., 2022). Policies can be imposed by entities external to an institution, such as accreditation bodies, state systems, or religious affiliations (Lambrechts, 2015). Further, policies can be implemented to intentionally change the status quo or to accept and codify informal behaviors that have developed over time (Bertels et al., 2010). When decision-making is left to individual discretion, sustainability may or may not be a consideration. Even if sustainable decisions have been made in the past, there is no guarantee of them continuing if the situation changes. Envision that a campus IT purchaser chooses the gold standard for energy-efficient equipment one fiscal year. Without a policy that prioritizes energy efficiency, price pressures or the departure of that individual IT employee could easily put an end to future energy-­ efficient equipment purchases. It is no surprise, then, that HEIs that embed sustainability within strategy, policy, and procedures perform more sustainably (Hugé et al., 2018; Leal Filho et al., 2019). It is also why they are valued highly in sustainability accreditation programs (e.g., AASHE STARS1). While enthusiasm for sustainable action at HEIs is growing, institutionalizing sustainability criteria within policies has lagged (Zepeda Quintana et  al., 2022). Lack of expertise can limit one’s confidence in creating appropriate policy (Leal Filho, 2011), and disagreements over “competing” environmental, social, and short-­ term economic goals can tie up deliberations (Zepeda Quintana et  al., 2022). Although policy shifts often take hard work to accomplish, they are worth the institutionalized long-term impact. The good news is that the most successful policies make sustainable behavior easy or rewarding to choose (Leung & Rosenthal, 2019). Organizational policies also provide clear mandates for behavior (Cialdini et  al., 1990; Norton et  al., 2014)—eliminating ambiguity that people inherently dislike (Guadagno & Cialdini, 2010). Importantly, policies can spell out the consequences—both positive and negative—for actions (Swim & Thøgersen, 2022). Sustainability policy is especially important for workers with weaker sustainability values as they would not act sustainably without it (Raineri & Paillé, 2016). Clearly, communicating about such official guidelines is critical as the appropriate sustainable behavior is unlikely to ensue if the cues are not salient or if they are perceived as conflicting (Leung & Rosenthal, 2019; Smith & O’Sullivan, 2012). Policies also explicitly communicate that an institution is making an effort (Leung & Rosenthal, 2019) and indicate organizational support for sustainable behavior (Delmas & Pekovic, 2018; Hejjas et  al., 2019; Paillé & Raineri, 2015). This is crucial because perceived organizational support in turn enhances how attached people feel to the institution (Fuller et al., 2006), and the likelihood they will develop creative solutions (Composto et  al., 2023; Ramus & Steger, 2000). Policies can also increase workers’ sense of behavioral control (Leung & Rosenthal, 2019).

 https://stars.aashe.org/

1

2.1  What Is Organizational Culture?

19

In addition to conducting their own jobs with an ecological mindset, workers can advance system change by pushing institutions to shift their policies (Lülfs & Hahn, 2014). Just having policies is not enough, however, as they must actually be followed, and people must perceive that the policies are broadly accepted (Lülfs & Hahn, 2014; Norton et al., 2014). Social Norms Social norms are social cues about expected behavior in any given situation, learned through observation and experience. They represent a group’s values and shared ways of doing things (Chudek & Henrich, 2011). Unlike policies, normative expectations are informal and mostly unwritten (Cialdini & Jacobson, 2021). Norms are reinforced through social sanctions such as approving glances or disapproving remarks—one fits in if they comply and may feel embarrassed or ashamed if they do not (Cialdini et  al., 1990; Norton et  al., 2014; Schneider et  al., 2013). Social norms guide behavior because even in the absence of formal punishments or rewards, people generally do not want to stand out or behave the wrong way (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; Toelch & Dolan, 2015). Descriptive norms are what people see others doing—the ordinary, everyday behaviors people carry out in a given context (Cialdini et  al., 1990). Injunctive norms are the unwritten rules about the approved way to behave. Injunctive norms are influenced by the formal policies of an organization, but they can veer from those formal rules, as when, for example, formal rules dictate that leftover food cannot be taken from events, yet people do it anyway. Injunctive norms are often communicated indirectly, through signs of approval or disapproval (e.g., nodding or eye-rolling) or by sharing statistics (e.g., “88% of our employees use our free reusable mug program”). Whether they are communicated explicitly or simply observed, norms reliably influence behavior (Blok et  al., 2014; Niemiec et  al., 2020; Norton et  al., 2014; Schneider et al., 2013; Schultz, 2022). As with written rules, norms are especially effective for influencing colleagues who do not personally value sustainability (Schultz, 2022). People are more likely to follow norms when the situation is new or ambiguous, when they want to identify with the group, and when they lack power (Gelfand & Harrington, 2015). Norms, like formal rules, are more effective when they are made clear and salient (Li et al., 2019; Schultz, 2022; Steg, 2023). Evidence shows that peers have a substantial role to play in creating a sustainability culture (Hejjas et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2017). They can take the initiative as change agents and influence others to join in (Ones & Dilchert, 2012). Eco-rep and ambassador programs are peer-to-peer methods that spread ideas throughout a campus, relying on early adopters—people who model enthusiastic support for an idea—to inventory their offices, identify gaps, and rally action (Callewaert & Marans, 2018). See a full description of early adopters in Chap. 9. Social interactions that functionally and emotionally support colleagues can have ripple effects

20

2  Organizational Culture

that define the norms around sustainable behavior (Delmas & Pekovic, 2018; Paillé et al., 2016). Overall, policies and norms are most powerful when they are aligned, providing a consistent message (Cialdini, 2003). Despite being a strong driver of behavior, many people overlook or are unaware of their influence (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004).

2.1.3 Cultural Artifacts Culture can become such an enmeshed part of our lives that it is often hard to describe. Yet it shows up in the stories we tell, the language and symbols we use, our traditions, how we dress, and even in the design of our environment. These cultural artifacts (Schein, 1985), some social and others physical, symbolize what is valued and, thus, guide individual and collective actions (Adams et al., 2018). For example, the cultural value of thrift is made clear through campus reuse centers, office supply swaps, and professional clothes drives. One culture-laden artifact in HEIs is the curriculum (Adams et al., 2018). Values and assumptions show up in what courses are offered, what is included in the core curriculum, and what majors, minors, concentrations, and certificates are available. Officially designating courses that address sustainability, for instance, allows students to “see” sustainability in departments throughout an institution. Values also appear in the language used in recruiting materials or heard on campus. People in different disciplines, such as business, engineering, or justice and peace studies, use distinct jargon, and each discipline can include sustainability in its own way. How an HEI talks about success serves as an indicator of its most prized values. The narratives (stories, legends, myths) heard around campus are another place where an HEI’s culture is discernable. One can learn a lot about what people value by listening to the stories they tell. A campus tour guide focusing on where students can park on campus provides a different vibe than a guide stating that “students love our LEED Platinum dorm so much you’ll need to get your application in early.” Culture also manifests in the practices and taboos that people feel strongly about, as well as the rituals and ceremonies they eagerly anticipate. Things that are valued are celebrated (e.g., Earth Week), while other things are downplayed. Physical cultural artifacts connoting sustainability can include markers such as LEED certification logos, electric vehicle infrastructure, permeable pavement design, solar arrays, and signage about where water comes from and where waste goes. Sustainability culture can be seen, smelled, and heard in pollinator paths, rain gardens, and xeriscaping. Evidence of a sustainability-oriented HEI culture is shown in what is worn, including sustainable brand insignias and T-shirts demanding a sustainable future. Other signals include what people carry (e.g., reusable water bottles and handmade totes), artwork and other

2.1  What Is Organizational Culture?

21

Fig. 2.1  Physical cultural artifacts can help signal sustainability

decorations, bike racks full of bikes in prominent locations, and stickers on water bottles and laptops (see Fig. 2.1). Beyond the Artifacts Values and practices evolve into a shared sense of culture when they contribute to organizational success over time (Schein, 1985). The dynamic between abstract values, policies, norms, and concrete artifacts is reciprocal, with values driving norms and creating artifacts and artifacts reflecting policy and implying values (Adams et al., 2018; Hatch, 1993; Phillips & Snodgrass, 2022). When an HEI implements a composting system, acquires bikes for free student use, or builds a LEED building, it is more likely to attract the kinds of people who are excited about such things and who are more likely to bring a sustainability mindset to their campus activities. Culture is further transmitted to new members through formal (e.g., onboarding, orientation) and informal channels (e.g., daily actions).

22

2  Organizational Culture

2.1.4 Subcultures Within the larger institutional culture, HEIs can develop subcultures with a different focus and feel based on where groups are positioned in a hierarchy, their function within the institution, or disciplinary histories (Adams et al., 2018; Tierney, 1988). After all, autonomy is a hallmark value of academic culture. In an HEI, there are typically at least two major subcultures among employees: academics—the faculty members who teach and conduct research—and professional services—the staff members in finance, marketing, tech systems, HR, facilities, and grounds, who keep the institution running (Adams et  al., 2018; Haddock-Fraser et  al., 2018). Then, of course, there are the students; given their frequent turnover, the student culture may fluctuate and deviate more from that of the broader HEI (Adams et al., 2018). Sustainability is likely to manifest differently in each subculture. This is valuable on one hand since unique interpretations can optimize functionality for each subgroup (Hejjas et al., 2019). Tech departments might focus on energy savings, while social sciences focus on environmental justice. On the other hand, varying subcultures can cause friction if norms are significantly different (Kohl, 2022) or if the culture as a whole ends up reflecting the subculture with the most resources and power rather than being a truly shared culture (Howard-Grenville, 2006). Some subcultures might be stronger, or “tighter,” than others, having more influence over the behavior of their members and affecting whether change is likely (Taras et al., 2010). Embracing sustainability can be hindered by tighter subcultures that reject change as is common in more hierarchical or formal cultures. These subcultures may hold values and beliefs that appear inconsistent with sustainability, such as academic departments in which the dominant assumption is that humans have more inherent value than nonhuman nature (Hejjas et al., 2019; Linnenluecke et al., 2009). A strong shared history can be the key to enhancing cultural coherence among subcultures (Schein, 1985). Even at an HEI where different departments have proudly distinct ways of thinking and acting, subcultures may be unified in their embrace of sustainability as a way to move forward, for example, after weathering tough economic times together.

2.2 Why Does a Sustainable Culture Matter? Some sustainability work, like initial grassroots efforts to change the content of courses, relies on ambitious individuals or small groups. Other activities, such as revising operations to reduce waste and conserve energy, clearly save an institution money so do not necessarily rely on a broader sustainability motive. Harder decisions and wholesale change at an institution, however, require adjustments in cultural values (Niedlich et al., 2020).

2.2  Why Does a Sustainable Culture Matter?

23

Sustainable culture impacts employee sustainable behavior (Galpin et al., 2015; Hejjas et al., 2019; Zacher et al., 2023). For one thing, people’s intentions are far more likely to turn into actual behavior when they perceive a sustainability culture (Norton et  al., 2017). Social norms can influence both in-role behavior, such as people bringing up sustainability during decision-making meetings (Parker et al., 2003), and extra-role behaviors, such as initiating or getting involved in volunteer opportunities (Rupp et  al., 2013; Tian & Robertson, 2019; Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004; Ruepert et al., 2015; Steg, 2023). Chapter 3 will provide more details about in-role and extra-role sustainable behavior. Interestingly, perceptions of culture are often more important than the actual state of affairs (Rupp et al. 2013; Steg, 2023). Specifically, employees who believe their institution has policies that support sustainable action are more likely to report working sustainably themselves (Norton et al., 2014; Steg, 2023). In contrast, when sustainability-oriented employees feel they are not supported, encounter unsustainable norms, or see no integration of sustainability into commitments, goals, or policies, they experience psychological discomfort and are far less likely to demonstrate discretionary sustainable behavior (Smith & O’Sullivan, 2012). Further, culture can motivate participation beyond the “usual suspects.” While people with strong biospheric values, who believe that ecological systems are valuable in their own right, are likely to display sustainable behavior at work no matter what, people without these values are more likely to behave sustainably when they believe their organization values it and has integrated it into policies (Ruepert et al., 2017; Steg, 2023). The takeaway here is that making an HEI’s actions and goals explicit brings along those who are less inclined to behave sustainably on their own. Perceptions of a sustainability culture tend to positively impact a variety of employee attitudes. It tends to increase an employee’s attraction to the organization (Rupp et al., 2013), and employees feel more committed (e.g., Carmeli et al., 2017; Parker et  al., 2003). Folks also tend to feel greater job satisfaction (Parker et al., 2003). In addition, perceptions of a sustainability culture have been shown to increase workers’ organizational identification, or feeling like they share defining attributes with their organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Carmeli et al., 2017; Dutton et al., 1994). This increases a variety of voluntary sustainable behaviors (Tian & Robertson, 2019), perhaps because they are more committed to the organization’s success (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). This is especially true for more empathic employees (Tian & Robertson, 2019). While many HEIs have increased their sustainable activity, organizational culture itself is rarely addressed (Callewaert & Marans, 2018). Yet when assumptions must change, as argued in Chap. 3 (Adams et al., 2018), all the components of an organization’s culture need to be reexamined and realigned. Because they are so reciprocally influential, this can be a messy process (Niedlich et al., 2020). But if culture is left unattended, the best-laid plans are likely to fail (the classic saying, “culture eats strategy for breakfast,” is attributed to Peter Drucker; Sylvestre et al., 2013).

24

2  Organizational Culture

2.3 Creating a Sustainability Culture in HEIs Since each HEI has a unique “flavor,” there is no one right way to go about creating a sustainability culture. Yet understanding how organizational culture can constrain behavior and affect change efforts will help reduce the friction that change tends to engender. The more observable aspects of culture, such as artifacts, are easier to change than the less observable values and assumptions. When sustainability values have not been a part of an HEI’s ethos, addressing the tangible is a good place to start (see Adams et al., 2018; Bertels et al., 2010, for practices that embed sustainability into culture). This approach will not change a culture overnight, but making sustainability visible will influence individuals’ thoughts and behaviors and catch on over time (Adams et al., 2018). A variety of high-impact strategies can help generate a sustainability culture, many of which are discussed in later chapters. Establishing a sustainability office, reviewed in Chap. 9, signals an institution’s commitment, both inside and outside of the institution (Hugé et  al., 2018). Other factors include leadership, the topic of Chap. 8 (Hejjas et  al., 2019); training, presented in detail in Chap. 5 (Zepeda Quintana et al., 2022); and organizational change strategies, delineated in Chap. 9 (Rieg et al., 2021). A few strategies for creating a sustainability culture are worth calling out here. They include signaling values through official commitments and the special role human resource management (HRM) departments can play.

2.3.1 Signaling Values HEIs can demonstrate their commitment to sustainability through signaling. Declarations and commitments are common formal signals that can cover themes such as infusing sustainability into the curriculum and everyday activities across the institution (Lozano et al., 2013). Signing onto commitments serves a symbolic purpose as an artifact representing espoused values. As a result, HEIs will often tout their commitments on their websites. But commitments also serve functional purposes, by providing helpful frameworks that can enable a sustainability transition (Lozano, 2006; Lozano et al., 2015; Roos et al., 2023). Commitments tend to encourage policy shifts like greening the campus and rewarding interdisciplinary research (Aung & Hallinger, 2022). They also enlist already-existing institutional tools such as assessments, plans, and reports. HEIs can join networks, such as AASHE2 and Laudato Si,3 that support transparent measurement and reporting of sustainability activity (Roos et  al., 2023).  https://www.aashe.org/  https://laudatosiactionplatform.org/

2 3

2.3  Creating a Sustainability Culture in HEIs

25

Assessments provide information that facilitates understanding and encourages HEI decision-makers to address barriers to sustainable behavior (Zepeda Quintana et al., 2022). The plans that result from sustainability commitments provide measurable goals that activate, direct, and maintain behavior. Setting goals is an effective motivational strategy further detailed in Chap. 7 (Azizi, 2023; Blanco-Portela et  al., 2017; Roos et al., 2023). Assessing and reporting progress is critical to integrating efforts across the campus, such as connecting courses with campus operation projects (e.g., building a pollinator path). Mission and vision statements are also important cultural signals (Galpin et al., 2015; Schönborn et  al., 2019). A mission statement is typically used to publicly communicate an organization’s values and concisely express its purpose and aspirations (Lopez & Martin, 2018). Many HEI mission statements include values such as community, leadership, justice, stewardship, or the common good (Lopez & Martin, 2018), which can be linked to sustainability. Vision statements, alternatively, tend to be future-oriented descriptions of the essential goals or injunctive norms of a group that provide a bridge between aspirations and reality. Creating a vision of the future encourages people to think about positive possibilities. Vision statements basically serve as a superordinate goal aimed at broad, long-term challenges and can be developed for department, college/ school, and institutional levels (Höchli et al., 2018; Unsworth et al., 2013). Vision statements reinforce informal encouragement from colleagues and leaders and increase the likelihood that faculty, staff, and students will engage in sustainable behavior (Bertels et al., 2010; Ramus & Steger, 2000). In addition to connecting a sustainable future to deeply held organizational values, mission and vision statements signal organizational commitment and provide motivation and guidance for daily decisions (Craddock et  al., 2012; Davis & Coan, 2015; Post & Altma, 1994; Ramus & Steger, 2000). Although formal sustainability-­ consistent statements are no guarantee of sustainable behavior, they provide a shared understanding of “where we are headed” and can empower myriad decentralized decision-makers to consider sustainability in all their actions. Many HEIs have yet to embed sustainability into, or connect it with, their mission or vision statements (Lee et al., 2013; Lopez & Martin, 2018; Roos et al., 2023; Velazquez et  al., 2006). Those that already have tend to make greater progress toward sustainability (Lopez & Martin, 2018). If a group (e.g., a department) does not yet have a mission or vision statement, writing one can provide a significant opportunity to engage employees and students (Ribeiro et al., 2016). The process of people linking their core values to a sustainable future enhances the legitimacy of the vision statement so that they feel ownership of and commitment to it (Oreg et al., 2011; Ribeiro et al., 2016; Rieg et al., 2021; Stouten et  al., 2018). The collaborative development of formal statements facilitates a shared understanding of what “sustainability” means in this group’s context, enhances beliefs about its importance, and fosters subsequent norm development (Rieg et al., 2021; Stouten et al., 2018).

26

2  Organizational Culture

2.3.2 Special Role of Human Resources Human resource management (HRM) practices play a significant role in influencing organizational culture by signaling an institution’s priorities (Garavan & McGuire, 2010; Harmon et al., 2010; Podgorodnichenko et al., 2021; Westerman et al., 2020). Strategically, HRM professionals possess critical skills for translating mission, vision, and goals into the personnel policies, practices, and structures that drive employee behavior (Bertels et al., 2010; Bratton & Bratton, 2015; Dumont et al., 2017; Pinzone et al., 2016; Pinzone et al., 2019; Roscoe et al., 2019; Shen & Zhang, 2019; Teixeira et al., 2012; Zacher et al., 2023). They often determine how jobs are defined, described in more detail in Chap. 3; who is hired, the focus of Chap. 4; how people are trained, delineated in Chap. 5; and what efforts are rewarded, addressed in Chaps. 6 and 7 (Adams et al., 2018; Davis & Coan, 2015; Hejjas et al., 2019; Galpin et al. 2015; Ren et al., 2018; Westerman et al., 2020; Zacher et al., 2023). It is well known that managing strategic change in organizations requires the alignment of HRM practices so that the many parts of an institution can reinforce each other (Ployhart & Weekley, 2017). It is no different for sustainability (Sroufe, 2017). But to effectively infuse sustainability into their decisions, policies, and programming, HRM practitioners, especially HRM leaders, must themselves be on board with sustainability (Chang et  al., 2013; Podgorodnichenko et  al., 2021; Ramachandran, 2011) and may need training to fully understand it and successfully focus their efforts (Cohen et al., 2010; Ones & Dilchert, 2013; Zepeda Quintana et al., 2022). The bottom line is that HRM departments need to be included as strategic partners, to develop the relevant sustainability competencies, and to be empowered to translate sustainability strategic goals into university-wide employee engagement.

2.4 Conclusion Though it may seem a daunting task for an individual to exert influence upon an organization, particularly powerful and established HEIs, it is important to remember that they are social collectives and, like any other type of social collective, are comprised of individual people. Efforts to foster change toward sustainability will be noted by, and influence, group members (Craddock et al., 2012). Furthermore, any individual who speaks out in the service of sustainability dispels the often-­ assumed myth that people do not care, which makes it easier for others to speak more openly about their concerns (Geiger & Swim, 2016). If the “how we do things” at an HEI becomes sustainable, the cultural shift will create strong social pressure for everyone in it to behave sustainably. In HEIs, a sustainability culture would mean that most faculty, staff, and students agree about what sustainability is, its importance, and how it fits into the institution’s identity and that it is worth pursuing. It also means they would have the appropriate knowledge, skills, and abilities to behave sustainably within their jobs, which is the focus of the next chapter.

References

27

References Adams, R., Martin, S., & Boom, K. (2018). University culture and sustainability: Designing and implementing an enabling framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 171, 434–445. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.032 Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/258189 Aung, P.  N., & Hallinger, P. (2022). The intellectual structure of the literature on sustainability leadership in higher education: An author co-citation analysis. International Journal of Educational Management, 36(5), 784–799. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-­09-­2021-­0371 Azizi, L. (2023). Which leadership processes encourage sustainable transitions within universities? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 24(1), 46–68. Bertels, S., Papania, L., & Papania, D. (2010). Embedding sustainability in organizational culture. A systematic review of the body of knowledge. Network for Business Sustainability. https://embeddingproject.org/pub/resources/EP-­Embedding-­Sustainability-­in-­Organizational-­ Culture.pdf Bess, J. L., & Dee, J. R. (2012). Understanding college and university organization: Theories for effective policy and practice (Dynamics of the system) (Vol. 1). Routledge. Bien, C., & Sassen, R. (2020). Sensemaking of a sustainability transition by higher education institution leaders. Journal of Cleaner Production, 256, 120299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2020.120299 Blanco-Portela, N., Benayas, J., Pertierra, L. R., & Lozano, R. (2017). Towards the integration of sustainability in higher education institutions: A review of drivers of and barriers to organizational change and their comparison against those found of companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 563–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.252 Blok, V., Wesselink, R., Studynka, O., & Kemp, R. (2014). Encouraging sustainability in the workplace: A survey on the pro-environmental behaviour of university employees. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.063 Bratton, A., & Bratton, J. (2015). Human resource management approaches. In J. L. Robertson & J. Barling (Eds.), The psychology of green organizations (pp. 275–295). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199997480.001.0001 Callewaert, J., & Marans, R.  W. (2018). Measuring and tracking pro-environmental behaviour amongst university employees. In V. K. Wells, D. Gregory-Smith, & D. Manika (Eds.), Research handbook on employee pro-environmental behaviour (pp. 430–453). Edward Elgar. Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2006). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework (Revised ed.). Jossey-Bass. Carmeli, A., Brammer, S., Gomes, E., & Tarba, S. Y. (2017). An organizational ethic of care and employee involvement in sustainability-related behaviors: A social identity perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(9), 1380–1395. https://doi.org/10.1002/ job.2185 Chang, Y. K., Oh, W. Y., & Messersmith, J. G. (2013). Translating corporate social performance into financial performance: Exploring the moderating role of high-performance work practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(19), 3738–3756. https://doi. org/10.1080/09585192.2013.778312 Chudek, M., & Henrich, J. (2011). Culture–gene coevolution, norm-psychology and the emergence of human prosociality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(5), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tics.2011.03.003 Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 105–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­8721.01242 Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015

28

2  Organizational Culture

Cialdini, R. B., & Jacobson, R. P. (2021). Influences of social norms on climate change-related behaviors. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cobeha.2021.01.005 Cialdini, R.  B., Reno, R.  R., & Kallgren, C.  A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­3514.58.6.1015 Cohen, E., Taylor, S., & Muller-Camen, M. (2010). HRM’s role in corporate social and environmental sustainability. SHRM Foundation. https://www.shrm.org/hr-­today/ trends-­a nd-­f orecasting/special-­r eports-­a nd-­expert-­v iews/Documents/Corporate-­S ocial-­ Environmental-­Sustainability.pdf Composto, J. W., Constantino, S. M., & Weber, E. U. (2023). Predictors and consequences of pro-­ environmental behavior at work. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology, 4, 100107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cresp.2023.100107 Corner, A., Markowitz, E., & Pidgeon, N. (2014). Public engagement with climate change: The role of human values. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(3), 411–422. https:// doi.org/10.1002/wcc.269 Craddock, E.  B., Huffman, A.  H., & Henning, J.  B. (2012). Taming the dragon: How industrial–organizational psychologists can break barriers to “green” business. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(4), 484–487. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-­9434.2012.01483.x Davis, M. C., & Coan, P. (2015). Organizational change. In J. L. Robertson & J. Barling (Eds.), The psychology of green organizations (pp.  244–274). Oxford University Press. https://doi. org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199997480.003.0011 de Groot, J., & Thøgersen, J. (2018). Values and pro-environmental behaviour. In L.  Steg & J. I. M. de Groot (Eds.), Environmental psychology: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 167–178). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241072.ch17 Delmas, M. A., & Pekovic, S. (2018). Corporate sustainable innovation and employee behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 150, 1071–1088. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-­016-­3163-­1 Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgement. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 51, 629–636. https://doi. org/10.1037/h0046408 Dumont, J., Shen, J., & Deng, X. (2017). Effects of green HRM practices on employee workplace green behavior: The role of psychological green climate and employee green values. Human Resource Management, 56(4), 613–627. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21792 Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239–263. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393235 Ehrhart, M. G., & Naumann, S. E. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A group norms approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 960–974. https://doi. org/10.1037/0021-­9010.89.6.960 Ehrhart, M.  G., Schneider, B., & Macey, W.  H. (2014). Organizational climate and culture. Routledge. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University. Fuller, J. B., Hester, K., Barnett, T., & Relyea, L. F. C. (2006). Perceived organizational support and perceived external prestige: Predicting organizational attachment for university f­aculty, staff, and administrators. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(3), 327–347. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10551-­016-­3163-­1 Galpin, T., Whittington, J.  L., & Bell, G. (2015). Is your sustainability strategy sustainable? Creating a culture of sustainability. Corporate Governance, 15(1), 1–17. https://doi. org/10.1108/CG-­01-­2013-­0004 Garavan, T.  N., & McGuire, D. (2010). Human resource development and society: Human resource development’s role in embedding corporate social responsibility, sustainability, and ethics in organizations. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(5), 487–507. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1523422310394757

References

29

Geiger, N., & Swim, J. K. (2016). Climate of silence: Pluralistic ignorance as a barrier to climate change discussion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47, 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvp.2016.05.002 Gelfand, M.  J., & Harrington, J.  R. (2015). The motivational force of descriptive norms: For whom and when are descriptive norms most predictive of behavior? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46, 1273–1278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115600796 Gough, S., & Scott, W. (2008). Higher education and sustainable development: Paradox and possibility. Routledge. Guadagno, R.  E., & Cialdini, R.  B. (2010). Preference for consistency and social influence: A review of current research findings. Social Influence, 5(3), 152–163. https://doi. org/10.1080/15534510903332378 Haddock-Fraser, J., Rands, P., & Scoffham, S. (2018). Leadership for sustainability in higher education. Bloomsbury Academic. Harmon, J., Fairfield, K. D., & Wirtenberg, J. (2010). Missing an opportunity: HR leadership and sustainability. People and Strategy, 33(1), 16–21. Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 657–693. https://doi.org/10.2307/258594 Hejjas, K., Miller, G., & Scarles, C. (2019). “It’s like hating puppies!” employee disengagement and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(2), 319–337. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10551-­018-­3791-­8 Höchli, B., Brügger, A., & Messner, C. (2018). How focusing on superordinate goals motivates broad, long-term goal pursuit: A theoretical perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1879. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01879 Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values (Vol. 5). Howard-Grenville, J. A. (2006). Inside the “black box”: How organizational culture and subcultures inform interpretations and actions on environmental issues. Organization & Environment, 19(1), 46–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026605285739 Hugé, J., Mac-Lean, C., & Vargas, L. (2018). Maturation of sustainability in engineering faculties—From emerging issue to strategy? Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 4277–4285. Kim, A., Kim, Y., Han, K., Jackson, S. E., & Ployhart, R. E. (2017). Multilevel influences on voluntary workplace green behavior: Individual differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1335–1358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314547386 Kohl, K. (2022). Driving justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. Auerbach. https://doi. org/10.1201/9781003168072 Lambrechts, W. (2015). The contribution of sustainability assessment to policy development in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(6), 801–816. https://doi. org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1040719 Leal Filho, W. (2011). About the role of universities and their contribution to sustainable development. Higher Education Policy, 24(4), 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2011.16 Leal Filho, W., Will, M., Salvia, A.  L., Adomßent, M., Grahl, A., & Spira, F. (2019). The role of green and Sustainability Offices in fostering sustainability efforts at higher education institutions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 232, 1394–1401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2019.05.273 Lee, K. H., Barker, M., & Mouasher, A. (2013). Is it even espoused? An exploratory study of commitment to sustainability as evidenced in vision, mission, and graduate attribute statements in Australian universities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2013.01.007 Leiserowitz, A.  A., Kates, R.  W., & Parris, T.  M. (2006). Sustainability values, attitudes, and behaviors: A review of multinational and global trends. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31, 413–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.31.102505.133552

30

2  Organizational Culture

Leung, Y.  W., & Rosenthal, S. (2019). Explicating perceived sustainability-related climate: A situational motivator of pro-environmental behavior. Sustainability, 11(1), 231. https://doi. org/10.3390/su11010231 Li, H., Sajjad, N., Wang, Q., Muhammad Ali, A., Khaqan, Z., & Amina, S. (2019). Influence of transformational leadership on employees’ innovative work behavior in sustainable organizations: Test of mediation and moderation processes. Sustainability, 11(6), 1594. https://doi. org/10.3390/su11061594 Linnenluecke, M. K., Russell, S. V., & Griffiths, A. (2009). Subcultures and sustainability practices: The impact on understanding corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(7), 432–452. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.609 Lopez, Y.  P., & Martin, W.  F. (2018). University mission statements and sustainability performance. Business and Society Review, 123(2), 341–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12144 Lozano, R. (2006). Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities: Breaking through barriers to change. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, 787–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2005.12.010 Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F.  J., Huisingh, D., & Lambrechts, W. (2013). Declarations for sustainability in higher education: Becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2011.10.006 Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K., Alonso-Almeida, M., Huisingh, D., Lozano, F. J., Waas, T., Lambrechts, W., Lukman, R., & Hugé, J. (2015). A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable development in higher education: Results from a worldwide survey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.048 Lülfs, R., & Hahn, R. (2014). Sustainable behavior in the business sphere: A comprehensive overview of the explanatory power of psychological models. Organization & Environment, 27(1), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026614522631 Marquardt, M. (2002). Around the world: Organization development in the international context. In J. Waclawski & A. H. Church (Eds.), Organizational development: A data-driven approach to organizational change (pp. 266–285). Jossey-Bass. Niedlich, S., Kummer, B., Bauer, M., Rieckmann, M., & Bormann, I. (2020). Cultures of sustainability governance in higher education institutions: A multi-case study of dimensions and implications. Higher Education Quarterly, 74(4), 373–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12237 Niemiec, R.  M., Champine, V., Vaske, J.  J., & Mertens, A. (2020). Does the impact of norms vary by type of norm and type of conservation behavior? A meta-analysis. Society & Natural Resources, 33(8), 1024–1040. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2020.1729912 Norton, T.  A., Zacher, H., & Ashkanasy, N.  M. (2014). Organisational sustainability policies and employee green behaviour: The mediating role of work climate perceptions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.008 Norton, T. A., Zacher, H., Parker, S. L., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2017). Bridging the gap between green behavioral intentions and employee green behavior: The role of green psychological climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(7), 996–1015. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2178 Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2012). Employee green behaviors. In S. E. Jackson, D. S. Ones, & S. Dilchert (Eds.), Managing human resources for environmental sustainability (pp. 85–116). Jossey-Bass/Wiley. Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2013). Measuring, understanding, and influencing employee green behaviors. In A. H. Huffman & S. R. Klein (Eds.), Green organizations: Driving change with IO psychology (pp. 115–148). Routledge. Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310396550 Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A.  J., & Tamkins, M.  M. (2003). Organizational culture and climate. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 565–593). Wiley.

References

31

Paillé, P., & Raineri, N. (2015). Linking perceived corporate environmental policies and employees eco-initiatives: The influence of perceived organizational support and psychological contract breach. Journal of Business Research, 68(11), 2404–2411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2015.02.021 Paillé, P., Mejía-Morelos, J.  H., Marché-Paillé, A., Chen, C.  C., & Chen, Y. (2016). Corporate greening, exchange process among co-workers, and ethics of care: An empirical study on the determinants of pro-environmental behaviors at coworkers-level. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(3), 655–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-­015-­2537-­0 Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., Young, S. A., Huff, J. W., Altmann, R. A., LaCost, H. A., & Roberts, J.  E. (2003). Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(4), 389–416. https://doi. org/10.1002/job.198 Phillips, T. J., & Snodgrass, L. L. (2022). Who’s got the power: Systems, culture, and influence in higher education change leadership. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Leadership Studies, 3(2), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.52547/johepal.3.2.7 Pinzone, M., Guerci, M., Lettieri, E., & Redman, T. (2016). Progressing in the change journey towards sustainability in healthcare: The role of ‘green’ HRM. Journal of Cleaner Production, 122, 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.031 Pinzone, M., Guerci, M., Lettieri, E., & Huisingh, D. (2019). Effects of ‘green’ training on pro-­ environmental behaviors and job satisfaction: Evidence from the Italian healthcare sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 226, 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.048 Ployhart, R. E., & Weekley, J. A. (2017). Strategy, selection, and sustained competitive advantage. In J. L. Farr & N. T. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (pp. 115–133). Routledge. Podgorodnichenko, N., Edgar, F., Akmal, A., & McAndrew, I. (2021). Sustainability through sensemaking: Human resource professionals’ engagement and enactment of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Cleaner Production, 293, 126150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2021.126150 Post, J.  E., & Altma, B.  W. (1994). Managing the environmental change process: Barriers and opportunities. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 7(4), 64–81. https://doi. org/10.1108/09534819410061388 Raineri, N., & Paillé, P. (2016). Linking corporate policy and supervisory support with environmental citizenship behaviors: The role of employee environmental beliefs and commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(1), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-­015-­2548-­x Ramachandran, V. (2011). Strategic corporate social responsibility: A ‘dynamic capabilities’ perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(5), 285–293. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.251 Ramus, C. A., & Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in employee “Ecoinitiatives” at leading-edge European companies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 605–626. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556357 Ren, S., Tang, G., & Jackson, S. E. (2018). Green human resource management research in emergence: A review and future directions. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35(3), 769–803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-­017-­9532-­1 Ribeiro, M.  M., Hoover, E., Burford, G., Buchebner, J., & Lindenthal, T. (2016). Values as a bridge between sustainability and institutional assessment: A case study from BOKU University. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 17, 40–53. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJSHE-­12-­2014-­0170 Rieg, N.  A., Gatersleben, B., & Christie, I. (2021). Organizational change management for sustainability in higher education institutions: A systematic quantitative literature review. Sustainability, 13(13), 7299. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137299 Roos, N., Sassen, R., & Guenther, E. (2023). Sustainability governance toward an organizational sustainability culture at German higher education institutions. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 24(3), 553–583. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJSHE-­09-­2021-­0396

32

2  Organizational Culture

Roscoe, S., Subramanian, N., Jabbour, C. J. C., & Chong, T. (2019). Green human resource management and the enablers of green organisational culture: Enhancing a firm’s environmental performance for sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment. https://doi. org/10.1002/bse.2277 Ruepert, A., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2015). Theoretical basis for organizational pro-­ environmental research. In J.  L. Robertson & J.  Barling (Eds.), The psychology of green organizations (pp.  33–57). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof: oso/9780199997480.003.0003 Ruepert, A. M., Keizer, K., & Steg, L. (2017). The relationship between Corporate Environmental Responsibility, employees’ biospheric values and pro-environmental behaviour at work. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 54, 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.10.006 Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Thornton, M. A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2013). Applicants’ and employees' reactions to corporate social responsibility: The moderating effects of first-party justice perceptions and moral identity. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 895–933. https://doi.org/10.1111/ peps.12030 Sammalisto, K., Sundström, A., & Holm, T. (2015). Implementation of sustainability in universities as perceived by faculty and staff–a model from a Swedish university. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.015 Schein, E. H. (1985). Defining organizational culture. Classics of Organization Theory, 3, 490–502. Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-­psych-­113011-­143809 Schönborn, G., Berlin, C., Pinzone, M., Hanisch, C., Georgoulias, K., & Lanz, M. (2019). Why social sustainability counts: The impact of corporate social sustainability culture on financial success. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 17, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. spc.2018.08.008 Schultz, P.  W. (2022). Secret agents of influence: Leveraging social norms for good. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(5), 443–450. https://doi. org/10.1177/09637214221109572 Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-­2601(08)60281-­6 Schwartz, S.  H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 23–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-­0597.1999. tb00047.x Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-­0919.1116 Shen, J., & Zhang, H. (2019). Socially responsible human resource management and employee support for external CSR: Roles of organizational CSR climate and perceived CSR directed toward employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(3), 875–888. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551-­017-­3544-­0 Smith, A. M., & O’Sullivan, T. (2012). Environmentally responsible behaviour in the workplace: An internal social marketing approach. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(3–4), 469–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2012.658837 Sroufe, R. (2017). Integration and organizational change towards sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 315–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.180 Steg, L. (2023). Psychology of climate change. Annual Review of Psychology, 74(1), 391–421. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-­psych-­032720-­042905 Stouten, J., Rousseau, D.  M., & De Cremer, D. (2018). Successful organizational change: Integrating the management practice and scholarly literatures. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 752–788. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0095 Swim, J., & Thøgersen, J. (2022, June 16). Encouraging societal action on climate change [Conference presentation]. APA Division 34 Conference, Online.

References

33

Sylvestre, P., Wright, T., & Sherren, K. (2013). Exploring faculty conceptualizations of sustainability in higher education: Cultural barriers to organizational change and potential resolutions. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 7(2), 223–244. https://doi. org/10.1177/0973408214526491 Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of Culture’s consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 405–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018938 Teixeira, A.  A., Jabbour, C.  J. C., & de Sousa Jabbour, A.  B. L. (2012). Relationship between green management and environmental training in companies located in Brazil: A theoretical framework and case studies. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 318–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.009 Tian, Q., & Robertson, J. L. (2019). How and when does perceived CSR affect employees’ engagement in voluntary pro-environmental behavior? Journal of Business Ethics, 155, 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-­017-­3497-­3 Tierney, W.  G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essentials. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 2–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/1981868 Toelch, U., & Dolan, R. J. (2015). Informational and normative influences in conformity from a neurocomputational perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(10), 579–589. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.007 Unsworth, K. L., Dmitrieva, A., & Adriasola, E. (2013). Changing behaviour: Increasing the effectiveness of workplace interventions in creating pro-environmental behaviour change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1837 Van Zomeren, M., & Louis, W. R. (2017). Culture meets collective action: Exciting synergies and some lessons to learn for the future. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(3), 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217690238 Velazquez, L., Munguia, N., Platt, A., & Taddei, J. (2006). Sustainable university: What can be the matter? Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(9–11), 810–819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2005.12.008 Verhulst, E., & Lambrechts, W. (2015). Fostering the incorporation of sustainable development in higher education. Lessons learned from a change management perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.049 Westerman, J.  W., Rao, M.  B., Vanka, S., & Gupta, M. (2020). Sustainable human resource management and the triple bottom line: Multi-stakeholder strategies, concepts, and engagement. Human Resource Management Review, 30(3), 100742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. hrmr.2020.100742 Zacher, H., Rudolph, C.  W., & Katz, I.  M. (2023). Employee green behavior as the core of environmentally sustainable organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 465–494. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevorgpsych-120920-­050421 Zepeda Quintana, D. S., Esquer, J., & Munguía, N. (2022). Factors that hinder the implementation of sustainability initiatives in higher education institutions. The Wiley Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education Learning and Teaching, 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119852858.ch5

Chapter 3

Sustainability as a Shared Competency

Achieving organizational sustainability, or any strategic initiative for that matter, depends on the behavior of individual employees (Buller & Mcevoy, 2016; Laszlo & Zhexembayeva, 2011; Unsworth et  al., 2021). Change does not just happen. Instead, individuals—and groups of individuals—create policies, drive operations, provide services, and influence others in ways that either support or detract from an institution’s sustainability aspirations. Supporting sustainability in higher education institutions (HEIs), therefore, requires understanding employees, the scope of possible sustainable behavior they may undertake, and how this may vary with the unique responsibilities and skillset of any individual job.

3.1 What Is Sustainable Work Behavior? “Working sustainably” can, and must, happen at every level of an institution’s work (Paul & Nihlan, 2012). Despite individuals playing different roles, it is possible for all workers to develop a shared sustainability competency—a combination of behaviors, skills, and attitudes that help move the institution toward its sustainability goals (Ploum et  al., 2018; Svanström et  al., 2008). For employees, becoming sustainable can mean making new or different choices, like integrating sustainability into courses, changing processes (e.g., shifting noncritical meetings from in person to Zoom), and developing innovations such as using campus-grown food in the cafeteria (Ones & Dilchert, 2012). Employees can make decisions that conserve through reducing, reusing, maintaining and refurbishing, repurposing, and recycling materials. They can avoid harm by monitoring impact, eliminating pollution, and taking proactive measures toward sustainability. They also can behave as change agents, initiating programs and persistently bringing up sustainability whenever and wherever possible, which will be addressed in detail in Chap. 8 (Ones & Dilchert, 2012). This chapter describes the © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. L. Amel et al., Fostering Sustainability in Higher Education, Psychology and Our Planet, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50555-3_3

35

36

3  Sustainability as a Shared Competency

landscape of sustainable behavior within HEIs, provides example sustainability competencies, and discusses their implications for managing workplace performance.

3.1.1 Voluntary Behavior Sustainable behavior is possible in a wide variety of both “in-role” (officially part of the job) and “extra-role” (voluntary and not officially part of the job) forms (Bissing-­ Olson et al., 2013; Francoeur et al., 2019; Ones & Dilchert, 2012). When people think about sustainable behavior at work, they often think of extra-role actions that are tangential to their actual jobs, such as recycling cans and turning off electronics when not in use (Ones et al., 2018). While these extra-role behaviors do impact an HEI’s ecological footprint and therefore should be encouraged, the fact that they are outside of one’s job description makes them, by definition, voluntary (Organ, 1988). Voluntary job behaviors are known as organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs; Smith et al., 1983; Organ, 1988). OCBs were originally conceived as having five dimensions: altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue (Organ, 1988). Broadly defined, altruism is helping others unselfishly; conscientiousness is following through on promised work, meeting deadlines consistently, and always doing high-quality work; sportsmanship is a lack of complaining, even during adverse times, and sometimes “taking one for the team”; courtesy is showing respect; and civic virtue is responsibly participating in the “political life” of the institution. Additional OCBs have been identified to include supporting organizational efforts (loyalty), finding opportunities for improvement (initiative), and seeking knowledge, information, and ideas (self-development) (Organ et al., 2005). Voluntary work behavior that aids sustainability—environmental organizational citizenship behaviors—adapts these OCB dimensions (EOCBs; Boiral, 2009). EOCBs are definitely relevant for sustainability at HEIs. They might manifest in employees speaking up about potential sustainable solutions (civic virtue) or demonstrating enthusiasm for challenging sustainability initiatives (sportsmanship) (Francoeur et al., 2019; Lamm et al., 2013). As another example, a Residential Life director could choose to ride a bike to work, which reduces their carbon footprint and enhances their physical and mental health. This contributes directly to the institution’s sustainability by reducing greenhouse gasses (loyalty) and also indirectly by modeling sustainable behavior for others (altruism). An important additional form of extra-role sustainability behaviors is that of influencing others (Francoeur et  al., 2019; Ones & Dilchert, 2012; Ones et  al., 2018). Employees can do this by drawing on their social connections (for more on influencing networks, see Chap. 9). Such behaviors include encouraging innovation, helping others build their expertise, candidly communicating sustainability-­ oriented ideas, disseminating important information, reinforcing sustainable behavior, and collaboratively setting sustainability goals (Ramus, 2002).

3.1  What Is Sustainable Work Behavior?

37

For some, these tasks are part of their in-role responsibilities—after all, it is the supervisors’ job to support others’ behavior (Ramus, 2002; Ramus & Steger, 2000). Infusing these supervisory activities with sustainability may be a voluntary piece. In fact, many common managerial behaviors can easily be infused with a sustainability focus (Table 3.1). In aggregate, these kinds of voluntary sustainability actions not only improve an institution’s impacts but also build a supportive culture for further change, the importance of which was laid out in Chap. 2 (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Hahn & Ostertag, 2018; Ones & Dilchert, 2012). Employees are more likely to engage in voluntary, sustainable actions when they are convinced that their organization is authentically working, and making substantive progress, toward sustainability (Paillé et al., 2020). In contrast, they are unlikely to bother with voluntary behaviors if they encounter real or perceived constraints such as imminent deadlines or budgetary cuts (Unsworth & Tian, 2018). Perceptions that sustainable behaviors are add-ons, taking more time and effort, which they often do at least initially (e.g., an investment committee scrutinizing funds using sustainability criteria), can diminish their likelihood when time and resources are limited. And if an institution has not committed to sustainability as a way to improve its long-term financial health, employees may believe that actions not immediately contributing to “the bottom line” will be viewed unfavorably. Of course, even within the least ideal circumstances, there still may be individuals or groups of workers who are motivated to initiate sustainability activities even at a potentially high personal cost, such as using their own money or being shunned by colleagues (Ciocirlan, 2017; Craddock et al., 2012).

Table 3.1  Sustainability-supportive managerial behaviors Supervisory activities Innovation Competency building Communication

Information dissemination Rewards and recognition Goals and responsibilities

Description To encourage new ideas, experimentation, and learning To support training and education activities To encourage employees to identify problems and suggest solutions To share important information with employees To reinforce desired behaviors To codevelop goals, measures, and responsibility for performance

Adapted from Ramus (2002)

Sustainability examples for department chairs Support faculty experimentation with new course content and new topic courses. Approve faculty and staff attendance at sustainability-oriented research, pedagogy, and professional development conferences. Respond “let’s see how we can make that happen” when faculty, staff, and students make suggestions. Translate mission and strategic plans into departmental-level and office-wide work. Celebrate innovations at faculty and staff meetings by submitting nominations for institution-level sustainability awards. Work with faculty, staff, and students to set at least one sustainability goal each year.

3  Sustainability as a Shared Competency

38

In the context of HEIs, institutional policies such as tenure may make it possible for sustainability-oriented faculty members to engage in sustainability initiatives even in the absence of larger institutional support as faculty with tenure are typically protected from losing their positions. So, for example, a tenured professor can safely pursue sustainability research, which may not be their “established” bailiwick—even in the face of contrasting expectations of their chair or dean. Workers without such protection may find themselves at a crossroads—do they pursue sustainability despite the lack of supervisory or institutional support? As detailed in Chap. 10, these employees may be at risk of feeling distress if their jobs require actions that are not aligned with their sustainability identity. They may also have little power to influence the institution or those around them or lack the autonomy to modify their job. For more on leadership and motivation, see Chaps. 8 and 6, respectively. Choosing to expose or resist unsustainable practices can create one type of emotional cost, but choosing to stay quiet and endure the misalignment simply creates a different form of emotional cost. More on the costs of these kinds of dilemmas can be found in Chap. 10. To escape these costs, some employees may choose to exit the organization altogether, which creates financial loss for the institution and the employee alike. Others may choose to stay at the organization and stealthily integrate sustainability into their daily work. This can lead to sustainable outcomes but will not necessarily contribute to a shift in institutional norms or culture. When employees choose to integrate sustainability without organizational support, it usually takes the form of added tasks. This, particularly in the case of lower-­ level employees who lack institutional security, can create exasperation and exhaustion (Blazejewski et al., 2020; see Table 3.2). Alternatively, sustainability-oriented employees who experience direct support from peers, supervisors, and other organizational leaders are less likely to feel the distress of misalignment or need to engage in emotionally costly coping behaviors (Ramus, 2002; Ramus & Steger, 2000; Saratun, 2016). In fact, when given the proper support, employees’ sustainability identities become critical assets. One way HEIs can support employees is to shift their job profile so that it includes the sustainability actions they are already leading (Doerwald et al., 2021). Employees who show interest in taking initiative on sustainability should be identified, Table 3.2  How levels of autonomy and support affect sustainable work behavior Autonomy level High Medium Low

Work role Executives Faculty-tenured Middle managers Department chairs Staff-entry level Faculty-­ pretenured, adjunct

Unsupported Supported Can engage in sustainable Have the power to change in-role and extra-role behaviors in-role and extra-role behaviors Will likely change extra-role behavior Will only make stealthy changes, endure mismatch, and/ or quit

3.1  What Is Sustainable Work Behavior?

39

encouraged, consulted for their ideas, and included in the execution of initiatives. They can also be included as subject matter experts when developing and delivering training. Importantly, they should be given opportunities to connect with others, both colleagues who can provide social support and nonsustainability-oriented peers who can learn from them (Blazejewski et al., 2020; Doerwald et al., 2021). Whether sustainability is integrated into in-role, job-relevant responsibilities or relegated to voluntary, extra-role behavior likely will depend on the state of sustainability and the organizational culture in any given HEI, as delineated in Chap. 2. When sustainability is not a core strategic initiative, such behaviors will be up to employees to carry out. When it is a strategic initiative, then sustainability can, and should, be integrated into in-role behavior across all departments and roles.

3.1.2 Work Requirements Given the alarming news of resource depletion, pollution, and climate change, it is not surprising that many institutions, including HEIs, are prioritizing sustainability. Once an organization has made a commitment to sustainability, employees’ efforts are, by definition, no longer extra-role. They are now a clear part of every employee’s in-role responsibilities (Bissing-Olson et al., 2013; Craddock et al., 2012). There are essentially three ways to enhance sustainability through in-role work behavior (Dierdorff et al., 2013). First, sustainability can be improved by expanding the number of employees in historically sustainable roles. For instance, increasing the number of employees who manage compliance with clean water and air regulations will likely accelerate the pace with which campus operations become environmentally friendly. While important, this approach can be hampered by budgetary constraints and resultant hiring restrictions. Second, organizations can create new positions; fairly new to HEIs are sustainability-­focused jobs, including chief sustainability officers, sustainability directors, managers, and champions. These positions can bring new expertise, coordination, and momentum to sustainability efforts. As described in Chap. 9, people in said sustainability positions guide, coordinate, and support efforts across the institution. The third, and perhaps most imperative, case is revamping the myriad of existing job descriptions across the institution to include sustainability responsibilities. Because all HEI employees impact planetary resource use, all roles can integrate sustainability into their daily work (see Table 3.3). Sustainability roles may be obvious for some jobs: physical plant technicians, mechanics and engineers, landscape architects and groundsmanagers, supply chain and investment managers, training and development specialists, and marketing. Jobs not obviously associated with sustainability, including accountants, administrative assistants, admissions and development personnel, IT specialists, and academic deans, can also be redesigned to encompass sustainability objectives.

40

3  Sustainability as a Shared Competency

Table 3.3  Examples of in-role behavior across an HEI Role Groundskeeping Admissions Resident assistants Investments Shuttle drivers Purchasing Supervisors Faculty

Behavior example Replace chemicals with nontoxic pest management practices. Hold orientation for out-of-town students over Zoom rather than expecting them to drive or fly to campus. Host zero-waste events; provide sustainable move-in and move-out checklists. Divest from the fossil fuel and other petroleum-intensive industries. Drive in eco-friendly ways; eliminate idling. Prioritize vendors that demonstrate sustainable, socially just production (e.g., renewable energy, compostable, recyclable, local, fair trade, BIPOC owned). Model for subordinates by including sustainability activities in goals and reports; support subordinates’ sustainability ideas. Integrate sustainability into courses and research agendas; order sustainable lab materials.

Consider, for instance, how the in-role responsibilities of the aforementioned director of Residential Life could incorporate sustainability. They already choose to bike to work (an extra-role behavior), but their in-role tasks may not yet directly engage sustainability goals. Residential Life departments communicate each day with many stakeholders: potential students, current students, parents of students, vendors for various residential products, colleagues, media, etc., and it is a part of their job to invite people to campus and provide useful information about getting there. If sustainability became one of their work goals, they might prioritize multimodal transportation options, such as bus routes and bike parking, in their invitations to campus. They can also highlight the institution’s commitment to sustainability by including a request to “please consider getting to campus sustainably.” Bottom line—there are many ways that this role, and others, could be shifted to include sustainability. Faculty in-role behaviors may be a special case, for faculty affect the sustainability ethic of their institutions through their teaching and research. All academic disciplines can contribute to a sustainable community in some way or another. Some fields, such as conservation biology or forestry, explicitly teach important sustainability-­relevant knowledge and skills. For other fields, the connection may be less intuitive, but achieving sustainability requires educating people to be critical and creative thinkers, ethical professionals, good writers, and responsible citizens who can collaborate across many dimensions of difference (Gramatakos & Lavau, 2019).

3.1.3 Moving from Individual to Systems Orientation Some sustainability actions have more impact than others. Without a doubt, it is important for individuals to do their part in their own corner of the institution (see Table  3.3). Here’s the rub: individually oriented behavior relies on each person

3.1  What Is Sustainable Work Behavior?

41

making their own choices, such as deciding not to print a document or switching off a light when leaving a room. Imagine, though, how many times people intend to turn off lights but fail because they are distracted or rushing. Further, some workers do not believe they are responsible for turning off the lights at all. In contrast, system-oriented behavior, such as purchasing conservation technology or creating a new policy, will drive more sustainable outcomes for whole groups of people (Amel et al., 2017). For instance, decision-makers can institute a policy to prioritize purchasing tree-free paper or installing motion-detecting lights that turn off automatically in empty rooms. System-focused action creates situations that do not depend on peoples’ attention or volition. As such, even incremental improvements in systemic processes will have broad impacts (Nielsen et al., 2021). Thus, as illustrated in Chap. 1, an individual’s impact is amplified when it focuses on changing these systems (Boiral et al., 2015; Smith & O’Sullivan, 2012). Again, ideally, it is a “both-and” situation in which people both make sustainable personal choices and also address systems. Now, back to the director of Residential Life and their choice to bike to work (keep riding!). A more system-oriented extra-role action would be to request more convenient bike storage. This voluntary action would change the infrastructure, making biking an easier extra-role choice for others too. It further magnifies the individual’s positive impact by enticing more people to bike to work and creating more models that influence campus culture. In-role behavior shows a similar pattern (see Fig.  3.1). The Residential Life director could work with colleagues to create a department policy in which all Residential Life personnel were encouraged to highlight sustainable transportation options in their communications. Residential Life can also share its policy with other campus departments, thereby influencing more and more people.

3.1.4 Sustainability as a Shared Core Competency In contrast to the unique requirements of a particular job, core competencies are organization-specific combinations of knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, and behaviors that are expected across all jobs (Cabral & Dhar, 2019; Shippmann et al., 2000; Wesselink et al., 2015). Competencies are most often related to the broader goals and objectives of an organization, including strategic initiatives like sustainability. Because they are common to all employees, core competencies drive an organization’s culture. Traditional examples of higher education competencies include staying current in one’s discipline, centering students, discovery, and innovation. In an HEI focused on sustainability, these classic competencies would be expanded to include sustainability, comprehensively defined in Chap. 1 (Barth et al., 2007; Lambrechts et al., 2017; Levesque & Wake, 2021; Perez Salgado et al., 2018). Across all departments, units, and roles on campus, whatever people do, they do it with an eye toward sustainability.

42

3  Sustainability as a Shared Competency

goal: create sustainable processes

individual change

systems change

in-role

extra-role

in-role

when inviting people to campus, mention multi-modal options such as bus routes and bike rack locations.

bike to work and encourage friends to do the same (and don't forget your helmets!).

create a departmental policy where multi-modal messaging is required when inviting people to campus.

extra-role

lobby for convenient bike storage with other interested students or faculty.

Fig. 3.1  Contrasting in-role and extra-role work behaviors that are individual choices or system changes

Performing work tasks sustainably requires abstract knowledge of complex problems and their causes, as well as awareness of concrete solutions like sustainable processes and products, which are constantly evolving (Brundiers et al., 2021; Ciocirlan, 2018; Levy & Marans, 2012; Subramanian et al., 2016). Environmental awareness and knowledge, including an understanding of historic and contemporary systemic injustices, are positively linked to sustainable work performance (Dzhengiz & Niesten, 2020; Norton et  al., 2015; Rayner & Morgan, 2018; Wiernik et  al., 2018). Knowledge is therefore an essential aspect of a sustainability competency (Pogutz & Winn, 2016). Learning new knowledge, however, is easier said than done. For many people, a significant barrier to integrating new sustainability knowledge, at work or otherwise, is their worldview. Worldviews are a set of assumptions about how the world works; they are the foundation underlying our thinking, problem-solving, and behavior (Pirages & Ehrlich, 1974; Scherbaum et  al., 2008). Shared worldviews develop over long stretches of time because they prove useful (e.g., scientific progress has increased human life span and quality of life; Scott et al., 2021). The typical Western, industrialized worldview, however, includes many assumptions that no longer match up with today’s current environmental realities (Amel et al., 2017; Dunlap et al., 2000). It is comprised of beliefs originating at a time when land and resources appeared endlessly abundant, and White/European settlers and colonizers felt an unquestioned right to assert dominance over nature and other

3.1  What Is Sustainable Work Behavior?

43

groups of people. As a result, a common assumption has been that there is an endless supply of natural resources available for human use. Ecologically based worldviews, in contrast, reflect major principles about how ecosystems actually work and survive over millennia. They align with traditional ecological knowledge—insights gained through immersion in, observation of, and experience with nature (Berkes, 1995; Burns, 2015; Narvaez et al., 2019; Mistry et al., 2016) and are supported by contemporary ecological science (see Fig. 3.2). Ecologically based worldviews usually encompass some variation of the following principles: 1. Limits to regeneration: planet Earth’s natural resources are finite and take time to regenerate. According to this principle, we must consume resources within the Earth’s regenerative boundaries and also actively work to foster regeneration. Most conservation efforts—encouraging the lower use of resources such as water, paper, energy, etc.—arise from this principle (Richardson et  al., 2023; Rockström et al., 2023). 2. System interdependence: in a well-functioning system, all parts depend on one another. On the local scale, we all depend on intact ecosystems to supply water and food. On a larger scale, planet Earth is the life-sustaining system needed by all humans. While it is not always obvious, everything we have, and everything we do, depends on a resource or function provided freely by nature (Wilson, 2006). A corollary principle is that any change made to one part of the system is likely to cause unintended consequences to other parts of the system. For instance, most people do not think about how leaving classroom lights on is related to mercury levels in the fish they eat or how fertilizer use on campus turf in the US Midwest has an impact on fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. A more

Fig. 3.2  Comparison of modern-industrial and ecologically grounded worldviews

44

3  Sustainability as a Shared Competency

complete understanding of how systems operate can help make decisions that avoid unintended consequences. 3. Circularity: modern Western society has relied on linear, take-make-waste, systems that extract virgin resources and create toxic and composite materials that cannot be reused or recycled. This is antithetical to the circular way natural systems operate in which materials from one process nourish other processes, in perpetuity (McDonough & Braungart, 2002). Reusing, repurposing, and recycling are various ways to maintain circularity by keeping materials in use rather than contributing to the waste stream. 4 . Diversity supports resilience: systems thrive when they are complex. In diverse systems, disruptions can be met with flexibility as system members work together or compensate for one another (Wilson, 1992). In contrast, simple systems, or those that prioritize some parts to the exclusion of others, often fail if one key component fails. This is illustrated by monoculture farms’ higher susceptibility to pest infestations than farms planted with a variety of crops and by the better performance of diverse groups of people compared to homogeneous groups during complex problem-solving (Aminpour et al., 2021). 5 . Upstream v. downstream solutions: actions differ in whether they address the root causes (upstream) or symptoms (downstream) of a problem. Typically, symptoms will recur until root causes are dealt with. Reduce is always the first stated “R” in conservation because it avoids creating waste in the first place (an upstream solution), whereas recycling is the last “R” since it addresses the waste after it is produced (a downstream solution), creates some amount of pollution, and costs time, effort, and money. Changing a root cause can be expensive but is often a one-time change, whereas addressing symptoms incurs smaller but repetitive costs, with many opportunities for failure along the way. Sometimes the symptoms cannot completely be undone, so addressing root causes is often the optimal approach (Steingraber, 2010). Principles from an ecological worldview can be applied by any employee to all workplace behaviors regardless of whether they are in-role or extra-role, or individual or system focused (see Table 3.4 for specific examples). Using ecological principles as heuristics, or cognitive rules of thumb, can empower workers to identify their own choices, foster appropriate innovation, and assess solutions that impact the institution’s sustainability (Lockhart et  al., 1976). Ecological thinking is just one approach to building a shared core sustainability competency in HEIs. Importantly, an individual’s worldview is built over a lifetime based on experience and the broader social culture. Information that violates one’s worldview feels threatening. As a result, the new information is interpreted as biased and is often rejected out of hand (Jelalian & Miller, 1984). It is critical, therefore, to recognize that the rejection of more ecologically grounded principles is likely a protective response (“I’ve been thinking about it wrong…but I thought I was a good person… I’m a bad person…”) that can be overcome.

45

3.2  Aligning Behavior Through HRM Systems Table 3.4  Comparing upstream versus downstream conservation behaviors Conservation behavior Reduce (upstream)

Reuse (midstream)

Repurpose (midstream)

Recycle (downstream)

In-role Individual focused System focused Do not print Lobby for institution-­ work documents. wide policy to use electronic documents as default. Print on scrap. Create “onesies”— notebooks made of one-sided scrap paper and gifted to first-year students. Rescue half-used Send old books to the student campus makerspace as notebooks for material for projects. research notes. Deposit old Obtain paper recycling exams in a bin for office. secure recycling bin.

Extra-role Individual focused Bring own mug to office events. Reuse single-use cups and cutlery. Use plastic cutlery to prop up plants. Recycle bottle after lunch.

System focused Adopt a policy for department events to use reusable dishes and cutlery. Lobby for a reusable take-out container program.

Collect used cutlery to donate.

Lobby bookstore to only sell items made of recycled and recyclable material.

Note: Upstream solutions avoid waste and disposal issues. Behaviors can be in-role (i.e., job-­ related actions) or extra-role (i.e., not directly a part of one’s job). They also vary by whether they focus on individual choices or system change

3.2 Aligning Behavior Through HRM Systems Once an HEI adopts a sustainability competency, it has lots of tools to signal and support sustainable work behavior (Norton et al., 2014). As outlined previously in Chap. 2, sustainability can be integrated throughout the human resource management (HRM) systems that direct behavior (Chen & Wu, 2022; Song et al., 2021; Zacher et al., 2023). It is critical for the activities within HRM systems to be consistent so that behavioral expectations are clear and employees are moving together in the same direction (Christina et al., 2017; Franco et al., 2019; Guest & Conway, 2011; Leidner et al., 2019; Podgorodnichenko et al., 2021; Rizzo et al., 1970). For instance, people who are selected for a position because of their commitment and skills related to sustainability should also be evaluated on the sustainability of their performance over time (Campbell & Wiernik, 2015). Historically, behaving sustainably has not been specified in most job descriptions (Cheung & Leung, 2018). Job descriptions are typically generated through a systematic, top-down process called work analysis—a process that determines the tasks and the requisite knowledge, skills, abilities, and other attributes such as personality and interests (KSAOs) needed for any given job (Sackett & Laczo, 2003). The tasks and KSAOs discovered through work analysis guide not only the content of job descriptions but also the recruitment and selection of new employees, as will

46

3  Sustainability as a Shared Competency

Fig. 3.3  HRM system alignment to sustainability competencies

be described in Chap. 4; the identification of training and development needs, the focus of Chap. 5; guidelines for performance evaluations, described below; as well as goal setting and reward systems, which will be covered in Chap. 7 (see Fig. 3.3). Making sustainability competency a specification in work analyses, although understudied by scientists (Benevene & Buonomo, 2020), may be one of the most important changes an HEI can make since it is the core that influences all other functions in the HRM system (DuBois & DuBois, 2012; Renwick et  al., 2013; Wehrmeyer, 1996; Zibarras & Coan, 2015).

3.2.1 Managing Sustainability Performance Organizations want to keep excellent employees, identify and train those who demonstrate gaps in performance, and terminate those who continually underperform. To determine the best next steps for each employee, they are evaluated on a regular, or at least annual, basis by their supervisors on a series of work attributes, including core competencies. In HEIs, for instance, faculty typically submit a summary of their annual teaching, research, and service accomplishments to their department

3.2  Aligning Behavior Through HRM Systems

47

chair or personnel committee. The attributes evaluated through these performance appraisals signal what activities are important to the institution. Performance management systems consist of performance appraisals (processes and tools), feedback, goal setting, and development discussions. When an institution expects its employees to work sustainably, it should become explicit throughout this system (Craddock et al., 2012; DeNisi & Smith, 2014; Dumont et al., 2017; Masri & Jaaron, 2017; Ribeiro et al., 2016; Zacher et al., 2023). Performance appraisals encourage employees to reflect on the quality of their most recent work. Employees also value knowing where they should focus their efforts for improvement, which can be addressed by creating goals (Locke & Latham, 2002). Goal setting is a prime opportunity to align each job with the HEI’s strategic sustainability goals, prompting staff and faculty to switch things up in their office, classroom, research, and service activities. Further, during goal-setting conversations, employees and their supervisors can work together to identify training needs and opportunities (Ramus, 2002; Saratun, 2016). This is true for supervisors as well, for when they are held accountable for supporting sustainability, they are more apt to do so (Bohlmann et al., 2018). Because performance assessments are often the basis for valuable career-related outcomes such as retention, promotion, and merit pay, including a sustainability competency or specific sustainable achievements will provide a motivational push (Bohlmann et al., 2018) by signaling behavior appropriate for achieving an institution’s strategic goals (Norton et al., 2014). To increase their sustainability impact, goal setting and performance appraisals can prioritize high-impact behaviors that are most likely to be adopted (Craddock et  al., 2012; Dietz et  al., 2009; Zacher et  al., 2023). These behaviors would be upstream, system-shifting actions such as introducing reusable materials in dining services or creating sustainable travel policies in the international education office.

3.2.2 Doing Performance Appraisal Well While a regular evaluation of performance is important, it is often difficult to do well (Campbell & Wiernik, 2015). Expected work should be consistent with work analyses and evaluations based only on what an employee has control over. Formal performance reviews are typically done annually, although, as detailed in Chap. 7, receiving more regular feedback promotes better self-regulation (Ciocirlan, 2018; Saratun, 2016). Whether or not people behave sustainably can vary substantially between people, but it can also vary within a person due to things like work events and emotions (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Therefore, ratings should be based on multiple, regular observations (Zacher & Bissing-Olson, 2018). Those providing ratings for an evaluation should document behavior rather than rely on unreliable memory (DeNisi & Peters, 1996) and be trained to avoid a variety of human biases, such as how much the rater likes the ratee (DeNisi & Murphy, 2017).

48

3  Sustainability as a Shared Competency

Table 3.5  An example BARS for a resident hall assistant that evaluates the attribute “supporting this institution’s zero-waste goal” Regarding “supporting this institution’s zero-waste goal,” this RA could be expected to… 1 Disparage students for composting and recycling 2 Throw away food and recyclables after events 3 Recycle paper products after events but nothing else 4 Neither discourage nor encourage waste sorting 5 Post flyers describing recyclable materials 6 Speak up when noticing opportunities for residents to improve composting 7 Establish compost bins in the residence hall 8 Design waste-free events 9 Model and teach by involving residents in the planning of waste-free events

Rating instruments can be designed to help reduce rater subjectivity. When a scale is anchored by sample behaviors, raters can more systematically assess observed behaviors. For example, behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) can be developed for each important work attribute, providing example behaviors that represent the full spectrum of possible behavior from excellent to poor (Ramus & Steger, 2000). BARS that focus on sustainability are not yet common but can be developed for important but abstract ideas, such as “values,” or strategic goals, such as increasing sustainable behaviors in dormitories (see Table 3.5). The scales should be defined collectively using relevant and tangible indicators (e.g., Ribeiro et al., 2016).

3.3 Conclusion Sustainable work behavior can take a variety of forms, from voluntary to in-role actions. Changing behavior needs a “both-and” focus, encouraging people to be sustainable organizational citizens but also redesigning work roles to directly address sustainability. Developing a shared, core sustainability competency can help sustainable behavior depend less on people having extra time (do we ever have extra time?). Integrating this core competency into HRM systems can generate coherent sustainable action across an HEI. Performance management is just one example of HRM practices that can be aligned with a sustainability competency. The next chapter will extend this idea to the HRM practices of recruiting and selecting new employees, which determine whether new talent will bring a sustainability competency to their roles.

References Amel, E. L., Manning, C. M., Scott, B. A., & Koger, S. M. (2017). Beyond the roots of human inaction: Fostering collective effort toward ecosystem conservation. Science, 356(6335), 275–279. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal1931

References

49

Aminpour, P., Gray, S.  A., Singer, A., Scyphers, S.  B., Jetter, A.  J., Jordan, R., Murphy, R., & Grabowski, J.  H. (2021). The diversity bonus in pooling local knowledge about complex problems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(5). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2016887118 Barth, M., Godemann, J., Rieckmann, M., & Stoltenberg, U. (2007). Developing key competencies for sustainable development in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 8(4), 416–430. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370710823582 Benevene, P., & Buonomo, I. (2020). Green human resource management: An evidence-based systematic literature review. Sustainability, 12(15), 5974. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155974 Berkes, F. (1995). Indigenous knowledge and resource management systems: A native Canadian case study from James Bay. In S. Hanna & M. Munasinghe (Eds.), Property rights in a social and ecological context: Case studies and design applications (pp. 99–109). The World Bank. Bissing-Olson, M. J., Iyer, A., Fielding, K. S., & Zacher, H. (2013). Relationships between daily affect and pro-environmental behavior at work: The moderating role of pro-environmental attitude. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), 156–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1788 Blazejewski, S., Dittmer, F., Buhl, A., Barth, A. S., & Herbes, C. (2020). “That is not what I live for”: How lower-level green employees cope with identity tensions at work. Sustainability, 12(14), 5778. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145778 Bohlmann, C., Krumbholz, L., & Zacher, H. (2018). The triple bottom line and organizational attractiveness ratings: The role of pro-environmental attitude. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(5), 912–919. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1507 Boiral, O. (2009). Greening the corporation through organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(2), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-­008-­9881-­2 Boiral, O., Paillé, P., & Raineri, N. (2015). The nature of employees’ pro-environmental behaviors. In J.  L. Robertson & J.  Barling (Eds.), The psychology of green organizations (pp.  12–32). Oxford Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199997480.003.0002 Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). Jossey-Bass. Brundiers, K., Barth, M., Cebrián, G., Cohen, M., Diaz, L., Doucette-Remington, S., Dripps, W., Habron, G., Harré, N., Jarchow, M., Losch, K., Michel, J., Mochizuki, Y., Rieckmann, M., Parnell, R., Walker, P., & Zint, M. (2021). Key competencies in sustainability in higher education—Toward an agreed-upon reference framework. Sustainability Science, 16, 13–29. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11625-­020-­00838-­2 Buller, P. F., & McEvoy, G. M. (2016). A model for implementing a sustainability strategy through HRM practices. Business and Society Review, 121(4), 465–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/ basr.12099 Burns, H. L. (2015). Transformative sustainability pedagogy: Learning from ecological systems and indigenous wisdom. Journal of Transformative Education, 13(3), 259–276. https://doi. org/10.1177/1541344615584683 Cabral, C., & Dhar, R.  L. (2019). Green competencies: Construct development and measurement validation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 235, 887–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2019.07.014 Campbell, J. P., & Wiernik, B. M. (2015). The modeling and assessment of work performance. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 47–74. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-­orgpsych-­032414-­111427 Chen, T., & Wu, Z. (2022). How to facilitate employees’ green behavior? The joint role of green human resource management practice and green transformational leadership. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 906869. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.906869 Cheung, Y.  H., & Leung, A.  S. M. (2018). Workplace green behaviour of managerial and professional employees in Hong Kong. In V. K. Wells, D. Gregory-Smith, & D. Manika (Eds.), Research handbook on employee pro-environmental behaviour (pp. 148–167). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786432834.00014

50

3  Sustainability as a Shared Competency

Christina, S., Dainty, A., Daniels, K., Tregaskis, O., & Waterson, P. (2017). Shut the fridge door! HRM alignment, job redesign and energy performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(3), 382–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-­8583.12144 Ciocirlan, C. E. (2017). Environmental workplace behaviors: Definition matters. Organization & Environment, 30(1), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615628036 Ciocirlan, C. E. (2018). Green human resources management. In V. K. Wells, D. Gregory-Smith, & D. Manika (Eds.), Research handbook on employee pro-environmental behaviour (pp. 39–62). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786432834 Craddock, E.  B., Huffman, A.  H., & Henning, J.  B. (2012). Taming the dragon: How industrial–organizational psychologists can break barriers to “green” business. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(4), 484–487. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-­9434.2012.01483.x DeNisi, A. S., & Murphy, K. R. (2017). Performance appraisal and performance management: 100 years of progress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 421–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/ apl0000085 DeNisi, A. S., & Peters, L. H. (1996). Organization of information in memory and the performance appraisal process: Evidence from the field. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 717–737. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-­9010.81.6.717 DeNisi, A., & Smith, C. E. (2014). Performance appraisal, performance management, and firmlevel performance: A review, a proposed model, and new directions for future research. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 127–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941652 0.2014.873178 Dierdorff, E. C., Norton, J. J., Gregory, C. M., Rivkin, D., & Lewis, P. (2013). O*NET’s national perspective on the greening of the world of work. In A.  H. Huffman & S.  R. Klein (Eds.), Green organizations: Driving change with I-O Psychology (pp. 348–378). Routledge. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9780203142936 Dietz, T., Gardner, G. T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P. C., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2009). Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(44), 18452–18456. https:// doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908738106 Doerwald, F., Zacher, H., Van Yperen, N.  W., & Scheibe, S. (2021). Generativity at work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 125, 103521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jvb.2020.103521 DuBois, C. L., & Dubois, D. A. (2012). Strategic HRM as social design for environmental sustainability in organization. Human Resource Management, 51(6), 799–826. https://doi. org/10.1002/hrm.21504 Dumont, J., Shen, J., & Deng, X. (2017). Effects of green HRM practices on employee workplace green behavior: The role of psychological green climate and employee green values. Human Resource Management, 56(4), 613–627. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21792 Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Emmet Jones, R. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-­4537.00176 Dzhengiz, T., & Niesten, E. (2020). Competences for environmental sustainability: A systematic review on the impact of absorptive capacity and capabilities. Journal of Business Ethics, 162, 881–906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-­019-­04360-­z Franco, I., Saito, O., Vaughter, P., Whereat, J., Kanie, N., & Takemoto, K. (2019). Higher education for sustainable development: Actioning the global goals in policy, curriculum and practice. Sustainability Science, 14, 1621–1642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-­018-­0628-­4 Francoeur, V., Paillé, P., Yuriev, A., & Boiral, O. (2019). The measurement of green workplace behaviors: A systematic review. Organization & Environment, 34(1), 18–42. https://doi. org/10.1177/1086026619837125 Gramatakos, A. L., & Lavau, S. (2019). Informal learning for sustainability in higher education institutions. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 20(2), 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-­10-­2018-­0177

References

51

Guest, D., & Conway, N. (2011). The impact of HR practices, HR effectiveness and a ‘strong HR system’ on organisational outcomes: A stakeholder perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(8), 1686–1702. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958519 2.2011.565657 Hahn, R., & Ostertag, F. (2018). Disentangling voluntary pro-environmental behaviour of employees (VPBE)–fostering research through an integrated theoretical model. In V. K. Wells, D. Gregory-­ Smith, & D.  Manika (Eds.), Research handbook on employee pro-environmental behaviour (pp. 83–105). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786432834.00011 Jelalian, E., & Miller, A.  G. (1984). The perseverance of beliefs: Conceptual perspectives and research developments. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 2(1), 25–56. https://doi. org/10.1521/jscp.1984.2.1.25 Lambrechts, W., Verhulst, E., & Rymenams, S. (2017). Professional development of sustainability competences in higher education: The role of empowerment. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18(5), 697–714. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJSHE-­02-­2016-­0028 Lamm, E., Tosi-Kharas, J., & Williams, E.  G. (2013). Read this article, but don’t print it: Organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment. Group & Organization Management, 38(2), 163–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601112475210 Laszlo, C., & Zhexembayeva, N. (2011). Embedded sustainability: A strategy for market leaders. The European Financial Review, 15, 37–49. https://chiefreinventionofficer.com/wp-­content/ uploads/2015/08/TEFR-­apr-­may-­2011-­Embedded-­Sustainability.pdf Leidner, S., Baden, D., & Ashleigh, M.  J. (2019). Green (environmental) HRM: Aligning ideals with appropriate practices. Personnel Review, 45(5), 1169–1185. https://doi.org/10.1108/ PR-­12-­2017-­0382 Levesque, V. R., & Wake, C. P. (2021). Organizational change for sustainability education: A case study of one university’s efforts to create and implement institution-wide sustainability competencies. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 22(3), 497–515. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-­09-­2019-­0285 Levy, B. L. M., & Marans, R. W. (2012). Towards a campus culture of environmental sustainability: Recommendations for a large university. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13(4), 365–377. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371211262317 Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35 year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.103 7/0003-­066X.57.9.705 Lockhart, R. S., Craik, F. I. M., & Jacoby, L. (1976). Depth of processing, recognition and recall. In J. Brown (Ed.), Recall and recognition (pp. 75–102). Wiley. Masri, H. A., & Jaaron, A. A. M. (2017). Assessing green human resources management practices in Palestinian manufacturing context: An empirical study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 474–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.087 McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things. North Point Press. Mistry, J., Bilbao, B.  A., & Berardi, A. (2016). Community owned solutions for fire management in tropical ecosystems: Case studies from Indigenous communities of South America. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1696). https://doi. org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0174 Narvaez, D., Arrows, F., Halton, E., Collier, B., & Enderle, G. (Eds.). (2019). Indigenous sustainable wisdom: First-nation know-how for global flourishing. Peter Lang. https://doi. org/10.3726/b14900 Nielsen, K.  S., Clayton, S., Stern, P.  C., Dietz, T., Capstick, S., & Whitmarsh, L. (2021). How psychology can help limit climate change. American Psychologist, 76(1), 130–144. https://doi. org/10.1037/amp0000624 Norton, T.  A., Zacher, H., & Ashkanasy, N.  M. (2014). Organisational sustainability policies and employee green behaviour: The mediating role of work climate perceptions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 49–54. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.008

52

3  Sustainability as a Shared Competency

Norton, T.  A., Parker, S.  L., Zacher, H., & Ashkanasy, N.  M. (2015). Employee green behavior: A theoretical framework, multilevel review, and future research agenda. Organization & Environment, 28(1), 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575773 Ones, D.  S., & Dilchert, S. (2012). Employee green behaviors. In S.  E. Jackson, D.  S. Ones, S. Dilchert, & K. Kraiger (Eds.), Managing human resources for environmental sustainability (pp. 85–116). Wiley. Ones, D. S., Wiernik, B. M., Dilchert, S., & Klein, R. M. (2018). Multiple domains and categories of employee green behaviours: More than conservation. In V. K. Wells, D. Gregory-Smith, & D. Manika (Eds.), Research handbook on employee pro-environmental behaviour (pp. 13–38). Edward Elgar Publishing. Organ, D.  W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books. Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Sage. Paillé, P., Valéau, P., & Renwick, D.  W. (2020). Leveraging green human resource practices to achieve environmental sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 260. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121137 Paul, K., & Nihlan, K. (2012). Environmental sustainability and employee engagement. In S. E. Jackson, D. S. Ones, & S. Dilchert (Eds.), Managing human resource for environmental sustainability (pp. 267–280). Jossey-Bass. Perez Salgado, F., Abbott, D., & Wilson, G. (2018). Dimensions of professional competences for interventions towards sustainability. Sustainability Science, 13, 163–177. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11625-­017-­0439-­z Pirages, D.  C., & Ehrlich, P.  R. (1974). Ark II: Social response to environmental imperatives. W. H. Freeman. Ploum, L., Blok, V., Lans, T., & Omta, O. (2018). Toward a validated competence framework for sustainable entrepreneurship. Organization & Environment, 31(2), 113–132. https://doi. org/10.1177/1086026617697039 Podgorodnichenko, N., Edgar, F., Akmal, A., & McAndrew, I. (2021). Sustainability through sensemaking: Human resource professionals’ engagement and enactment of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Cleaner Production, 293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126150 Pogutz, S., & Winn, M. I. (2016). Cultivating ecological knowledge for corporate sustainability: Barilla’s innovative approach to sustainable farming. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(6), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1916 Ramus, C.  A. (2002). Encouraging innovative environmental actions: What companies and managers must do. Journal of World Business, 37(2), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1090-­9516(02)00074-­3 Ramus, C. A., & Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in employee “ecoinitiatives” at leading-edge European companies. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 605–626. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556357 Rayner, J., & Morgan, D. (2018). An empirical study of ‘green’ workplace behaviours: Ability, motivation and opportunity. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 56(1), 56–78. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1744-­7941.12151 Renwick, D. W. S., Redman, T., & Maguire, S. (2013). Green human resource management: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-­2370.2011.00328.x Ribeiro, M.  M., Hoover, E., Burford, G., Buchebner, J., & Lindenthal, T. (2016). Values as a bridge between sustainability and institutional assessment: A case study from BOKU University. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 17(1), 40–53. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-­12-­2014-­0170 Richardson, K., Steffen, W., Lucht, W., Bendtsen, J., Cornell, S. E., Donges, J. F., et al. (2023). Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Science Advances, 9(37), eadh2458. https://doi. org/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458

References

53

Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391486 Rockström, J., Gupta, J., Qin, D., Lade, S. J., Abrams, J. F., Andersen, L. S., Armstrong McKay, D. I., Bai, X., Bala, G., Bunn, S. E., Ciobanu, D., DeClerck, F., et al. (2023). Safe and just Earth system boundaries. Nature, 619, 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-­023-­06083-­8 Sackett, P.  R., & Laczo, R.  M. (2003). Job and work analysis. In W.  C. Borman, D.  R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 21–37). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei1202 Saratun, M. (2016). Performance management to enhance employee engagement for corporate sustainability. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 8(1), 84–102. https://doi. org/10.1108/APJBA-­07-­2015-­0064 Scherbaum, C.  A., Popovich, P.  M., & Finlinson, S. (2008). Exploring individual-level factors related to employee energy-conservation behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(3), 818–835. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-­1816.2007.00328.x Scott, B.  A., Amel, E.  L., Koger, S.  M., & Manning, C.  M. (2021). How did we get here? In Psychology for sustainability (5th ed.). Routledge. Shippmann, J. S., Ash, R. A., Battista, M., Carr, L., Eyde, L. D., Hesketh, B., Kehoe, J., Pearlman, K., Prien, E.  P., & Sanchez, J.  I. (2000). The practice of competency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 53, 703–740. Smith, A. M., & O’Sullivan, T. (2012). Environmentally responsible behaviour in the workplace: An internal social marketing approach. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(3–4), 469–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2012.658837 Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653–663. Song, W., Yu, H., & Xu, H. (2021). Effects of green human resource management and managerial environmental concern on green innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(3), 951–967. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-­11-­2019-­0315 Steingraber, S. (2010). Living downstream: An ecologist’s personal investigation of cancer and the environment (2nd ed.). DaCapo Press. Subramanian, N., Abdulrahman, M. D., Wu, L., & Nath, P. (2016). Green competence framework: Evidence from China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(2), 151–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1047394 Svanström, M., Lozano-García, F.  J., & Rowe, D. (2008). Learning outcomes for sustainable development in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(3), 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370810885925 Unsworth, K.  L., & Tian, A. (2018). Motivation and GHRM: Overcoming the paradox. In D. W. Renwick & S. E. Jackson (Eds.), Contemporary developments in green human resource management research (pp. 23–38). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315768953 Unsworth, K. L., Davis, M. C., Russell, S. V., & Bretter, C. (2021). Employee green behaviour: How organizations can help the environment. Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 1–6. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.12.006 Wehrmeyer, W. (1996). Introduction. In W. Wehrmeyer (Ed.), Greening people: Human resource and environment management (pp. 11–31). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351283045 Weiss, H.  M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B.  M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (pp. 1–74). JAI Press. Wesselink, R., Blok, V., van Leur, S., Lans, T., & Dentoni, D. (2015). Individual competencies for managers engaged in corporate sustainable management practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 497–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.093 Wiernik, B.  M., Ones, D.  S., Dilchert, S., & Klein, R.  M. (2018). Individual antecedents of pro-environmental behaviours: Implications for employee green behaviours. In V.  K. Wells, D. Gregory-Smith, & D. Manika (Eds.), Research handbook on employee pro-environmental behaviour (pp. 63–82). Edward Elgar Publishing.

54

3  Sustainability as a Shared Competency

Wilson, E. O. (1992). The diversity of life. W.W. Norton. Wilson, E. O. (2006). The creation: An appeal to save life on Earth. W.W. Norton. Zacher, H., & Bissing-Olson, M. J. (2018). Between- and within-person variability in employee pro-environmental behaviour. In V. K. Wells, D. Gregory-Smith, & D. Manika (Eds.), Research handbook on employee pro-environmental behaviour (pp. 128–147). Edward Elgar Publishing. Zacher, H., Rudolph, C.  W., & Katz, I.  M. (2023). Employee green behavior as the core of environmentally sustainable organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 465–494. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-­orgpsych-­120920-­050421 Zibarras, L. D., & Coan, P. (2015). HRM practices used to promote pro-environmental behavior: A UK survey. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(16), 2121–2142. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.972429

Chapter 4

Finding and Hiring Sustainability Talent

Building an institution of higher education (HEI) dedicated to sustainability requires aligning employee activities with the institution’s goals (DeNisi & Smith, 2014). This can be accomplished in part by bringing in new faculty, staff, and administrators with sustainability-related competencies. Specifically, HEIs can recruit and select applicants who demonstrate competencies—shared knowledge, skills, abilities, and other human attributes like personality (KSAOs), described in Chap. 3— that are in line with the institution’s sustainability goals (Cohen et al., 2010; Gilal et al., 2019). As one would expect, sustainability-related KSAOs are deeply tied to sustainability innovation (Sobaih et al., 2020), plus employing people with sustainability-­ oriented KSAOs, especially in leadership positions, can help build a durable culture of sustainability, as described in Chap. 2 (Stahl et al., 2020). Likewise, HEIs can seek out potential employees who demonstrate sustainability-­ oriented values. Values are deeply held guiding principles that serve as standards for evaluating choices and actions (Schwartz, 2012). Self-transcendent values are most predictive of future sustainable behavior. These include biospheric values, which underscore the importance of the planet, and altruistic values, which reflect concern for the welfare of other humans (de Groot & Steg, 2008; Klöckner, 2013). Stronger biospheric values are associated with sustainable behavior at work (Steg, 2023). To effectively infuse sustainability into the hiring process, HEI folks bringing in new talent, typically human resource management (HRM) recruiters, department chairs, and directors, themselves need to understand and be committed to sustainability (see Fig. 4.1; Adjei-Bamfo et al., 2020; Zacher et al., 2023). During the early stages of transformation, this will likely require retaining consultants or seeking professional development to guide the process. The next step is to review, develop, or revise all job descriptions so they include sustainable roles, tasks, and requisite KSAOs. Chapter 3 delineated how work is changing and how jobs can be defined accordingly. The current chapter will unpack the recruitment and selection practices associated with bringing in new talent to fill these roles. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. L. Amel et al., Fostering Sustainability in Higher Education, Psychology and Our Planet, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50555-3_4

55

56

4  Finding and Hiring Sustainability Talent

Fig. 4.1  Process for bringing in new employees to support a sustainability culture prepare talent managers to hire for sustainability ksaos

develop or revise job descriptions based on work analysis

recruit by including sustainability status and expectations

use sustainability criteria during selection process

4.1 Applicant Recruitment A critical step for increasing employee-institution alignment is to attract new employees who possess needed KSAOs. The classic attraction-selection-attrition model (ASA) underscores that “like attracts like” within an institution’s selection process (Schneider, 1987). Generally, those who are attracted to an institution’s values will be more likely to apply, are more likely to be selected, and will be less likely to leave. Those who do not “fit” will be more likely to exit (either of their own accord or the institution’s). While this ASA process can produce an unintended consequence of decreasing diversity (i.e., the institution continues to hire similar others), if engaged appropriately, such “fit” can help recruit, identify, select, develop, and retain a diverse cadre of people committed to sustainability (Grolleau et al., 2012).

4.1  Applicant Recruitment

57

4.1.1 Why It Is Important There are numerous benefits to attracting sustainability-oriented employees. Importantly, organizations known for their sustainability values attract more and superior candidates (Ro, 2022; Bratton & Bratton, 2015; Cohen et al., 2010; Jones et al., 2014; Renwick et al., 2013). As always, there will be individual differences in response to sustainability-focused recruiting (reviewed in Pham & Paillé, 2019a, b), and those who do not perceive a fit will likely exit the process, reducing the applicant pool. That pool, though smaller, will likely yield higher-quality employees (Barrick & Parks-Leduc, 2019). Furthermore, sustainability-oriented employees tend to display additional desirable traits. Specifically, they tend to care about how others are treated, called other-­ orientation (Bridoux et al., 2016); believe they have what it takes to perform the job, called self-efficacy (Chowdhury et al., 2021); desire to make a significant impact through their work (Gully et al., 2013); take a personal stance toward sustainability (Pfister, 2020; Bohlmann et al., 2018); and possess a strong sense of responsibility, or moral identity (Rupp et al., 2013; Liao & Cheng, 2020). They are more likely to take on sustainability leadership roles (Robertson & Carleton, 2018). If these are also attributes that an HEI desires, then sustainability should be highlighted during the recruiting process.

4.1.2 How to Do It Well The main goals of recruitment are to attract a large pool of qualified people and get them to apply for the job. Researchers have long studied what attracts applicants and leads them to pursue a job opportunity (Chapman et  al., 2005; Highhouse et  al., 2003). Friendly and competent recruiters create good first impressions, and when applicants believe they are being treated fairly and receive timely communication, they are more likely to persist through the recruitment process. As one would expect, the type of work being offered is most crucial, so clearly communicating job features, especially its sustainability features, is imperative (Barrick & Parks-­ Leduc, 2019). Beyond the specific job, the work environment and whether applicants sense a good match with an institution’s values, or perceived person-organization fit, are also key for successful recruitment (Kristof-Brown & Billsberry, 2013; Van Vianen, 2018). A good fit between an applicant and an HEI is mutually beneficial (see Fig. 4.2). For employees, a “good fit” enhances need fulfillment, increases satisfaction, and fosters well-being (Barrick & Parks-Leduc, 2019). Applicants’ perceptions of fit are particularly important when pay is lower than average (Rupp et al., 2013). Since HEI employees are often paid below market value (Conroy, 2022; Hamermesh, 2018), elevating a strong sense of purpose can alleviate this pay disadvantage (Cort et al., 2022).

58

4  Finding and Hiring Sustainability Talent

Fig. 4.2  The symbiosis of good person-organization fit

From the HEI’s perspective, employees with a strong “fit” are more motivated to join, succeed at their work, and stick with the institution for the long haul (Barrick & Parks-Leduc, 2019; Chan, 2017; Highhouse et al., 2002; Lievens & Highhouse, 2003; Oh et al., 2014; Rupp et al., 2013). Shared values are also critical for maintaining a desired organizational culture (Bauer et  al., 2012; Stahl et  al., 2020). Recruitment efforts, therefore, are a prime opportunity to express details about an HEI’s commitment to sustainability (Gully et  al., 2013; Jackson & Seo, 2010; Renwick et al., 2013). Attracting knowledgeable and skilled applicants by addressing shared values is becoming increasingly important because fewer applicants are available (Campion, 2020). The contributing factors to a changing workforce include increased remote work and reprioritization of work-life balance since the global COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent quitting, coined the “great resignation,” for early retirement or more fulfilling work (Clay, 2022). Perhaps most importantly, growth in

4.1  Applicant Recruitment

59

sustainability-related jobs is outpacing the growth in talent (LinkedIn, 2022). In these situations, job seekers can be picky, and HEIs will have to work harder to attract them. Three decades of research demonstrate that prospective employees consider an organization’s sustainability-oriented actions during their job searches (Bauer & Aiman-Smith, 1996; reviewed in Bücker, 2017; Carballo-Penela, 2019; Grolleau et al., 2012; Guerci et al., 2016; Hanson-Rasmussen & Lauver, 2017; Madera et al., 2018; Pfister, 2020; Greening & Turban, 2000; Willness & Jones, 2013). Applicants value all aspects of sustainability (people, planet, prosperity) and use that information when deciding whether to pursue and accept a job offer (Gully et al., 2013; Pfister, 2020; Presley et al., 2018; Rupp et al., 2013). A real example is a custodial manager who chose a particular HEI because it values the environment and supports living wages, which aligns with their own critical core values. This trend appears to be true across age groups and cultures (Alonso-Almeida & Llach, 2019; Muros, 2012). Young, sustainability-oriented applicants, especially, actively seek organizations that align with their values and, because meaningful work is important to them, are more likely to stick with such an organization (Cohen et al., 2010; Ro, 2022). Applicants use an organization’s position on sustainability to infer its trustworthiness (Bridoux et al., 2016), a fact that emphasizes how crucial it is for an HEI to clearly communicate its values. They also assume it means a positive work environment and that they can expect to be treated well as employees (Jones et al., 2016). Affiliation with a sustainable organization also appears to be a source of anticipated pride (Jones et al., 2016). Whether or not job seekers have actual data about the institution to which they are applying, they often rely on cues, such as what is prominent on the institution’s website or on the campus itself, to signal whether the institution will be a good fit (Cable & Judge, 1996; Walker et al., 2012). The recruitment process should therefore signal a variety of institutional attributes so that diverse job seekers can accurately infer what it would be like to work there (see Table 4.1). Some applicants, perhaps due to assumptions or previous negative experiences, may expect trade-offs between sustainability features. For example, if an applicant expects that an institution’s focus on environmental transformation excludes that of equity and inclusion and concludes that it will negatively impact their own treatment, then they will be less attracted to the institution (Bridoux et al., 2016; Schusler et al., 2021). HEIs taking a holistic view of sustainability, as described in the first chapter of this book, will want to express how they see social and environmental issues as inextricably linked and that they are addressing both. For example, explicitly referencing environmental concerns in branding, recruitment, and selection, and promoting DEI values by recruiting from historically black colleges and universities, signals a commitment to both and will likely attract like-minded applicants. For many HEIs, the state of the institution may not yet match its sustainability aspirations. For instance, a college’s mission might prioritize working toward the common good. If the working definition of “common good” has recently expanded from a focus on social justice to include environmental justice, there will likely be

4  Finding and Hiring Sustainability Talent

60 Table 4.1  Best recruitment practices Practice Provide information

How to implement Begin with the very first message in the application process (e.g., posted job description) and consistently communicate sustainability values throughout websites, career pages, conversations at job fairs, etc. Point out examples of investments in sustainability (e.g., green building, job training, rooftop gardens. Provide a realistic job preview; describe the work that applicants will be able to do if they are hired.

Highlight awards that indicate “green” prestige. Third-­ party ratings reduce the perception of organizational bias. Include supporting quotes from current employees (e.g., Glassdoor). Walk the talk Audit process so that it is sustainable. Look for areas like paperless alternatives or meaningful carbon offsets. Ask applicants to be sustainable. Have them describe what it means to them. Train recruiting staff so they are on board with the sustainability goals of the institution.

Sources Bauer et al. (2012), Jones et al. (2014)

Bauer et al. (2012) Ellis et al. (2017), Molina-Azorin (2021), Glavas et al. (2023) Willness and Jones (2013), Aiman-­ Smith et al. (2001) Bauer et al. (2012), O’Meara et al. (2020) Bauer et al. (2012) Ones and Dilchert (2013)

some amount of disarray, uneven adoption, and challenges ahead. Some folks may be suspicious about diverting focus from necessary DEI initiatives, while others may simply be skeptical or cynical about change. Such skepticism has arisen partly from witnessing organizations that “woke-wash” or “green-wash” (or both!) (Kohl, 2022; Willness & Jones, 2013). These phenomena happen when institutions claim to value sustainability, but their actions simply do not match up. Especially when HEIs are transitioning, it is important to be accurate about the current culture and active efforts to improve. People, especially Millennials and Gen Z, will leave if there are discrepancies between claims made by an HEI and the actual state of affairs (Kohl, 2022; Willness & Jones, 2013). Thus, HEIs should provide a realistic job preview (RJP) during their recruiting and selection processes. An RJP is a strategy of presenting an authentic overview of both the positive and negative aspects of work, rather than presenting the job and organization only in the best possible light. Relevant to sustainability, if an HEI is up front about where they are and their current challenges in addition to their future envisioned state, applicants can more accurately interpret whether or not it will be a good fit (Chowdhury et al., 2021; Ellis et al., 2017; Gully et al., 2013; Bratton & Bratton, 2015). Since some applicants may be skeptical of an organization’s sustainability self-­ promotion, it may behoove employers to reference third-party certifications and awards on their websites and in job ads (Kleiss & Waiguny, 2021). Sustainability-­ oriented applicants find these kinds of certifications compelling (Aiman-Smith et al., 2001).

4.2  Candidate Selection

61

In addition to providing credible details about the job and organization, creating an appealing job ad helps people better assess fit for themselves, likely because their attention is drawn to the details (Barrick & Parks-Leduc, 2019). Appealing ads include vivid, rich aesthetics and are highly interactive and navigable (Ryan & Delany, 2017). Where an ad is placed can also make a difference; ads can target universities that integrate sustainability into their graduate programs, HEI-related sustainability organizations, and affinity groups within academic associations. So it is worth an organization’s time to attend to content, form, and reach.

4.2 Candidate Selection Once a pool of applicants has been recruited, an organization needs to identify who is the most suitable for the work at hand. Selecting for KSAOs, values, and interests that are consistent with strategic goals is essential for driving organizational change in general (Stouten et  al., 2018) and sustainability in particular (Cabral & Dhar, 2019; Cohen et  al., 2010; Katz et  al., 2022). For instance, specific sustainability knowledge like energy-saving strategies, skills like transformational leadership, and psychological attributes like personality, future time perspective, and internal locus of control can all be used to distinguish between candidates. Furthermore, personnel selection is a critical juncture for ensuring the demographic, experiential, and psychological diversity that enhances the out-of-the-box thinking needed for transformational change (Ciocirlan & Pettersson, 2012; González et al., 2022; Jones, 2008; Liebowitz, 2010; Ployhart & Weekley, 2017; van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). Therefore, to best promote an HEI’s sustainability, it is crucial to select new employees who will help in that mission. HEIs already use a variety of common selection strategies. Like other HRM practices, the strategies themselves do not necessarily need to change. Instead, HEIs can modify their existing selection processes to identify applicants more likely to contribute positively to their institution’s sustainability efforts. Although a variety of individual differences predict sustainable behavior and thus could be evaluated during the selection process, few organizations actually do (Mishra, 2017). This is not surprising given a lack of empirical guidance examining the validity of measurement tools for selecting sustainability-oriented employees. Validation is especially challenging in HEIs because they are comprised of an enormous variety of positions, sometimes with only one or a few people in any given role (e.g., a provost, grounds manager, IT purchasing director, undergraduate research program manager, etc.). Yet valid methods are important for accurately identifying individuals who will contribute to sustainability efforts. In lieu of technical evidence for validity, it is imperative that selection measures assess job-­ relevant attributes as found through the systematic work analyses described in Chap. 3 (Tippins et al., 2017). Selection is especially helpful when focused on attributes that cannot or will not be addressed in training (Barrick & Parks-Leduc, 2019; Ones & Dilchert, 2013),

62

4  Finding and Hiring Sustainability Talent

such as specialized skills that are beyond the scope provided through in-house training, like PhDs or other advanced degrees; knowledge and skill needed on day 1 of employment; and stable attributes that are difficult or slow to change, such as personality and values. Finding the right selection process will provide useful information to identify applicants able to hit the ground running. Some common selection strategies that can be used by HEIs include the following.

4.2.1 Applications Many HEI jobs are highly specialized, requiring advanced degrees. A simple way to elevate sustainability within selection systems is to ask applicants directly to highlight sustainability-related expertise such as degrees (e.g., Master of Environmental Management) and any of the various certifications or credentials they have earned (see Table 4.2) in their applications.

4.2.2 Interviews Another convenient option is to include sustainability-relevant questions within job interviews since most organizations conduct them at some point during the selection process (Erker et al., 2017; Hough & Dilchert, 2017). Conventional structured interview questions, asked of every candidate, can pick up on experience, personality, preferences, philosophy, goals, and attitudes. Behavior-based interview questions that ask applicants to articulate what they have done or would do in various work scenarios can also assess job knowledge, situational judgment, and social skills (Salgado & Moscoso, 2002; Hough & Dilchert, 2017). No matter the form of the interview, sustainability can be integrated into the questions or scenarios. Sustainability-specific situational and behavior-based questions can easily be added to a standardized job interview (see Table 4.3). The content of these measures can be derived from empirical research, such as the dimensions of working sustainably, conserving, avoiding harm, influencing others, and taking initiative, described in Chap. 3 (Ones & Dilchert, 2012). For faculty, a question could address whether Table 4.2  Common sustainability credentials HEI roles HRM managers Grounds Facility design and upgrades Investing and finance STEM professionals

Sustainability credentials Inclusive Workplace Culture Specialty Credential Integrated Pest Management US Green Building Council LEED, GBCI WELL, PassivHaus Institute Certification Environmental, Social, and Governance certification Life Cycle Assessment Certified Professional

63

4.2  Candidate Selection

Table 4.3  Sample situational and behavior-based interview questions with anchored responses Individual dimension Experience

Sustainability dimension Taking initiative, changing how work is done

Sample question Describe a sustainability innovation you have initiated/ implemented.

Anchored responses Poor: none, recycling Moderate: one-off events Excellent: system change Preferences Working sustainably With whom do you engage in Poor: nobody else order to develop strategies? Moderate: other decision-makers Excellent: broad and diverse group of stakeholders Sustainability Articulating a range of How do you think of Poor: compliance philosophy ideas from low impact sustainability, and how has oriented and isolated to high this affected your work? Moderate: compliance impact and systemic Please give a specific and conservation example. Excellent: compliance, conservation, and influencing others/ taking initiative Goals Thinking in future-­ Which LEED criteria are the Poor: no ideas oriented ways, most difficult to address? Moderate: basic focusing on understanding improvement Excellent: creative insights Job knowledge Possessing the needed Describe your method for Poor: single action, competencies conducting field inspections. low impact Moderate: engaging multiple stakeholders, improving impact Excellent: systemic, high impact Situational Influencing others, Describe how you would Poor: ignore and move judgment avoiding harm handle a situation where a on team member displays Moderate: unsustainable behavior (e.g., transactional exchange mocking others for Excellent: influence conserving). via individual values and provide encouragement Adapted from Salgado and Moscoso (2002), Kohl (2022), Ones and Dilchert (2012)

they use specific course readings, projects, or assessments that address environmental justice or the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs). For lab managers, questions might ask how they creatively reuse materials in their labs or the sustainable procedures they have introduced. Operations, facilities, and ground managers can be asked how they have integrated sustainability into their systems, processes, and goals and the resulting accomplishments. Executive leaders

64

4  Finding and Hiring Sustainability Talent

could be asked to describe a situation in which they have empowered people to adjust their roles to address a sustainability-infused mission. When asking these questions, it is helpful for interviewers to use standardized anchored evaluations—descriptions (behavioral if possible) of a poor response, a moderate one, or an excellent one. Standardized rating scales, particularly with behavioral anchors, lessen subjectivity in the evaluation process and are considered best practice for high-quality job interviewing (Debnath et  al., 2015; Smith & Kendall, 1963).

4.2.3 Work Samples and Situations More elaborate strategies, such as work samples and situational judgment tests, also lend themselves to assessing sustainability. Work samples involve asking an applicant to do a task such as having faculty candidates integrate sustainability into their job talks. Situational judgment tests present hypothetical scenarios (typically based on actual situations) and ask candidates for a detailed plan for how they would address the problem or resolve the dilemma. Creating relevant assessments necessitates translating required KSAOs into situations, tasks, and activities in which applicants can display their sustainability capabilities. For instance, if a university were hiring a head groundskeeper, candidates could be presented with a scenario in which they are tasked with reducing chemical use across campus—what strategies would they use? Communication specialist applicants could prepare a persuasive sustainability presentation using the university’s branding tools. Candidates for office administrative positions could be shown a sample office and then asked to identify and prioritize five ways they can make it more sustainable. Importantly, selection is an opportunity for HRM to lead by example, such as ensuring that their processes minimize waste and greenhouse gas emissions. This can be done by providing vegetarian meals on reusable plates and reducing miles traveled by administering personality and work sample tests online (Adjei-Bamfo et al., 2020; Andrews et al., 2013; Behrend & Thompson, 2013). Auditing current practices, identifying areas needing improvement, and restructuring accordingly will create credibility when working with colleagues across the institution. When inviting candidates to campus for interviews, HRM could provide information on how to reach campus via multiple modes of transportation (e.g., bike parking recommendations, bus lines and nearby bus stops, car/bike-share services accessible to/from campus). Postpandemic, we are certainly more comfortable with electronic methods for interviews and presentations as an alternative to flying folks to campus; however, this comes with its own set of problems. Research shows that raters consistently perceive online interview performance as poorer than in face-to-­ face situations, and interviewees themselves prefer in-person interviewing (Basch et al., 2021; Blacksmith, et al., 2016). Being consistent across applicants and using

4.2  Candidate Selection

65

online platforms to initially screen large pools of applicants while bringing a few top candidates to campus for a second meeting may optimize sustainability.

4.2.4 Psychological Measures Personality Personality is a stable set of traits that are not easily modified. One well-­established trait model that has been extensively researched in the workplace is the Big 5, which argues that personality is comprised of openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (Goldberg, 1993; McCrae & Costa, 1987). High openness is characterized as being willing to listen to new ideas and try different experiences. High conscientiousness represents diligence, being true to one’s word, being dependable, and being hardworking. Extraversion is enjoying meeting people and being energized by interactions with others. Agreeableness is what it sounds like: caring about others and being willing to listen or compromise. Finally, the opposite end of the spectrum from neuroticism is emotional stability, which is the ability to manage stress and anxiety well, maintain composure, and remain calm. Measuring personality is a long-standing selection practice because it is predictive of job performance and organizational citizenship or going above and beyond one’s job description. It also predicts counterproductive work behaviors, which are negative actions toward the organization and its members, such as theft, bullying, or surfing the Internet during work time (Hough & Dilchert, 2017). Personality can also provide insight into person-organization fit (Barrick & Parks-Leduc, 2019; Ones & Dilchert, 2013). Several personality traits, including conscientiousness and agreeableness, are positively related to prosocial and proenvironmental attitudes (Ones & Dilchert, 2013; Soutter et  al., 2020) and inversely predict both counterproductive work behaviors in general (Ones et  al., 2007) and counterproductive sustainability behaviors in particular (Dilchert, 2018). Agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness, and extraversion consistently predict sustainable in-role performance (Katz et al., 2022; Kim et al., 2014; Unsworth et al., 2021; Wiernik et al., 2018), organizational citizenship behaviors such as bringing extra reusable shopping bags for colleagues (Terrier et al., 2016), and general engagement in sustainable behavior (Soutter et  al., 2020; Marcus & Roy, 2019). Extraversion is also predictive of sustainable performance among executives (Hrazdil et al., 2021). This is not to say that introverts are uninterested or unable to meaningfully address sustainability in their roles; it simply may mean that certain tasks like engaging large groups may be less appealing and more emotionally exhausting for them (Judge et al., 2009; Maslach et al., 2001).

66

4  Finding and Hiring Sustainability Talent

Typical measures of the Big 5 include the NEO-PI-R (Costa & MacCrae, 2008) and the IPIP (Goldberg, 1992). Although socially desirable responses can inflate scores, using these tools still provides valid selection information (Anglim et al., 2018). Behavioral interviewing techniques and situational judgment tests can also build in aspects of these personality traits in their assessments. Recently, significant research has expanded the personality model to include another dimension: honesty-humility. Folks high in honesty-humility are modest and fair minded and do not take advantage of those who are more vulnerable. They tend to be more prosocial and sustainability oriented (Thielmann et  al., 2020; Marcus & Roy, 2019; Soutter et al., 2020). Low levels of humility are particularly useful for predicting counterproductive work behavior (Anglim et al., 2018; Marcus & Roy, 2019). Honesty-humility can be assessed through the HEXACO model, which reorganizes the Big 5 into extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, emotionality, and agreeableness and integrates the honesty-humility dimension (HEXACO-PI-R; Ashton & Lee, 2008). Humility can also be measured through structured interview questions: “To whom do you owe your success? From whom have you learned the most in your career?” Humble individuals answer with a solid focus on “we” and “us” rather than “I” and “me” and recognize that they can and should learn from all kinds of people, not just powerful others (Stillman, 2021). Future Time Perspective (FTP) The core point of sustainability is creating a future in which people and the planet can flourish. Yet short-term consequences and long-term outcomes are often at odds with each other. For example, the easy route of throwing something in the trash is tempting, rather than investing the extra effort to keep materials in circulation. The dilemma of trying to downsize, but also obsessively collecting things until there is a “big enough stash” to make a trip to specialized recycling worthwhile, is common for many people. People with high FTP are willing to endure short-term “pain” for long-term “gain.” Solid research evidence corroborates that FTP positively predicts behaviors that require significant self-regulation when short-term and long-term outcomes contradict, as is often the case with sustainability (Kooij et  al., 2018). Moreover, individuals with high FTP are more likely to address sustainability issues (Milfont et al., 2012; Ones & Dilchert, 2013). The consideration of future consequences (CFC) scale is a short, clear, and psychometrically rigorous measure of future time perspective that includes questions such as “I consider how things might be in the future, and try to influence those things with my day-to-day behavior” (Mohammed & Merhefka, 2020). Situational judgment scenarios and behavioral interview questions can also be developed to assess how applicants approach time-related dilemmas such as “tell us about a time when your short-term and long-term goals were at odds. How did you deal with it?”

4.2  Candidate Selection

67

Environmental Internal Locus of Control (ILOC) Individuals who believe that their efforts influence what happens to them are said to have a high ILOC (Bandura, 1989). Folks with high ILOC are apt to seek out and use new information and initiate action (Cleveland & Kalamas, 2015). A high level of ILOC also predicts strong job performance and social skills (Wang et al., 2010) as well as sustainable behavior (Hines et al., 1987; Bamberg & Möser, 2007; Ones & Dilchert, 2013). Employees high on environmental ILOC, who believe that their environmental behavior matters, tend to respond well to transformational leadership, which is described in Chap. 8, and are more likely to serve as innovative role models for others (Robertson & Carleton, 2018; Afsar et al., 2020). A sample measurement item tapping into work-related ILOC is, “A job is what you make of it” (WLCS; Spector, 1988). Basic ILOC scales have been modified to measure environmental ILOC, with items such as “To some degree I can influence my colleagues’ choice between carpooling, taking the bus, or driving their car to work” (Cleveland et  al., 2012). Drawing from these ideas, structured interview questions and scenarios can be developed, such as “Your department needs to lower carbon emissions from job-related travel. What role, if any, would you take to address this?” Applicants can be judged on how much they take ownership of the task versus believing that it is out of their hands. Person-Organization Fit As described earlier, perceived fit benefits both employees and organizations. Importantly, though, person-organization fit does not mean searching for homogeneity of thought or people with similar demographics. Organizations therefore need to avoid unstructured interviews, which allow for a problematic, unconscious reliance on comfort, familiarity, and liking an applicant, which in turn privileges job-­ irrelevant similarities that can lead to unfair discrimination and a homogenous workforce (Barrick & Parks-Leduc, 2019). Instead, appropriate fit measures include values and interests that have been identified through work analysis as consistent with the strategic trajectory of the institution (Barrick & Parks-Leduc, 2019; Ciorcirlan et al., 2020). Shared values are a key component of person-organization fit, and shared sustainability values are important for organizations pursuing a culture of sustainability (Ciocirlan et al., 2020; Davis & Coan, 2015; Galpin et al., 2015; Hejjas et al., 2019). Values can be adjusted, but changing one’s values can be a difficult and long process (Russo et  al., 2022; Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004; Schwartz, 1992). Because of this, knowing an applicant’s values allows one to predict their values down the road (Galpin et al., 2015). Interview questions can probe applicant values by presenting them with a scenario or dilemma (Renwick et al., 2013; Chan, 2017). To evaluate the relative focus

68

4  Finding and Hiring Sustainability Talent

on economic, social, and environmental values, interviewers can ask an applicant “how would you make a decision if a solution is socially and environmentally sustainable but significantly more expensive?” Providing a series of scenarios that vary the economic, social, and environmental outcomes of decisions can also provide insight into the relative importance that applicants hold for these values (Marcus & Roy, 2019). Interests Interests are what people like to do. Some folks get excited about creating spreadsheets, while others prefer interacting with large groups of people. Some employees prefer innovating, while others would select the status quo over learning new things. Measuring interests is one way to tap into an applicant’s motivation since interests drive people’s goals, actions, and the achievement of said goals, including the knowledge they pursue and the skills they develop (Van Iddekinge et  al., 2011). Interests relate to person-organization fit to the extent that a workplace provides an opportunity to pursue an employee’s interests (Holland, 1997; as cited in Chan, 2017). Questions investigating interests, like “tell us about the type of work that really excites you,” can be integrated into structured interviews to judge whether applicants’ interests match the needs of the institution.

4.3 Conclusion It is always possible that nobody in the applicant pool has a prerequisite skill, for instance, when none of the candidates for a grounds manager position has obtained certification in Integrated Pest Management or xeriscaping. This is especially likely to happen when a new activity or skill requirement is emerging or when training and credentialing are expensive. This does not mean that the selection process has failed. Including sustainability-related work requirements in selection measures is still worthwhile since attraction to the organization and sense of “fit” are likely to have been enhanced for those who value sustainability. It is also a way to set expectations: sustainability will be a core part of the job. Those expectations will translate into increased buy-in for the training they will need after accepting a job offer. Bringing in new employees can infuse energy into an organization and assist with cultural transformation (Jeske & Olson, 2022). Many incumbent employees are also likely committed to sustainability efforts. The next chapter reviews several additional HRM mechanisms that can empower eager employees as well as nudge those who are not so eager.

References

69

References Adjei-Bamfo, P., Bempong, B., Osei, J., & Kusi-Sarpong, S. (2020). Green candidate selection for organizational environmental management. International Journal of Manpower, 41(7), 1081–1096. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-­10-­2019-­0480 Afsar, B., Maqsoom, A., Shahjehan, A., Afridi, S. A., Nawaz, A., & Fazliani, H. (2020). Responsible leadership and employee’s proenvironmental behavior: The role of organizational commitment, green shared vision, and internal environmental locus of control. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1), 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/ csr.1806 Aiman-Smith, L., Bauer, T. N., & Cable, D. M. (2001). Are you attracted? Do you intend to pursue? A recruiting policy-capturing study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 219–237. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011157116322 Alonso-Almeida, M.  D. M., & Llach, J. (2019). Socially responsible companies: Are they the best workplace for millennials? A cross-national analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(1), 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1675 Andrews, L., Klein, S.  R., Forsman, J., & Sachau, D. (2013). It’s easy being green: Benefits of technology-enabled work. In A.  H. Huffman & S.  R. Klein (Eds.), Green organizations: Driving change with I-O psychology (pp. 149–169). Routledge. Anglim, J., Lievens, F., Everton, L., Grant, S.  L., & Marty, A. (2018). HEXACO personality predicts counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior in low-­ stakes and job applicant contexts. Journal of Research in Personality, 77, 11–20. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.09.003 Ashton, M.  C., & Lee, K. (2008). The prediction of Honesty-Humility-related criteria by the HEXACO and five-factor models of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(5), 1216–1228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.03.006 Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002 Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175–1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-­066X.44.9.1175 Barrick, M.  R., & Parks-Leduc, L. (2019). Selection for fit. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-­orgpsych-­012218-­015028 Basch, J. M., Melchers, K. G., Kurz, A., Krieger, M., & Miller, L. (2021). It takes more than a good camera: Which factors contribute to differences between face-to-face interviews and videoconference interviews regarding performance ratings and interviewee perceptions? Journal of Business and Psychology, 36, 921–940. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-­020-­09714-­3 Bauer, T. N., & Aiman-Smith, L. (1996). Green career choices: The influence of ecological stance on recruiting. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10, 445–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF02251780 Bauer, T. N., Erdogan, B., & Taylor, S. (2012). Creating and maintaining environmentally sustainable organizations: Recruitment and onboarding. In S. E. Jackson, D. S. Ones, & S. Dilchert (Eds.), Managing human resources for environmental sustainability. Jossey-Bass. Behrend, T. S., & Thompson, L. F. (2013). Combining I-0 psychology and technology for an environmentally sustainable world. In A. H. Huffman & S. R. Klein (Eds.), Green organizations: Driving change with IO psychology (pp. 300–322). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Blacksmith, N., Wilford, J. C., & Behrend, T. S. (2016). Technology in the employment interview: A meta-analysis and future research agenda. Personnel Assessment and Decisions, 2, 12–20. https://doi.org/10.25035/pad.2016.002 Bohlmann, C., Krumbholz, L., & Zacher, H. (2018). The triple bottom line and organizational attractiveness ratings: The role of pro-environmental attitude. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(5), 912–919. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1507

70

4  Finding and Hiring Sustainability Talent

Bratton, A., & Bratton, J. (2015). Human resource management approaches. In J. L. Robertson & J. Barling (Eds.), The psychology of green organizations. Oxford University Press. https://doi. org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199997480.003.0012 Bridoux, F., Stofberg, N., & Den Hartog, D. (2016). Stakeholders’ responses to CSR tradeoffs: When other-orientation and trust trump material self-interest. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01992 Bücker, J.  J. L.  E. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and sustainable recruitment. In R. R. Sharma (Ed.), Human resource management for organizational sustainability. Business Expert Press. Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person–organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 294–311. https:// doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0081 Cabral, C., & Dhar, R.  L. (2019). Green competencies: Construct development and measurement validation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 235, 887–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2019.07.014 Campion, L. L. (2020). Leading through the enrollment cliff of 2026 (part I). TechTrends, 64(3), 542–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-­020-­00492-­6 Carballo-Penela, A. (2019). Enhancing social sustainability at a business level: Organizational attractiveness is higher when organizations show responsibility towards employees. Business Strategy & Development, 2(4), 372–383. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.69 Chan, D. (2017). Values, styles, and motivational constructs. In J. L. Farr & N. T. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (2nd ed., pp. 321–337). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Chapman, D.  S., Uggerslev, K.  L., Carroll, S.  A., Piasentin, K.  A., & Jones, D.  A. (2005). Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: A meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 928–944. https://doi. org/10.1037/0021-­9010.90.5.928 Chowdhury, M. S., Yun, J., & Kang, D. S. (2021). Towards sustainable corporate attraction: The mediating and moderating mechanism of person–organization fit. Sustainability, 13(21), 11998. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111998 Ciocirlan, C., & Pettersson, C. (2012). Does workforce diversity matter in the fight against climate change? An analysis of fortune 500 companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.279 Ciocirlan, C. E., Gregory-Smith, D., Manika, D., & Wells, V. K. (2020). Using values, beliefs, and norms to predict conserving behaviors in organizations. European Management Review, 17(2), 543–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12388 Clay, R. A. (2022). Reworking work. American Psychological Association Monitor on Psychology, 53(1), 50. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/01/special-­reworking-­work Cleveland, M., & Kalamas, M. (2015). Environmental locus of control. In J.  L. Robertson & J.  Barling (Eds.), The psychology of green organizations (pp.  187–212). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199997480.003.0009 Cleveland, M., Kalamas, M., & Laroche, M. (2012). “It’s not easy being green”: Exploring green creeds, green deeds, and environmental locus of control. Psychology & Marketing, 29(5), 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20522 Cohen, E., Taylor, S., & Muller-Camen, M. (2010). HRM’s role in corporate social and environmental sustainability. SHRM Foundation. https://www.shrm.org/hr-­today/ trends-­a nd-­f orecasting/special-­r eports-­a nd-­expert-­v iews/Documents/Corporate-­S ocial-­ Environmental-­Sustainability.pdf Conroy, E. (2022, March 13). Higher education has a morale problem, opposing higher pay will make it worse. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/edwardconroy/2022/03/13/higher-­education-­ has-­a-­morale-­problem-­opposing-­higher-­pay-­will-­make-­it-­worse/?sh=692e7bb61d67 Cort, T., Gilbert, K., DeCew, S., Wilkinson, E., Goldberg, M.  H., & Fitzgerald, H. (2022). Rising leaders on social and environmental sustainability. Yale Center for Business and the Environment. https://cbey.yale.edu/research/ rising-­leaders-­on-­social-­and-­environmental-­sustainability

References

71

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2008). The revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R). In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment, Vol. 2. Personality measurement and testing (pp. 179–198). Sage. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781849200479.n9 Davis, M. C., & Coan, P. (2015). Organizational change. In J. L. Robertson & J. Barling (Eds.), The psychology of green organizations (pp. 244–274). Oxford University Press. de Groot, J. I., & Steg, L. (2008). Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior: How to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environment and Behavior, 40(3), 330–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506297831 Debnath, S. C., Lee, B. B., & Tandon, S. (2015). Fifty years and going strong: What makes behaviorally anchored rating scales so perennial as an appraisal method? International Journal of Business and Social Science, 6(2). DeNisi, A., & Smith, C. E. (2014). Performance appraisal, performance management, and firm-­ level performance: A review, a proposed model, and new directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 127–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2014.873178 Dilchert, S. (2018). Counterproductive sustainability behaviors and their relationship to personality traits. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 26(1), 49–56. https://doi. org/10.1111/ijsa.12204 Ellis, A. M., Nifadkar, S. S., Bauer, T. N., & Erdogan, B. (2017). Newcomer adjustment: Examining the role of managers’ perception of newcomer proactive behavior during organizational socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(6), 993–1001. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000201 Erker, S.  C., Cosentino, C.  J., & Tamanini, K.  B. (2017). Selection methods and desired outcomes: Improving entry- and mid-level leadership performance through the use of assessment technologies. In J. L. Farr & N. T. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (2nd ed., pp. 738–759). Routledge. Galpin, T., Whittington, J.  L., & Bell, G. (2015). Is your sustainability strategy sustainable? Creating a culture of sustainability. Corporate Governance, 15(1), 1–17. https://doi. org/10.1108/CG-­01-­2013-­0004 Gilal, F. G., Ashraf, Z., Gilal, N. G., Gilal, R. G., & Channa, N. A. (2019). Promoting environmental performance through green human resource management practices in higher education institutions: A moderated mediation model. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(6), 1579–1590. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1835 Glavas, A., Hahn, T., Jones, D. A., & Willness, C. R. (2023). Predisposed, exposed, or both? How prosocial motivation and CSR education are related to prospective employees’ desire for social impact in work. Business & Society, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503231182665 Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-­3590.4.1.26 Goldberg, L.  R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-­066X.48.1.26 González, R., Carvacho, H., & Jiménez-Moya, G. (2022). Psychology and indigenous people. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 431–459. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-­psych-­092421-­034141 Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business & Society, 39(3), 254–280. https://doi. org/10.1177/000765030003900302 Grolleau, G., Mzoughi, N., & Pekovic, S. (2012). Green not (only) for profit: An empirical examination of the effect of environmental-related standards on employees’ recruitment. Resource and Energy Economics, 34(1), 74–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.10.002 Guerci, M., Montanari, F., Scapolan, A., & Epifanio, A. (2016). Green and nongreen recruitment practices for attracting job applicants: Exploring independent and interactive effects. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(2), 129–150. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/09585192.2015.1062040

72

4  Finding and Hiring Sustainability Talent

Gully, S. M., Phillips, J. M., Castellano, W. G., Han, K., & Kim, A. (2013). A mediated moderation model of recruiting socially and environmentally responsible job applicants. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 935–973. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1062040 Hamermesh, D. S. (2018). Why are professors “poorly paid”? Economics of Education Review, 66, 137–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.08.007 Hanson-Rasmussen, N., & Lauver, K. J. (2017). Do students view environmental sustainability as important in their job search? Differences and similarities across culture. International Journal of Environment And Sustainable Development, 16(1), 80–98. https://doi.org/10.1504/ IJESD.2017.10001376 Hejjas, K., Miller, G., & Scarles, C. (2019). “It’s like hating puppies!” Employee disengagement and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(2), 319–337. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10551-­018-­3791-­8 Highhouse, S., Hoffman, J. R., Greve, E. M., & Collins, A. E. (2002). Persuasive impact of organizational value statements in a recruitment context. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(8), 1737–1755. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-­1816.2002.tb02773.x Highhouse, S., Lievens, F., & Sinar, E. F. (2003). Measuring attraction to organizations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(6), 986–1001. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164403258403 Hines, J.  M., Hungerford, H.  R., & Tomera, A.  N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482 Hitlin, S., & Piliavin, J.  A. (2004). Values: Reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 359–393. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110640 Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources. Hough, L., & Dilchert, S. (2017). Personality: Its measurement and validity for employee selection. In J. L. Farr & N. T. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (2nd ed., pp. 298–325). Routledge. Hrazdil, K., Mahmoudian, F., & Nazari, J. A. (2021). Executive personality and sustainability: Do extroverted chief executive officers improve corporate social responsibility? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(6), 1564–1578. https://doi.org/10.1002/ csr.2116 Jackson, S.  E., & Seo, J. (2010). The greening of strategic HRM scholarship. Organization Management Journal, 7(4), 278–290. https://doi.org/10.1057/omj.2010.37 Jeske, D., & Olson, D. (2022). Onboarding new hires: Recognising mutual learning opportunities. Journal of Work-Applied Management, 14(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JWAM-­04-­2021-­0036 Jones, V. (2008). The green collar economy. HarperCollins. Jones, D. A., Willness, C. R., & Madey, S. (2014). Why are job seekers attracted by corporate social performance? Experimental and field tests of three signal-based mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 383–404. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0848 Jones, D. A., Willness, C. R., & Heller, K. W. (2016). Illuminating the signals job seekers receive from an employer’s community involvement and environmental sustainability practices: Insights into why most job seekers are attracted, others are indifferent, and a few are repelled. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 426. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00426 Judge, T. A., Woolf, E. F., & Hurst, C. (2009). Is emotional labor more difficult for some than for others? A multilevel, experience-sampling study. Personnel Psychology, 62(1), 57–88. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-­6570.2008.01129.x Katz, I.  M., Rauvola, R.  S., Rudolph, C.  W., & Zacher, H. (2022). Employee green behavior: A meta-analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(5), 1146–1157. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2260 Kim, A., Kim, Y., Han, K., Jackson, S. E., & Ployhart, R. E. (2014). Multilevel influences on voluntary workplace green behavior: Individual differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1335–1358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314547386

References

73

Kleiss, D. F., & Waiguny, M. K. J. (2021). Sustainability and diversity labels in job ads and their effect on employer brands. In M. K. J. Waiguny & S. Rosengren (Eds.), Advances in advertising research (Vol. XI, pp. 255–272). Springer Link. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­658-­32201-­4_18 Klöckner, C. A. (2013). A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour— A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1028–1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2013.05.014 Kohl, K. (2022). Driving justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. Auerbach Publications. Kooij, D. T., Kanfer, R., Betts, M., & Rudolph, C. W. (2018). Future time perspective: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(8), 867–893. https://doi. org/10.1037/apl0000306 Kristof-Brown, A.  L., & Billsberry, J. (2013). Fit for the future. In A.  L. Kristof-Brown & J. Billsberry (Eds.), Organizational fit: Key issues and new directions (pp. 1–18). Wiley. https:// doi.org/10.1002/9781118320853.ch1 Liao, Z., & Cheng, J. (2020). Can a firm’s environmental innovation attract job seekers? Evidence from experiments. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 542–551. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1818 Liebowitz, J. (2010). The role of HR in achieving a sustainability culture. Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(4), 50–57. https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v3n4p50 Lievens, F., & Highhouse, S. (2003). The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes to a company’s attractiveness as an employer. Personnel Psychology, 56(1), 75–102. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1744-­6570.2003.tb00144.x LinkedIn. (2022). Global Green Skills Report 2022 [Interactive Dataset]. https://linkedin.github. io/global-­green-­report-­2022/ Madera, J. M., Dawson, M., & Neal, J. A. (2018). Why investing in diversity management matters: Organizational attraction and person–organization fit. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42(6), 931–959. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348016654973 Marcus, J., & Roy, J. (2019). In search of sustainable behaviour: The role of core values and personality traits. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551-­017-­3682-­4 Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397–422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397 McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81–90. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0022-­3514.52.1.81 Milfont, T. L., Wilson, J., & Diniz, P. (2012). Time perspective and environmental engagement: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Psychology, 47(5), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.108 0/00207594.2011.647029 Mishra, P. (2017). Green human resource management: A framework for sustainable organizational development in an emerging economy. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 25(5), 762–788. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-­11-­2016-­1079 Mohammed, S., & Marhefka, J. T. (2020). How have we, do we, and will we measure time perspective? A review of methodological and measurement issues. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(3), 276–293. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2414 Molina-Azorin, J.  F., López-Gamero, M.  D., Tarí, J.  J., Pereira-Moliner, J., & Pertusa-Ortega, E.  M. (2021). Environmental management, human resource management and green human resource management: A literature review. Administrative Sciences, 11(2), 48. https://doi. org/10.3390/admsci11020048 Muros, J. P. (2012). Going after the green: Expanding industrial–organizational practice to include environmental sustainability. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(4), 467–472. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-­9434.2012.01479.x O’Meara, K., Culpepper, D., & Templeton, L.  L. (2020). Nudging toward diversity: Applying behavioral design to faculty hiring. Review of Educational Research, 90(3), 311–348. https:// doi.org/10.3102/0034654320914742

74

4  Finding and Hiring Sustainability Talent

Oh, I.-S., Guay, R. P., Kim, K., Harold, C. M., Lee, J.-H., Heo, C.-G., & Shin, K.-H. (2014). Fit happens globally: A meta-analytic comparison of the relationships of person–environment fit dimensions with work attitudes and performance across East Asia, Europe, and North America. Personnel Psychology, 67(1), 99–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12026 Ones, D.  S., & Dilchert, S. (2012). Employee green behaviors. In S.  E. Jackson, D.  Ones, & S.  Dilchert (Eds.), Managing human resources for environmental sustainability (pp. 85–116). Wiley. Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2013). Measuring, understanding, and influencing employee green behaviors. In A. H. Huffman & S. R. Klein (Eds.), Green organizations: Driving change with I-O psychology (pp. 115–148). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Ones, D.  S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T.  A. (2007). In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 995–1027. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1744-­6570.2007.00099.x Pfister, M. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and organizational attraction: A systematic literature review. American Journal of Management, 20(2), 96–111. https://doi.org/10.33423/ ajm.v20i2.3002 Pham, D. D. T., & Paillé, P. (2019a). Managing green recruitment for attracting pro- environmental job seekers: Toward a conceptual model of “Handicap” principle. In C.  Machado (Ed.), Sustainable human resource management: Policies and practices. River Publishers. Pham, D.  D. T., & Paillé, P. (2019b). Green recruitment and selection: An insight into green patterns. International Journal of Manpower, 41(3), 258–272. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJM-­05-­2018-­0155 Ployhart, R. E., & Weekley, J. A. (2017). Strategy, selection, and sustained competitive advantage. In J. L. Farr & N. T. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (pp. 115–133). Routledge. Presley, A., Presley, T., & Blum, M. (2018). Sustainability and company attractiveness: A study of American college students entering the job market. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 9(4), 470–489. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-­03-­2017-­0032 Renwick, D. W., Redman, T., & Maguire, S. (2013). Green human resource management: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), 1–14. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1468-­2370.2011.00328.x Ro, C. (2022, March 1). How climate change is re-shaping the way Gen Z works. BBC. https:// www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220225-­how-­climate-­change-­is-­re-­shaping-­the-­way-­gen-­z-­ works?utm_source=pocket-­newtab Robertson, J. L., & Carleton, E. (2018). Uncovering how and when environmental leadership affects employees’ voluntary pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25(2), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051817738940 Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Thornton, M. A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2013). Applicants’ and employees’ reactions to corporate social responsibility: The moderating effects of first-party justice perceptions and moral identity. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 895–933. https://doi.org/10.1111/ peps.12030 Russo, C., Danioni, F., Zagrean, I., & Barni, D. (2022). Changing personal values through value-­ manipulation tasks: A systematic literature review based on Schwartz’s theory of basic human values. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 12(7), 692–715. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe12070052 Ryan, A. M., & Delany, T. (2017). Attracting job candidates to organizations. In J. Farr & N. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (2nd ed., pp. 165–181). Routledge. Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (2002). Comprehensive meta-analysis of the construct validity of the employment interview. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(3), 299–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320244000184 Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437–453. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-­6570.1987.tb00609.x Schusler, T. M., Espedido, C. B., Rivera, B. K., Hernández, M., Howerton, A. M., Sepp, K., Engel, M. D., Marcos, J., & Chaudhary, V. B. (2021). Students of colour views on racial equity in

References

75

environmental sustainability. Nature Sustainability, 4(11), 975–982. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41893-­021-­00759-­7 Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-­2601(08)60281-­6 Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-­0919.1116 Smith, P. C., & Kendall, L. M. (1963). Retranslation of expectations: An approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47(2), 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047060 Sobaih, A. E. E., Hasanein, A., & Elshaer, I. (2020). Influences of green human resources management on environmental performance in small lodging enterprises: The role of green innovation. Sustainability, 12(24), 10371. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410371 Soutter, A. R. B., Bates, T. C., & Mõttus, R. (2020). Big Five and HEXACO personality traits, proenvironmental attitudes, and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(4), 913–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620903019 Spector, P. E. (1988). Development of the work locus of control scale. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61(4), 335–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-­8325.1988.tb00470.x Stahl, G. K., Brewster, C. J., Collings, D. G., & Hajro, A. (2020). Enhancing the role of human resource management in corporate sustainability and social responsibility: A multi-stakeholder, multidimensional approach to HRM. Human Resource Management Review, 30(3), 100708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100708 Steg, L. (2023). Psychology of climate change. Annual Review of Psychology, 74(1), 391–421. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-­psych-­032720-­042905 Stillman, J. (2021, September 31). Humility is an undersung leadership skill. Adam Grant says these 2 interview questions screen for it. Inc.com. https://www.inc.com/jessica-­stillman/adam-­ grant-­leadership-­hiring-­humility-­job-­interviews.html Stouten, J., Rousseau, D.  M., & De Cremer, D. (2018). Successful organizational change: Integrating the management practice and scholarly literatures. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 752–788. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0095 Terrier, L., Kim, S., & Fernandez, S. (2016). Who are the good organizational citizens for the environment? An examination of the predictive validity of personality traits. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 185–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.10.005 Thielmann, I., Spadaro, G., & Balliet, D. (2020). Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(1), 30–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/ bul0000217 Tippins, N. T., Solberg, E. C., & Singla, N. (2017). Decisions in the operational use of employee selection procedures: Choosing, evaluating, and administering assessment tools. In J. L. Farr & N. T. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (2nd ed., pp. 367–387). Routledge. Unsworth, K. L., Davis, M. C., Russell, S. V., & Bretter, C. (2021). Employee green behaviour: How organizations can help the environment. Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 1–6. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.12.006 Van Iddekinge, C. H., Roth, P. L., Putka, D. J., & Lanivich, S. E. (2011). Are you interested? A meta-analysis of relations between vocational interests and employee performance and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1167–1194. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024343 van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M.  C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515–541. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085546 van Vianen, A. E. M. (2018). Person–environment fit: A review of its basic tenets. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 75–101. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-­orgpsych-­032117-­104702 Walker, J. H., Feild, H. S., Bernerth, J. B., & Becton, J. B. (2012). Diversity cues on recruitment websites: Investigating the effects on job seekers’ information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 214–224. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025847

76

4  Finding and Hiring Sustainability Talent

Wang, Q., Bowling, N.  A., & Eschleman, K.  J. (2010). A meta-analytic examination of work and general locus of control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 761–768. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0017707 Wiernik, B. M., Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., & Klein, R. M. (2018). Individual antecedents of pro-­ environmental behaviours: Implications for employee green behaviours. In V.  K. Wells & D.  Manika (Eds.), Research handbook on employee pro-environmental behaviour. Edward Elgar Publishing. Willness, C.  R., & Jones, D.  A. (2013). Corporate environmental sustainability and employee recruitment: Leveraging “green” business practices to attract talent. In A.  H. Huffman & S. R. Klein (Eds.), Green organizations: Driving change with IO psychology (pp. 231–250). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Zacher, H., Rudolph, C.  W., & Katz, I.  M. (2023). Employee green behavior as the core of environmentally sustainable organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 465–494. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-­orgpsych-­120 920-­050421

Chapter 5

Developing Current Talent

All higher education (HEI) employees, from food service to faculty to administration, can contribute to sustainability. In order to do so, however, they must possess the sustainability-related knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAOs) described in Chap. 3 (Bratton & Bratton, 2015; Fernández et  al., 2003; Paillé et  al., 2020). Sustainability itself is dynamic as the needs of people and the planet change over time. Providing systematic training and development opportunities that introduce, update, enhance, and maintain skills is therefore a key, ongoing part (perhaps even the most important part!) of the human resource management (HRM) system for improving sustainability performance (Fenwick, 2007; Renwick et  al., 2013; Stefanelli et al., 2019; Yong et al., 2020; Zibarras, & Coan, 2015). While hiring employees, a process summarized in Chap. 4, who already possess sustainability KSAOs can boost sustainable behavior in HEIs, once hired there continue to be critical junctures in the employment life cycle where opportunities to advance a sustainable mission abound. One such opportunity is employee onboarding—introducing employees to the institution, its mission and values, and their particular roles within it. Because onboarding sets the tone for understanding an institution, this is a crucial time to acquaint newly hired employees with how sustainability is integral to the HEI’s mission. Among veteran employees, effective training can help build awareness of the urgent need to act and foster positive attitudes toward sustainable behavior at work (Babakri et al., 2003; Cabral & Dhar, 2019; Hale, 1995; Perron et al., 2006; Thomas, 2004; Zeng et al., 2005; Zutshi & Sohal, 2004). It can equip all employees with the KSAOs needed to conduct their work in sustainable ways (Cabral & Dhar, 2019; Hale, 1995; Paillé et al., 2020; Venselaar, 1995; Wiernik et al., 2018; Young et al., 2015) while also preparing employees for lateral changes and future leadership roles (Campbell et al., 2018). From the employee perspective, offering effective and ongoing sustainability training and development is perceived as organizational support for sustainable behavior (Paillé et al., 2020). Perceived organizational support in turn enhances the © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. L. Amel et al., Fostering Sustainability in Higher Education, Psychology and Our Planet, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50555-3_5

77

78

5  Developing Current Talent

likelihood that employees will develop creative solutions (del  Brío & Junquera, 2003; Composto et al., 2023; Laursen & Foss, 2003; Ramus & Steger, 2000). For example, after learning that the university has a zero-waste goal, an administrative assistant who feels supported may find clever uses for outdated CDs and DVDs, such as donating them to a local artist rather than simply throwing them in the trash. A strong onboarding program is the first opportunity to inspire such innovation by acclimating new employees to an institution’s sustainability philosophy.

5.1 New Employee Onboarding Once top candidates have been identified and an offer has been extended and accepted, new employees need to be “shown the ropes.” Orientation has moved well beyond the informal “here’s your desk and the bathroom is over there.” Contemporary onboarding is an extensive orientation process that addresses functional and social aspects of work by helping newcomers understand an organization’s mission, culture, and resources (Sommer, 2023). What employees experience in the first few months of a job speaks volumes about an organization’s commitment to sustainability and impacts newcomers’ perceptions of inclusion (Cheffen, 2017; as cited in Petzer et al., 2021). For new faculty, this could mean including an overview of environmental justice across the curriculum initiatives and resources for integrating sustainability into their courses. Office personnel can be introduced to ongoing sustainability leadership training as well as sustainable purchasing policies. Information about sustainable transportation, remote work, and affinity groups (e.g., people from around the institution who are all into bicycle commuting) are relevant to all new employees. Because it is when new employees form their beliefs about an organization, their onboarding experience will impact their actions, which in turn significantly impact their success (Bauer et al., 2012). If an employee has an enjoyable and productive onboarding experience that solidifies sustainability as an institutional value, it may validate or, in some cases, ignite their passion for working sustainably. Effective onboarding can help new employees successfully become an integral part of the institution (Cesário & Chambel, 2019). Cohort models, in which the same group of new hires meet at regular intervals, create social networks that facilitate knowledge sharing and troubleshooting and foster a sense of belonging. When newcomers effectively learn “how we do things around here,” they can better understand, interpret, and navigate the workplace. Successful onboarding helps reduce uncertainty and stress (Bauer & Erdogan, 2011) and increases positive attitudes such as commitment, trust, and satisfaction so that newcomers are more likely to innovate and stay with the organization (Bauer et al., 2012; Ellis et al., 2017). When designed inclusively, onboarding encourages cultural exchange and an appreciation of experiential differences, unique identities, and diverse perspectives people bring to the organization (Cable et al., 2013a). Onboarding should focus on

5.2  What to Train

79

the distinct contributions a newcomer can bring to the job. It leads to a win-win situation with better outcomes for employees, such as greater engagement and satisfaction, as well as for institutions, including increased productivity and retention (Cable et al., 2013b; Cesário & Chambel, 2019). Important for sustainability transformation, inclusive onboarding can stimulate creative change (Bauer & Erdogan, 2012). Onboarding is best as an ongoing effort and optimally includes a newcomer’s direct supervisor, who can provide useful task-related information and elucidate work expectations (Ellis et  al., 2017). Ongoing support from supervisors can be institutionalized by including onboarding tasks in managerial work descriptions and performance evaluations (Ellis et al., 2017). For example, one of the tasks listed in a department chair’s job responsibilities could be to make sure new employees receive structured mentoring that includes navigating sustainability goals. One university, for example, utilizes a cohort program where members meet at the 1-, 30-, 60-, 90-, and 180-day marks (Leone et  al., 2021). Called the 5-Star Academy, the program was created by an HRM team with the goal of connecting new hires to the institution’s sustainability goals. Each session focuses on a different aspect of sustainability, such as discussing current sustainability accomplishments, showcasing LEED-certified buildings, and achieving a foundational Diversity Certificate. Not only do employees gain information, but they also make connections outside of their department and are encouraged to bring their knowledge back to their teams. In this way, strategic onboarding programs can create a ripple effect across the whole institution. Yet every employee can and should play a role in welcoming new people (Staniforth & Harland, 2006). Formal and informal mentoring alike are valuable for helping new hires succeed and feel included. Colleagues can explain how processes work, brief them on the structure and function of activities, invite new folks to formal and informal activities, provide feedback, collaborate on meaningful contributions to their unit, and check in to see how things are going (Petzer et al., 2021). To provide this kind of wraparound onboarding, it is important that key participants (supervisors, onboarding personnel, peers) understand the strategic goals of the institution (e.g., sustainability) so that new employees receive consistent messages. Every institution will have distinctive onboarding needs, but all can include sustainability.

5.2 What to Train Sometimes developing and executing successful training is a thankless task. Nobody gets excited about “mandatory training,” yet lack of expertise is one of the biggest hurdles to sustainability in HEIs (Zepeda Quintana et al., 2022). People are more likely to willingly attend training when they perceive it to be relevant to their work and necessary for their success, in other words, worth their time.

80

5  Developing Current Talent

Probably the most important design issue for developing effective training, then, is to systematically assess training needs at the organization, task, and individual levels (Campbell et al., 2018; Goldstein, 1980; Perron et al., 2006). Needs assessments use an institution’s mission and strategic goals to identify the current performance gaps or future demands that can be improved with training. Needs assessment also includes job analyses to determine which tasks and requisite KSAOs are essential for different positions in the organization. Further, needs assessments ascertain which individuals most need training and when. Because they actually do the work, it is a good idea to consult with employees and teams about which aspects of their jobs need to change, how they are best changed, and the most motivational forms of delivery (Campbell et al., 2018; Harvey et al., 2013; Paillé et al., 2020). Information derived from the needs assessment can then be used to define specific, explicit training objectives. For instance, an HEI can successfully improve sustainability awareness and attitudes (Craddock et  al., 2012; Sammalisto & Brorson, 2008). Training can also effectively address KSAOs such as sustainability literacy (Paillé et al., 2020) and the adoption of new standards or technology, as well as changes in processes (Stefanelli et al., 2019). Research also supports the effectiveness of leadership training, discussed in more detail in Chap. 8, for producing affective, cognitive, and skill-based changes needed to empower others (Lacerenza et al., 2017; Rimanoczy & Pearson, 2010). Such training can benefit everyone who wants to promote sustainable behavior, whether they are executives or serving as departmental champions. Three important sustainability-relevant training areas are discussed below: awareness, attitudes, and sustainability literacy.

5.2.1 Awareness Being aware of the scope and urgency of sustainability challenges is critical for the university-wide adoption of sustainability initiatives (Bratton & Bratton, 2015; Hale, 1995). Further, employees, new and old, need to understand how their institution intends or plans to be a part of the large-scale solution. Thus, it is important to clearly communicate the institution’s current initiatives as well as sustainability-­ relevant goals, why they are important, and how their own work contributes to achieving them (Perron et al., 2006; Sammalisto & Brorson, 2008). Raising awareness can be embedded into new employee onboarding and in ongoing professional development offerings. For example, sessions can be organized around topics such as educational best practices or innovative, resource-saving technologies. Awareness can also be raised through broad, interactive, and visible events such as Earth Day; announced via multiple channels to students, faculty, and staff; and encouraged through incentives. Once initial awareness is cultivated, employees should be provided with regular updates so that they can celebrate successes and learn from failures (Dubois et al., 2013; Sammalisto & Brorson, 2008).

5.2  What to Train

81

5.2.2 Attitudes Attitudes are positive or negative evaluations of something (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). How people feel and think about an object, goal, or behavior impacts their intentions to act (Ajzen, 1991). Attitudes, such as “eating vegetarian is an admirable way to be sustainable,” are foundational to behavior, although they are not the only contributors. More detail about attitudes, intentions, and the attitude-behavior gap can be found in Chap. 6. Positive attitudes about sustainable work can be enhanced through training (Kraut, 1976; Cialdini et al., 1981), and while a general goal of training might be for people to feel good about sustainability efforts at the institution, specific attitude targets such as “It would be good to order vegetarian food for events” are more likely to convert into specific behaviors (Carmi et  al., 2015; Subramanian et  al., 2016). Of course, not all peoples’ attitudes toward environmental topics will be positive or even neutral (even after training!). It is important to note that changing someone’s negative attitudes is not likely to be achieved through training, nor is changing a negative attitude a necessary precursor for behavior change (Young et al., 2015). Attitudes are most likely to impact on-the-job behavior when they are strengthened through active elaboration (Werner, 2013). Naming the attitude, discussing it, and deciding whether it is consistent with one’s self-concept and values can also increase attitude strength. Trainers can use established communication strategies to help people connect to new and challenging material (e.g., CRED, 2009). Strong attitudes can be further enhanced by making them salient, ensuring they are supported within the physical and social context, and aligning them with intrinsic motivation, which is described in Chap. 6 (Deci & Ryan, 2013). Encouraging people to create specific intentions to implement new, related behaviors also helps (Abrahamse & Steg, 2013; Gollwitzer, 1999; see Table 5.1).

5.2.3 Sustainability Literacy Sustainability literacy is an accurate understanding of our social and environmental realities. Creative, novel, and appropriate behavior depends on a clear grasp of sustainability, so it is arguably the most critical knowledge for all employees to develop (Wolske & Stern, 2018). In order to act sustainably, individuals need to understand how the planet operates (Burns, 2015), the reciprocal relationships between human and environmental systems (Hines et al., 1987; Orr, 1992; Pitman & Daniels, 2016; Puk & Stibbards, 2012), and the historical and contemporary environmental injustices many people experience (Kohl, 2022). Rather than using valuable training time to go in depth on specific environmental problems that quickly become obsolete (such as current CO2 levels), employees should learn some basic ecological principles: system interdependence, limits to

82

5  Developing Current Talent

Table 5.1  Supporting strong attitudes Characteristics of strong attitudes Certainty

Importance

Consistency

Maximized accessibility

Intrinsic motivation

Supported by social context

Supported by physical context

Commitments

Training intervention Discuss general facts, specific behaviors, and logical arguments and provide the opportunity to think carefully about connections between values and sustainability. Discuss how critical sustainability is to employees, the institution, the broader community, and the planet.

Example Share credible statistics, presented by in-house scientists, that counter claims such as “this is just Earth’s normal ebb and flow of temperature.”

Present place-based data on how climate and other forms of unsustainability are likely to impact the area where the institution is located (e.g., if it is in a wildfire-prone area, where the aquifers are being depleted, or where the sea level is rising). Ask faculty to create a class activity that links sustainability concepts with “Big Ideas” in their field.

Involve faculty and staff in discussions on how sustainability connects with what they care about. Encourage faculty to post a syllabus Link sustainability ideas with current scripts and imagine new electronically and project it when discussing it rather than printing paper scripts. copies. Show how sustainability can be Create a community by inviting faculty, fun and fulfilling; create a sense staff, and students to contribute to the creation of a rooftop garden. This also of belonging, autonomy, and creates a sense of purpose if the produce is competence. donated to students in need. Provide evidence of important Award a “Teacher of the Year” who creatively uses sustainability in their others engaging with classroom. sustainability and celebrate colleagues who are trying new ideas. Provide compost bins for students in dorm Ask people about real and rooms. perceived barriers to specific sustainable behaviors and reduce those barriers. Encourage institutional catering to set a Identify concrete intentions about specific time, place, and goal of increasing organic ingredient purchases by 20% each year. behavior—use principles of SMART goals.

Adapted from Bartlett et al. (2020), Werner (2013)

regeneration, circularity, the importance of diversity for resilience, and a focus on upstream solutions (see Fig. 5.1). By prioritizing these basic principles, described in detail in Chap. 3, training can provide a framework and language that employees can use to navigate complex sustainability challenges (Amel & Manning, 2012; Amel, 2015; Donmez-Turan & Kiliclar, 2021).

5.2  What to Train

83

Fig. 5.1  Ecological principles that illustrate how successful Earth systems operate

Teaching these basic principles encourages deeper cognitive processing of new environmental information and can help employees ask insightful questions, analyze problems, propose meaningful solutions, and evaluate their relative merit (Lockhart et  al., 1976; Wolske & Stern, 2018). For example, the Parable of Downstream (and all its various versions—e.g., Parable of Upstream; The River Story) elucidates in a lively, readable way how fixing problems after the fact (downstream solutions) is much less effective than preventative (or upstream) solutions (see Table 5.2 for other vetted teaching tools). Of all of these ecological principles, understanding systems is likely to be the most challenging. Some folks, by virtue of their specific experience or education (e.g., Indigenous practices; engineers, ecologists, sociologists, geographers), naturally think in systems. For others, learning some system thinking basics—thinking

5  Developing Current Talent

84 Table 5.2  Tools for teaching ecological principles Ecological principle System interdependence, complexity, and unintended consequences Limits to regeneration

Learning tool Systems game

Circularity

The natural step

Value of diversity for resilience

Ecosystem biodiversity v. monocultures case Parable of downstream

Upstream solutions

Commons dilemma game

Sources Macy and Brown (2008) Pratarelli and Johnson (2012) Nattrass and Altomare (1999) Häger et al. (2021) Steingraber (2010)

about how component parts are interrelated and dynamic over time—can help them develop mental models of complex, dynamic, and uncertain sustainability problems and potential solutions (Bartlett et al., 2020; Hesselbarth & Schaltegger, 2014; Lans et  al., 2014; Meadows, 2008; Wesselink et  al., 2015; Williams et  al., 2017). An improved understanding of human, economic, and environmental systems can help people think through the implications of intervening in a system and realize potential unintended consequences (Cavaleri & Sterman, 1997). A better understanding of systems can also help people identify the most effective leverage points for guiding change (e.g., Meadows, 1999). Metaphors can help others learn system thinking (e.g., income inequality is like a failing organ; Thibodeau et  al., 2016) and illustrate important dynamics (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions are like pouring water into an overflowing bathtub; Sterman, 2008). Case studies are often used to impart system knowledge (e.g., Temper et  al., 2015; Northwest Earth Institute, 2014; Häger et al., 2021). Also, bringing people from diverse disciplines/departments together to practice collaboration (Engle et al., 2017) and interdisciplinary problem-solving can expand system understanding beyond traditional academic and departmental silos (Bartlett et al., 2020). For instance, food service and facility managers can learn how each department’s decisions affect the other—such as food service switching to compostable “to go” containers, which facilities folks must then properly compost.

5.3 Who Needs Training? Not everyone needs training to develop sustainability competencies; whether or not to offer training to a particular person depends on how jobs are defined and on the KSAOs an individual already possesses (Darrah, 1995; Goldstein, 1980). Many people develop sustainability KSAOs on their own as a result of their personal values. These employees are not likely to benefit from further basic training. Rather, once identified, they should be encouraged to pursue higher-level skills and to be part of the development and implementation of training programs for others.

5.3  Who Needs Training?

85

Further, not everyone is open to training. Understanding the various reasons why can aid in the creation of personalized paths toward training uptake (Ramus, 2002). If some folks do not see the need, a preliminary step would be to connect the training content to the institution’s strategic goals and the individual’s personal development plan. Or if some employees fear they cannot handle it, giving them a sneak preview can increase their sense of efficacy. Others, particularly managers, might prioritize upcoming deadlines over supporting training activities. It may never seem like a good time to break away for training, so getting managers to attend first can enable them to promote it as valuable. HEIs contain a large number of thought leaders who hold key positions for moving the sustainability needle forward, but they also rely on front-line workers to keep operations up and running sustainably. All employees may need to improve their sustainability literacy, but they are also likely to need different types of training. For some, learning more effective interpersonal or leadership skills is the most beneficial, while others need more technical detail. Described below are examples of HEI roles and ideas about how they might benefit from training (for a review of additional key organizational roles, see Hitchcock & Willard, 2009). HRM professionals must fully understand how their tools (selection, training, and development; a.k.a. talent management, performance management, etc.) can advance an institution’s strategic sustainability goals. They must also embed sustainability into their own practices, leading through example. A sustainably oriented HRM professional might design training as an inclusive experience that is mindful of energy use and waste reduction. They can also foster a sustainability culture across the larger organization, as described in Chap. 2, through policies such as shifting performance evaluation processes and forms to be completed primarily online. This requires up-to-date knowledge of local and global issues (e.g., climate injustice) and sustainability principles (Cohen et al., 2010). Senior- and mid-level administrators (such as VPs, deans, program directors) are needed to advance transformation, regardless of who initiates the movement. Chapter 8 will describe in more detail how leading the sustainability transformation optimally combines an understanding of sustainability with leadership behaviors that facilitate change. These higher-level administrators may have experience in leadership. Few, however, have expertise in sustainability since it is relatively new to undergraduate and graduate curricula. Department chairs are responsible for onboarding new faculty and providing them the opportunities to actually use their sustainability KSAOs (Campbell et al., 2018; Paillé et al., 2020; Teixeira et al., 2016). In order to do so, they need to be aware of their institution’s strategic goals and, ideally, possess attitudes and knowledge that foster sustainable behavior in others. Chairs are often faculty who, although experts in their academic field, rise to the position because “it’s their turn” rather than because they are talented supervisors. Because of this, many could benefit from training in both the fundamentals of sustainability and transformational leadership skills (Potgieter et al., 2011).

86

5  Developing Current Talent

Faculty will need to change the curriculum to equip students for the growing number of jobs that require a sustainability mindset (all jobs, really!) and prepare them to live sustainably (Dierdorff et al., 2009; Torpey, 2018). This is a particularly challenging problem because of the deep historical traditions among faculty, such as the expectation of academic freedom, the need to cover the canon of one’s discipline, and an aversion to teaching material outside of one’s expertise (Blanco-­ Portela et al., 2017). Effective training, therefore, will require interactive approaches that recognize these challenges (Sammalisto & Brorson, 2008). It will be important to develop a system of support beginning with raising awareness. This can be facilitated through informal, low-stake opportunities such as reading groups and learning communities (Hong, 2020). This support creates a pipeline for more in-depth learning through workshops and conferences, which are bread-­ and-­butter activities for faculty and staff (Lambrechts et al., 2017). Support is also needed in the form of money, time, and recognition. In HEIs, these are offered in the form of integration grants, course designations, and awards. For particularly recalcitrant departments, it may be necessary to cultivate individual members who are willing to push for curricular changes from within (Carrico & Riemer, 2011). See Chap. 8 for more details about effective sustainability “champions.” Managers and supervisors keep people on track with day-to-day obligations across HEIs. They can influence the sustainable behavior of their subordinates when they are knowledgeable about sustainability themselves. This allows them to properly evaluate behaviors, offer guidance, and provide appropriate consequences, such as praise for sustainable behaviors, and corrective interventions for unsustainable actions (Zacher et al., 2023). Perhaps a supervisor could offer a desirable gift card to an employee who implements a more sustainable way of doing their job, like a groundskeeper planting pollinators in campus flower beds or identifying a drought-­ resistant shade tree. Corrective action is tricky, as noted in Chap. 7, but could simply involve a discussion to raise awareness, which may be enough to turn the behavior around. Many specialized jobs have tasks that can be done more sustainably. Career counselors need to be up to date about the explosion of jobs in the green economy (Ro, 2022; Dierdorff et al., 2009; Torpey, 2018). Administrative assistants take care of logistics, procurement, and event planning—all of which can be done more sustainably. Facility and grounds workers need to know how water cycles operate, as well as the chemistry behind fertilizers and insecticides and their often unjust, negative impacts on communities downstream. Food service decision-makers need to develop an understanding of sustainable ingredient sourcing and packaging, while line workers need to understand the impacts of food waste. Purchasing departments can learn to apply life-cycle analysis to develop lists of preferred vendors and positively affect the sustainability of supply chains. HEI investment personnel can learn about combining fiscal, environmental, and social goals in their endowments. These employees will all benefit from understanding institutional sustainability goals and developing KSAOs to address them.

5.4  How to Train so People Learn

87

5.4 How to Train so People Learn An important part of HEI culture is to keep current by attending conferences and workshops and connecting with affinity groups so training opportunities do not have to be created in-house. HEI employees should be encouraged to seek sustainability-­ oriented learning opportunities with their allotted professional development funds. Or it may be possible to earmark a specific pool of funds to support sustainability-­ related professional development. If funds are limited, one path forward is to strategically identify a departmental champion, financially support their conference or workshop attendance, and task them with sharing what they learned with colleagues. These champions are in a good position to influence their peers (Carrico & Riemer, 2011) and can promote additional opportunities for others in the institution (Andersson & Bateman, 2000). Choices about how to proceed with training should be consistent with academic culture, take advantage of existing infrastructure, and optimize learning. When offering in-house training, it is most efficient to leverage preexisting institutional programming. Many HEIs already provide leadership and other kinds of development programs. For example, most HEIs have a “Development Center” that provides programming, resources, incentives for participation, and support for department-specific satellite programs. These centers have a long history of supporting mission-driven changes such as DEI, technology innovation, and global citizenship. They are a natural “hub” for offering sustainability programs. Sustainability-specific content can be introduced through faculty development programming such as learning communities, including reading groups, cross-cutting grants, workshops, and continuing education. Volunteer coordinators can promote opportunities to participate in environmental justice initiatives and engage in personal sustainability projects (Bauer et al., 2012). There is no need to reinvent the wheel when designing content for sustainability training. There are extensive resources available through organizations such as the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE1) and myriad forms of sustainability training used in HEIs. These include online tutorials for creating campus programs, course integration support, curriculum requirements for students, training for peer educators such as student resident assistants, purchasing guides, and more (Levy & Marans, 2012; AASHE, n.d.; Piedmont Project, n.d.). Yet while blueprints for training are widely available, it is the actual implementation that can make or break training effectiveness (see Table 5.3). But just having the right content and identifying the right venue do not guarantee success. Some folks will not want to attend training. For instance, people with an external locus of control might believe that learning new skills is futile because what happens with sustainability is out of their hands (McCarty & Shrum, 2001; Twenge et al., 2004). Others may feel insecure or even anxious about their ability to learn new things (Campbell et  al., 2018). Some  may not believe they need the  https://www.aashe.org/

1

88

5  Developing Current Talent

Table 5.3  Maximizing training outcomes (Kraiger, 2017; Lacerenza et al., 2017) Strategies Needs assessment Attendance

How to maximize the outcome Ensure training aligns with strategic initiatives, is perceived as relevant, and addresses employee needs. Make attendance voluntary so it is consistent with individuals’ need for autonomy; find ways to encourage many to attend (i.e., pair with other opportunities). Administration Have a live (ideally face-to-face) skilled trainer—it is more effective than self-administered training. Spacing Design short sessions over a long time frame to foster best results; too much at once does not translate as easily on the job. Position Coach leaders who may struggle with changing their on-the-job behavior and need to override entrenched behaviors into sustainable ones. Location Deliver on-site training; it is more effective, less expensive, and more sustainable than off-site options. Content Encourage improving interpersonal skills over technical ones as they have a bigger impact on subordinate and institutional behavior change. Practice Prompt active participation like reflection and problem-solving in addition to information-only (why) and demonstration-only (how) methods. Feedback Signal discrepancies between actual and desired performance to encourage meta-cognitive activities that enhance learning, like self-regulation.

training (Colquitt et al., 2000) or that their skill set is malleable (Fisher & Ford, 1998), or they may not take kindly to receiving feedback (London & Smither, 2002). All of these mindsets create barriers to learning and can be identified through pretraining surveys and addressed individually before and during training (e.g., Anselmann, 2022; Creon & Schermuly, 2022). Understanding a bit of cognitive psychology can help diagnose and preempt problems with learning that can reduce training effectiveness. Below are some additional psychological principles that can improve the chances of success when designing and administering training.

5.4.1 Psychological Principles When developing in-house training, it is imperative to design with the learner in mind. There are distinct types of knowledge (Fayol, 1994; Fernández et al., 2003) that should impact how and what is trained. Knowledge is most often thought of as concrete bits of information, such as facts about environmental problems, but this declarative knowledge does not address the whole picture. Procedural knowledge is knowing how to perform an action. While both declarative and procedural knowledge underly behavior change, people are most likely to act when they feel competent, so they must build procedural knowledge in order to feel comfortable carrying out sustainable actions (De Young, 2000; Levy & Marans, 2012). As an illustration, an instructor might try on the fly to

5.4  How to Train so People Learn

89

use a new electronic polling app they saw being used by a peer, only to get stuck in front of the students not being able to find the “publish” button. Despite knowing the basic steps, the process of executing the activity had not been established. In order to learn either type of knowledge, people have to pay attention to, encode, retain, and be able to use the knowledge; learning can break down at any point along the way (Campbell et al., 2018). Attention Attention is a necessary first step. There are many reasons why people do or do not pay attention to training content. Especially relevant to sustainability, if people see the new information as inconsistent with their self-concept, they are unlikely to want to learn it (Colquitt et al., 2000). In other words, knowing the audience matters (Leiserowitz et al., 2021). People want to learn if it focuses on what is meaningful to them. A strategy known as framing, the intentional presentation of information to emphasize specific angles or attributes, highlights the connections between the content and what people value, making the information relevant (Craddock et al., 2012; Hornsey, 2021; Lewis et al., 2021; Van Lange and Huckelba 2021). Having a bit of fun never hurts. Engaging the audience with a poignant opener or funny story, providing concrete examples of successes and failures, and using great graphics and videos to help learners visualize the possibilities are all tried-and-true ways to elicit emotions that grab attention (Brosch, 2021). Fun is encouraged as long as it does not detract attention from the learning goals or devalue the importance of the training (Campbell et al., 2018; Werner, 2013). Goal setting, described in detail in Chap. 7, also can help people focus on the most important aspects of training (Campbell et al., 2018). Encoding Encoding is the next critical juncture; it is the process of connecting new information with previously stored knowledge. This stage can be especially difficult for people without any preexisting understanding, so identifying potential background knowledge that people should be exposed to prior to training can help avoid overwhelming these learners (Perron et al., 2006). Encoding requires effortful processing, which, just as it sounds, can be hard, so some people avoid it. The training should be conducted in such a way that it naturally encourages deeper processing through relevant activities, stories, examples, and case studies. Fortunately, many employees in HEIs actually like effortful thinking since, after all, thinking is a core purpose of these institutions (Paparoidamis et al., 2019). During the encoding stage, learners develop mental models—theories or approximations about how things work. These models can help people adapt knowledge to novel situations, but only if said models are accurate. Accurate mental models can be guided using the aforementioned metaphors or analogies based on familiar

90

5  Developing Current Talent

experiences (e.g., greenhouse gasses act like a “heat-trapping blanket”; Aubrun et al., 2006). In addition, encoding is fostered when learners actively ask questions, generate examples, solve problems, and practice the desired behavior. Retention Remembering can seem straightforward. Though it is more challenging than it appears, memory can be fortified by integrating time-tested practices into training programs, including practice, feedback, and setting intentions. The most effective programs provide opportunities for trainees to actively practice (Kraiger, 2017). People need to practice in order to compile what they are learning, strengthen long-­ term memory, and enhance the ability to retrieve and use what is being learned during training (Werner, 2013). Feedback that is immediate, specific, and behavioral helps people understand what they are doing well and what things they still need to improve (see Chap. 7 for more detail about effective feedback). Periodic online team quizzes (e.g., Kahoot) can provide feedback in a low-stakes environment. Physical activities (e.g., sorting compostables, recycling, and trash) can be a fun way to develop procedural knowledge and obtain immediate feedback. Feedback also is most useful when its recipients are given opportunities to correct their mistakes and improve their performance (Kraiger, 2017). Transfer of Training Employees need to be offered clear opportunities to use what they have learned and be given the resources and the discretion to implement change (Campbell et  al., 2018; Paillé et  al., 2020; Yusop & Adam, 2021). Practices such as obtaining top management support explicitly allowing people to prioritize and commit sufficient time are critical for sustainability work (Disterheft et al., 2015). Regularly reminding people over time (e.g., prompts at the site where behavior is appropriate) can counteract the effects of fading memory, evolving contexts such as new buildings or processes, and new initiatives that compete for brain space (Levy & Marans, 2012; Osbaldiston & Schott, 2012; Putnam-Farr et al., 2023). Many behaviors, including sustainable ones, need to be supported until they become automatic. Many people have experienced committing to reusable shopping bags only to find themselves in the store without them. Since habits, which will be discussed in more detail in Chap. 6, depend on the repeated association between the situation and new behavior, unsustainable habits need to be disrupted to clear the way for new situation-behavior combinations (Lülfs & Hahn, 2014; Neal et  al., 2006; Wiernik et al., 2018). Another strategy is to set implementation intentions that are connected to situational cues (Holland et al., 2006). So when ready to wrap up, it is vital to end any training session with time to set specific intentions like goals, commitments, and

References

91

pledges (Abrahamse & Steg 2013; Blok et al., 2015; Levy & Marans, 2012) as they are the greatest predictor of subsequent employee sustainable behavior (Wiernik et al., 2018). Having people create a specific plan about where, when, and how they will carry out their new intentions will make the likelihood of action even higher.

5.5 Conclusion Like everything in a system, training does not work in isolation. As noted in the next chapter, intentions, habits, and a sense of control are the best predictors of sustainable behavior outside and inside of organizations (Abrahamse & Steg 2013; Wiernik et  al., 2018). What is different about the latter is that employees’ behavior takes place within the context of strong—and sometimes recalcitrant—institutional norms, values, roles, and processes that can either stymie or support their will to act (c.f. Nye & Hargreaves, 2010). Sustainability-supportive social norms and modeling among teams, departments, and leadership are needed to support what has been learned in training (Blok et al., 2015; Campbell et al., 2018; Levy & Marans, 2012; Lülfs & Hahn, 2014; Teixeira et al., 2012; Young et al., 2015). More details about how the situation and individual attributes affect people’s motivation to behave sustainably are covered next.

References AASHE. (n.d.). Resources. AASHE. https://www.aashe.org/resources/ Abrahamse, W., & Steg, L. (2013). Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23(6), 1773–1785. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.029 Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision. Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-­5978(91)90020-­T Amel, E.  L. (2015, October). Effectively integrating environmental issues into social sciences, business, and humanities courses using ecological worldview principles [Paper presentation]. Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education Conference, Minneapolis. Amel, E. L., & Manning, C. M. (2012). Exploring the effectiveness of ecological principles as a method for integrating environmental content into psychology courses. Ecopsychology, 4(2), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2012.0034 Andersson, L.  M., & Bateman, T.  S. (2000). Individual environmental initiative: Championing natural environmental issues in U.S. business organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 548–570. Anselmann, S. (2022). Learning barriers at the workplace: Development and validation of a measurement instrument. Frontiers in Education, 7, 880778. https://doi.org/10.3389/ feduc.2022.880778 Aubrun, A., Brown, A., & Grady, J. (2006). Conceptualizing US food systems with simplifying models: Findings from Talk Back Testing. Frameworks Institute. https://www.frameworksinstitute.org/wp-­content/uploads/2020/05/foodSystems.pdf

92

5  Developing Current Talent

Babakri, K. A., Bennett, R. A., & Franchetti, M. (2003). Critical factors for implementing ISO 14001 standard in United States industrial companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11(7), 749–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-­6526(02)00146-­4 Bartlett, P. W., Popov, M., & Ruppert, J. (2020). Integrating core sustainability meta-­competencies and SDGs across the silos in curriculum and professional development. In G.  Nhamo & V.  Mjimba (Eds.), Sustainable development goals and institutions of higher education (pp. 71–85). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­26157-­3_6 Bauer, T.  N., & Erdogan, B. (2011). Organizational socialization: The effective onboarding of new employees. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 3. Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization (pp. 51–64). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12171-­002 Bauer, T.  N., & Erdogan, B. (2012). Organizational socialization outcomes: Now and into the future. In C.  R. Wanberg (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organizational socialization (pp. 97–112). Oxford University Press. Bauer, T.  N., Erdogan, B., & Taylor, S.  M. (2012). Creating and maintaining environmentally sustainable organizations: Recruitment and onboarding. In S.  E. Jackson, D.  S. Ones, & S. Dilchert (Eds.), Managing human resources for environmental sustainability. Jossey-Bass. Blanco-Portela, N., Benayas, J., Pertierra, L. R., & Lozano, R. (2017). Towards the integration of sustainability in higher education institutions: A review of drivers of and barriers to organisational change and their comparison against those found of companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 563–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.252 Blok, V., Wesselink, R., Studynka, O., & Kemp, R. (2015). Encouraging sustainability in the workplace: A survey on the pro-environmental behaviour of university employees. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.063 Bratton, A., & Bratton, J. (2015). Human resource management approaches. In J. L. Robertson & J. Barling (Eds.), The psychology of green organizations (pp. 275–295). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199997480.003.0012 Brosch, T. (2021). Affect and emotions as drivers of climate change perception and action: A review. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cobeha.2021.02.001 Burns, H. L. (2015). Transformative sustainability pedagogy: Learning from ecological systems and indigenous wisdom. Journal of Transformative Education, 13(3), 259–276. https://doi. org/10.1177/1541344615584683 Cable, D. M., Gino, F., & Staats, B. R. (2013a). Reinventing employee onboarding. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54(3), 23. Cable, D. M., Gino, F., & Staats, B. R. (2013b). Breaking them in or eliciting their best? Reframing socialization around newcomers’ authentic self-expression. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839213477098 Cabral, C., & Dhar, R.  L. (2019). Green competencies: Construct development and measurement validation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 235, 887–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2019.07.014 Campbell, J. P., Kuncel, N. R., & Kostal, J. W. (2018). Training and learning in work roles. In D. S. Ones, N. Anderson, C. Viswesvaran, & H. K. Sinangil (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of industrial, work & organizational psychology: Personnel psychology and employee performance (pp. 533–610). Sage Reference. Carmi, N., Arnon, S., & Orion, N. (2015). Seeing the forest as well as the trees: General vs. specific predictors of environmental behavior. Environmental Education Research, 21(7), 1011–1028. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2014.949626 Carrico, A.  R., & Riemer, M. (2011). Motivating energy conservation in the workplace: An evaluation of the use of group-level feedback and peer education. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.11.004 Cavaleri, S., & Sterman, J. D. (1997). Towards evaluation of systems-thinking interventions: A case study. System Dynamics Review, 13(2), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-­1727 (199722)13:2%3C171::AID-­SDR123%3E3.0.CO;2-­9

References

93

Cesário, F., & Chambel, M.  J. (2019). On-boarding new employees: A three-component perspective of welcoming. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 27(5), 1465–1479. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-­08-­2018-­1517 Cheffen, J. E. (2017). Onboarding and staying: Experiences of faculty of color at a midwestern community college [Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University]. Cialdini, R. B., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitude and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 32(1), 357–404. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.002041 Cohen, E., Taylor, S., & Muller-Camen, M. (2010). HRM’s role in corporate social responsibility and sustainability. Society for Human Resource Management. https://www.shrm.org/ hr-­today/trends-­and-­forecasting/special-­reports-­and-­expert-­views/Documents/Corporate-­ Social-­Environmental-­Sustainability.pdf Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 678–707. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-­9010.85.5.678 Composto, J. W., Constantino, S. M., & Weber, E. U. (2023). Predictors and consequences of pro-­ environmental behavior at work. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology, 4, 100107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cresp.2023.100107 Craddock, E.  B., Huffman, A.  H., & Henning, J.  B. (2012). Taming the dragon: How industrial–organizational psychologists can break barriers to “green” business. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(4), 484–487. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-­9434.2012.01483.x CRED. (2009). The psychology of climate change communication: A guide for scientists, journalists, educators, political aids, and the interested public. https://coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/psychology-­climate-­change-­communication.pdf Creon, L. E., & Schermuly, C. C. (2022). A new path to training transfer: Transformational trainers and psychologically empowered training participants. International Journal of Training and Development, 26(2), 228–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12256 Darrah, C. N. (1995). Workplace training, workplace learning: A case study. Human Organization, 54(1), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.54.1.b157846883363978 De Young, R. (2000). New ways to promote proenvironmental behavior: Expanding and evaluating motives for environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 509–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-­4537.00181 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­1-­4899-­2271-­7 del Brío, J. A. & Junquera, B. (2003). A review of the literature on environmental innovation management in SMEs: Implications for public policies. Technovation, 23(12), 939–948. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0166-4972(02)00036-6  Dierdorff, E. C., Norton, J. J., Drewes, D. W., Kroustalis, C. M., Rivkin, D., & Lewis, P. (2009). Greening of the world of work: Implications for O* NET®-SOC and new and emerging occupations. National Center for O*NET Development. https://www.onetcenter.org/dl_files/ Green.pdf Disterheft, A., Azeiteiro, U.  M., Filho, W.  L., & Caeiro, S. (2015). Participatory processes in sustainable universities  – What to assess? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 16(5), 748–771. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-­05-­2014-­0079 Donmez-Turan, A., & Kiliclar, I. E. (2021). The analysis of pro-environmental behaviour based on ecological worldviews, environmental training/knowledge and goal frames. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, 123518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123518 DuBois, C. L. Z., Astakhova, M. N., & DuBois, D. A. (2013). Motivating behavior change to support organizational environmental sustainability goals. In A. H. Huffman & S. R. Klein (Eds.), Green organizations: Driving change with IO psychology (pp. 186–207). Routledge. Eagly, A.  H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Ellis, A. M., Nifadkar, S. S., Bauer, T. N., & Erdogan, B. (2017). Newcomer adjustment: Examining the role of managers’ perception of newcomer proactive behavior during organizational socialization.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(6), 993–1001. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000201

94

5  Developing Current Talent

Engle, E. W., Barsom, S. H., Vandenbergh, L., Sterner, G. E., & Alter, T. R. (2017). Developing a framework for sustainability meta-competencies. International Journal of Higher Education and Sustainability, 1(4), 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJHES.2017.090204 Fayol, M. (1994). From declarative and procedural knowledge to the management of declarative and procedural knowledge. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 9(3), 179–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172778 Fenwick, T. (2007). Developing organizational practices of ecological sustainability: A learning perspective. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(7), 632–645. https://doi. org/10.1108/01437730710823888 Fernández, E., Junquera, B., & Ordiz, M. (2003). Organizational culture and human resources in the environmental issue: A review of the literature. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(4), 634–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958519032000057628 Fisher, S. L., & Ford, J. K. (1998). Differential effects of learner effort and goal orientation on two learning outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 51(2), 397–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744­6570.1998.tb00731.x Goldstein, I.  L. (1980). Training in work organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 31(1), 229–272. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.001305 Gollwitzer, P. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-­066X.54.7.493 Häger, A., Little, M., Amel, E., & Calderón, G. (2021). Transformation toward sustainability on a costa Rican coffee farm: Environmental, socioeconomic, and psychological perspectives. Case Studies in the Environment, 5(1), 1227777. https://doi.org/10.1525/cse.2021.1227777 Hale, M. (1995). Training for environmental technologies and environmental management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 3(1-2), 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-­6526(95)00060-­R Harvey, G., Williams, K., & Probert, J. (2013). Greening the airline pilot: HRM and the green performance of airlines in the UK. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(1), 152–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.669783 Hesselbarth, C., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Educating change agents for sustainability–learnings from the first sustainability management master of business administration. Journal of Cleaner Production, 62, 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.042 Hines, J.  M., Hungerford, H.  R., & Tomera, A.  N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482 Hitchcock, D. E., & Willard, M. L. (2009). The business guide to sustainability: Practical strategies and tools for organizations. Routledge. Holland, R. W., Aarts, H., & Langendam, D. (2006). Breaking and creating habits on the working floor: A field-experiment on the power of implementation intentions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(6), 776–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.11.006 Hong, W. (2020). Build it and they will come: The faculty learning community approach to infusing the curriculum with sustainability content. In G. Nhamo & V. Mjimba (Eds.), Sustainable development goals and institutions of higher education (pp.  49–60). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­26157-­3_4 Hornsey, M. J. (2021). The role of worldviews in shaping how people appraise climate change. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.021 Kohl, K. (2022). Driving justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. Auerbach Publications. Kraiger, K. (2017). Training from an organizational psychology perspective. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.33 Kraut, A.  I. (1976). Developing managerial skills via modeling techniques: Some positive research findings—A symposium. Personnel Psychology, 29(3), 325–328. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1744-­6570.1976.tb00415.x Lacerenza, C. N., Reyes, D. L., Marlow, S. L., Joseph, D. L., & Salas, E. (2017). Leadership training design, delivery, and implementation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(12), 1686–1718. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000241

References

95

Lambrechts, W., Verhulst, E., & Rymenams, S. (2017). Professional development of sustainability competences in higher education: The role of empowerment. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18(5), 697–714. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJSHE-­02-­2016-­0028 Lans, T., Blok, V., & Wesselink, R. (2014). Learning apart and together: Towards an integrated competence framework for sustainable entrepreneurship in higher education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 62, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.036 Laursen, K., & Foss, N. J. (2003). New human resource management practices, complementarities and the impact on innovation performance. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 27(2), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/27.2.243 Leiserowitz, A., Roser-Renouf, C., Marlon, J., & Maibach, E. (2021). Global warming’s six Americas: A review and recommendations for climate change communication. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.04.007 Leone, K., Davis, S., Velasquez, C., & Nagle-Roides, K. (2021). Creating a culture of sustainability: Organizational strategies and employee training. In K. Leone, S. Komisar, & M. Edwin III (Eds.), Making the sustainable university: Trials and tribulations (pp.  45–61). Springer Nature). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­981-­33-­4477-­8_4 Levy, B. L. M., & Marans, R. W. (2012). Towards a campus culture of environmental sustainability: Recommendations for a large university. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13(4), 365–377. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371211262317 Lewis, N. A., Green, D. J., Duker, A., & Onyeador, I. N. (2021). Not seeing eye to eye: Challenges to building ethnically and economically diverse environmental coalitions. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 60–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.025 Lockhart, R.  S., Craik, F.  I. M., & Jacoby, L.  L. (1976). Depth of processing, recognition and recall: Some aspects of a general memory system. In J. Brown (Ed.), Recall and recognition (pp. 75–102). Wiley. London, M., & Smither, J. W. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process. Human Resource Management Review, 12(1), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-­4822(01)00043-­2 Lülfs, R., & Hahn, R. (2014). Sustainable behavior in the business sphere: A comprehensive overview of the explanatory power of psychological models. Organization & Environment, 27(1), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026614522631 Macy, J. R., & Brown, M. Y. (2008). Coming back to life: The updated guide to the work that reconnects. New Society Publishers. McCarty, J. A., & Shrum, L. J. (2001). The influence of individualism, collectivism, and locus of control on environmental beliefs and behavior. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 20(1), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.20.1.93.17291 Meadows, D.  H. (1999). Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system. Donella Meadows Archives.. https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-ina-system/ Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Earthscan. Nattrass, B., & Altomare, M. (1999). The natural step for business: Wealth, ecology and the evolutionary corporation. New Society Publishers. Neal, D. T., Wood, W., & Quinn, J. M. (2006). Habits—A repeat performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(4), 198–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­8721.2006.00435.x Northwest Earth Institute. (2014). Seeing systems: Peace, justice & sustainability. Ecochallenge. Nye, M., & Hargreaves, T. (2010). Exploring the social dynamics of proenvironmental behavior change: A comparative study of intervention processes at home and work. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14(1), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-­9290.2009.00193.x Orr, D.  W. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world. SUNY Press. Osbaldiston, R., & Schott, J.  P. (2012). Environmental sustainability and behavioral science: Meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environment and Behavior, 44(2), 257–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511402673

96

5  Developing Current Talent

Paillé, P., Valéau, P., & Renwick, D.  W. (2020). Leveraging green human resource practices to achieve environmental sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 260, 121137. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121137 Paparoidamis, N. G., Tran, T. T. H., Leonidou, L. C., & Zeriti, A. (2019). Being innovative while being green: An experimental inquiry into how consumers respond to eco-innovative product designs. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(6), 824–847. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jpim.12509 Perron, G.  M., Côté, R.  P., & Duffy, J.  F. (2006). Improving environmental awareness training in business. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(6-7), 551–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2005.07.006 Petzer, D. J., Kleyn, N. S., & Ruiters, M. (2021). Inclusive onboarding in academic departments. In A. Lindgreen, A. Irwin, F. Poulfelt, & T. U. Thomsen (Eds.), How to lead academic departments successfully (pp. 164–180). Edward Elgar. Piedmont Project. (n.d.). About the Piedmont project. Emory University. http://piedmont.emory. edu/about/index.html Pitman, S. D., & Daniels, C. B. (2016). Quantifying ecological literacy in an adult western community: The development and application of a new assessment tool and community standard. PLoS One, 11(3), e0150648. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150648 Potgieter, I., Basson, J., & Coetzee, M. (2011). Management competencies for the development of heads of department in the higher education context: A literature overview. South African Journal of Labour Relations, 35(1), 81–103. Pratarelli, M., & Johnson, S. (2012). Exploring the paradox in Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons”: A conservation psychology classroom exercise. Ecopsychology, 4(2), 158–165. https://doi. org/10.1089/eco.2012.0015 Puk, T.  G., & Stibbards, A. (2012). Systemic ecological illiteracy? Shedding light on meaning as an act of thought in higher learning. Environmental Education Research, 18(3), 353–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.622840 Putnam-Farr, E., Dhar, R., Gorlin, M., Upritchard, J., Hatzis, M., & Bakker, M. (2023). Forgot your bottle or bag again? How well-placed reminder cues can help consumers build sustainable habits. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 8(3), 264–275. https://doi. org/10.1086/725110 Ramus, C.  A. (2002). Encouraging innovative environmental actions: What companies and managers must do. Journal of World Business, 37(2), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1090-­9516(02)00074-­3 Ramus, C. A., & Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in employee “Ecoinitiatives” at leading-edge European companies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 605–626. Renwick, D. W. S., Redman, T., & Maguire, S. (2013). Green human resource management: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-­2370.2011.00328.x Rimanoczy, I., & Pearson, T. (2010). Role of HR in the new world of sustainability. Industrial and Commercial Training, 42(1), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197851011013661 Ro, C. (2022, March 1). How climate change is re-shaping the way Gen Z works. BBC. https:// www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220225-­how-­climate-­change-­is-­re-­shaping-­the-­way-­gen-­z-­ works?utm_source=pocket-­newtab Sammalisto, K., & Brorson, T. (2008). Training and communication in the implementation of environmental management systems (ISO 14001): A case study at the University of Gävle, Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(3), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2006.07.029 Sommer, R. (2023). Onboarding. In S.  Johnstone, J.  K. Rodriguez, & A.  Wilkinson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of human resource management (pp. 283–284). Edward Elgar. Staniforth, D., & Harland, T. (2006). Contrasting views of induction. Active Learning in Higher Education, 7(2), 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787406064753

References

97

Stefanelli, N. O., Teixeira, A. A., De Oliveira, J. H. C., Ferreira, M. A., & Sehnem, S. (2019). Environmental training: A systematic review of the state of the art of the theme. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 27(7), 2048–2076. https://doi.org/10.1108/ BIJ-­12-­2018-­0449 Steingraber, S. (2010). Living downstream: An ecologist’s personal investigation of cancer and the environment (2nd ed.). Da Capo Press. Sterman, J. D. (2008). Risk communication on climate: Mental models and mass balance. Science, 322(5901), 532–533. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1162574 Subramanian, N., Abdulrahman, M. D., Wu, L., & Nath, P. (2016). Green competence framework: Evidence from China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(2), 151–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1047394 Teixeira, A.  A., Jabbour, C.  J. C., & de Sousa Jabbour, A.  B. L. (2012). Relationship between green management and environmental training in companies located in Brazil: A theoretical framework and case studies. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 318–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.009 Teixeira, A.  A., Jabbour, C.  J. C., de Sousa Jabbour, A.  B. L., Latan, H., & de Oliveira, J.  H. C. (2016). Green training and green supply chain management: Evidence from Brazilian firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 116, 170–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2015.12.061 Temper, L., del Bene, D., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2015). Mapping the frontiers and front lines of global environmental justice: The EJAtlas. Journal of Political Ecology, 22, 255–278. https:// journals.librarypublishing.arizona.edu/jpe/article/id/1932/ Thibodeau, P. H., Winneg, A., Frantz, C., & Flusberg, S. J. (2016). The mind is an ecosystem: Systemic metaphors promote systems thinking. Metaphor and the Social World, 6(2), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.6.2.03thi Thomas, I. (2004). Sustainability in tertiary curricula: What is stopping it happening? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 5(1), 33–47. https://doi. org/10.1108/14676370410517387 Torpey, E. (2018). Green growth: Employment projections in environmentally focused occupations. US Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2018/data-­on-­display/ green-­growth.htm Twenge, J. M., Zhang, L., & Im, C. (2004). It’s beyond my control: A cross-temporal meta-­analysis of increasing externality in  locus of control, 1960-2002. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_5 Van Lange, P. A. M., & Huckelba, A. L. (2021). Psychological distance: How to make climate change less abstract and closer to the self. Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 49–53. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.03.011 Venselaar, J. (1995). Environmental training: Industrial needs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 3(1–2), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-­6526(95)00030-­I Werner, C. M. (2013). Designing interventions that encourage permanent changes in behavior. In A. H. Huffman & S. R. Klein (Eds.), Green organizations: Driving change with IO psychology (pp. 208–230). Routledge. Wesselink, R., Blok, V., van Leur, S., Lans, T., & Dentoni, D. (2015). Individual competencies for managers engaged in corporate sustainable management practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 497–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.093 Wiernik, B.  M., Ones, D.  S., Dilchert, S., & Klein, R.  M. (2018). Individual antecedents of pro-environmental behaviours: Implications for employee green behaviours. In V. K. Wells, D. Gregory-Smith, & D. Manika (Eds.), Research handbook on employee pro-environmental behaviour (pp. 63–82). Edward Elgar. Williams, A., Kennedy, S., Philipp, F., & Whiteman, G. (2017). Systems thinking: A review of sustainability management research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 148, 866–881. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.002

98

5  Developing Current Talent

Wolske, K.  S., & Stern, P.  C. (2018). Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change: Opportunities through consumer behavior. In S.  Clayton & C.  Manning (Eds.), Psychology and climate change: Human perceptions, impacts, and responses (pp.  127–160). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­12-­813130-­5.00007-­2 Yong, J.  Y., Yusliza, M.  Y., & Fawehinmi, O.  O. (2020). Green human resource management: A systematic literature review from 2007 to 2019. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 27(7), 2005–2027. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-­12-­2018-­0438 Young, W., Davis, M., McNeill, I.  M., Malhotra, B., Russell, S., Unsworth, K., & Clegg, C. W. (2015). Changing behaviour: Successful environmental programmes in the workplace. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(8), 689–703. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1836 Yusop, H. M., & Adam, A. A. (2021). Forty shades of pro-environmental behaviour at the workplace: A systematic literature review from 2009 to 2019. International Journal of Business and Economy, 3(2), 77–114. Zacher, H., Rudolph, C.  W., & Katz, I.  M. (2023). Employee green behavior as the core of environmentally sustainable organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 465–494. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-­orgpsych-­120920-­050421 Zeng, S. X., Tam, C. M., Tam, V. W. Y., & Deng, Z. M. (2005). Towards implementation of ISO 14001 environmental management systems in selected industries in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(7), 645–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.12.009 Zepeda Quintana, D. S., Esquer, J., & Munguía, N. (2022). Factors that hinder the implementation of sustainability initiatives in higher education institutions. The Wiley Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education Learning and Teaching, 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119852858.ch5 Zibarras, L. D., & Coan, P. (2015). HRM practices used to promote pro-environmental behavior: A UK survey. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(16), 2121–2142. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.972429 Zutshi, A., & Sohal, A. S. (2004). Adoption and maintenance of environmental management systems: Critical success factors. Management of Environmental Quality, 15(4), 399–419. https:// doi.org/10.1108/14777830410540144

Chapter 6

Unpacking Motivation

We tend to assume that what motivates us motivates others too. But while humans do tend to share some basic psychological needs that drive behavior, motivation is far more complex and plays out differently in each person. Understanding different internal and external sources can help enhance motivation—what people choose to do, how intensely they do it, and how long they persist (Campbell & Prichard, 1976; Kanfer et al., 2008; Mitchell & Daniels, 2003). A big question accompanies the transformational work we need to do—what happens to motivation when people are asked to change their behaviors? The short answer is: it depends. If the work makes us feel isolated and out of control or stresses us out, then we may avoid it like the plague. Alternatively, if we can choose how to change, and feel supported, changing might not be so bad after all.

6.1 Internal Forces 6.1.1 Basic Human Needs Aligning work with people’s needs can positively influence their desire to act. There are a myriad of ways to categorize basic human needs (e.g., Maslow, 1943). This chapter focuses on the three basic needs that consistently predict human flourishing: competence, relatedness, and autonomy (Church et al., 2013; Deci & Ryan, 1985). Competence Competence is the need to feel proficient with requisite skills for accomplishing tasks. As described in Chap. 3, employees of Institutions for Higher Education (HEIs) have a high degree of specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities (Blom © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. L. Amel et al., Fostering Sustainability in Higher Education, Psychology and Our Planet, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50555-3_6

99

100

6  Unpacking Motivation

et al., 2020). Faculty, for instance, are top experts in their respective fields. As such, though, they generally don’t feel comfortable teaching content outside of their expertise (Blanco-Portela et  al., 2017). HEIs can cultivate sustainability competency by providing development opportunities, which we described in detail in Chap. 5 (see Table  6.1; Ferrer-Balas et  al., 2008; Tokarz & Malinowska, 2019; Unsworth & Tian, 2018; Zibarras & Coan, 2015). Relatedness Relatedness, or a sense of being socially connected, affiliated with groups, or associated with those we admire, is a need that can be fulfilled by a variety of relationships within an HEI, including the sense of community that can emerge in departments (Den Hartog et al., 2007; Rupp et al., 2006). HEIs can foster relatedness by providing gathering opportunities for like-minded colleagues to work together on sustainability initiatives (see Table 6.1; Endrejat & Kauffeld, 2018). Autonomy Autonomy is the need to feel one has some say in what, when, and how to do their work. This sense of autonomy can be enhanced when employees believe they can choose from a variety of sustainability opportunities (Webb et  al., 2013; Zacher et al., 2023). Providing actual opportunities and resources to act are the most valuable strategies for impacting employees’ sustainable work behavior, especially for staff who tend to be part of a more structured hierarchy (see Table 6.1; Blom et al., 2020; Ferrer-Balas et al., 2008). Much of the work of sustainability requires collaboration, and the role of autonomy in the context of group work is a bit more complex. Individual autonomy can reduce the cohesiveness of groups in which people depend on one another to get their work done. In this case, a sense of autonomy can be fostered at the group level, leading to higher levels of group performance (Grant & Parker, 2009). Table 6.1  Examples of how HEIs can foster need fulfillment Needs Sustainability examples Competence Provide training and opportunities to learn from people who are sustainability experts. Conferences, conventions, and webinars can be appealing ways to enhance sustainability competence. Bring sustainability experts to speak at regularly scheduled events such as institutional Lunch & Learn sessions or departmental meetings. Relatedness Participatory interventions, such as structured sustainability strategic planning workshops, provide social opportunities by engaging workers in goal setting and decision-making. Autonomy Authorize each departmental administrative assistant to identify and purchase more sustainable supplies (e.g., tree-free paper, printer cartridges, bicycle-­ delivered coffee).

101

6.1  Internal Forces

Self-Determination When the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are met, it leads to a heightened sense of being in control of one’s situation. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) suggests that through fulfilling these three needs, humans naturally strive to learn, grow, and be mentally healthy. Certain situations either support or impede this healthy development, resulting in different motivational states (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Graves et  al., 2013; see Fig.  6.1). SDT describes a spectrum of motivation with amotivation at the low end, which occurs when environments such as the workplace stifle need fulfillment. In the middle is extrinsic motivation, which is when external factors such as incentives (e.g., money or praise) nudge people to act. At the high end is intrinsic motivation, which occurs when the environment fully supports competence, relatedness, and autonomy (Howard et al., 2017). Intrinsic motivation is an instinctive drive to engage on our own terms in situations that are novel, interesting, valuable, or challenging. Intrinsic motivation is associated with psychological health (e.g., joy, satisfaction) and leads to sustained, highly engaged action (Ryan & Deci, 2000). HEI employees who have chosen their occupation because of their values, their interest in discovering new knowledge, or their desire to serve the next generation exhibit high intrinsic motivation (Blom et al., 2020; Cerasoli et al., 2014). When workers engage in sustainable behaviors of their own choosing that relate to their specific abilities and are provided social support, sustainable efforts become a reality (Delmas & Pekovic, 2018; Gagné & Deci, 2005; Graves et al., 2013). In contrast, amotivation generally results in no action whatsoever. Although they appear similar, extrinsically motivated people act in line with their values because of external rewards such as social approval, while intrinsically motivated people choose to act according to their values no matter the situational consequences. This difference has significant implications for persistence. People are more likely to maintain sustainable behaviors when reinforcers are intrinsic (e.g., Bateman & Barry, 2012; Leiserowitz et al., 2009; Steinhorst & Klöckner, 2018). When external rewards disappear, extrinsically motivated behavior tends to disappear too. what am i acting on? . indifference . lack of control . no value alignment . hopelessness

. monetary gain . social recognition . signal capabilities . norms

. curiosity . enjoyment . develop skills . personal interest

amotivation

extrinsic motivation

intrinsic motivation

Fig. 6.1  Spectrum of motivation (inspired by Ryan & Deci, 2000)

102

6  Unpacking Motivation

The type of behavior also influences the likelihood it is completed. When actions require very little time, energy, or resources, people tend to perform them regardless of whether motivation comes from within or from external rewards. In contrast, people are unlikely to tackle difficult actions, such as educating themselves about sustainability, unless they are intrinsically motivated (Aitken et al., 2016). Because of the especially high challenge associated with sustainability, facilitating intrinsic motivation by supporting autonomy, relatedness, and competence needs is crucial to shifting people’s behavior (Darner, 2014). Understanding differing levels of self-­ determined motivation can help design effective strategies for mobilizing action throughout an HEI (see Table 6.2). Needs are so deeply embedded in our nature that most of the time we don’t even know they are operating. Yet, humans do have the capacity to decide whether or not to act. In other words, much behavior is also substantially influenced by deliberate thinking. How we perceive external factors, including whether we have control over a situation, whether behavior is rewarded or punished, and if it is consistent with social expectations, has incredible influence on behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Table 6.2  Connecting needs to HEI support Most to least motivated employee Needed support Intrinsically motivated Reduce barriers such as micromanagement and rigid procedures, allowing people to freely pursue their ideas. Value sustainability, Provide connection through social yet seek social status networks, especially to those they admire. Support sustainability, Make emerging social norms and yet do not find work policies transparent and salient. interesting Motivated by instructions and external rewards Feel no control over environment (external locus of control) Believe that personal ability is lacking No connection between values and HEI vision

Make sustainability visible in performance goals and evaluation. Reduce risks through clear rewards and punishment.

Expected results These innovators will inspire others.

These early adopters will use their networks to make sustainable behavior visible. This group, part of the early majority, will become the critical mass that defines the new norm, creating momentum. This group may eventually join in for their personal benefit.

This group, part of the late majority, tends to behave sustainably to avoid negative consequences. Boost self-efficacy through training This group lags behind all others and encouragement. but may join once they feel competent. Ignore if small enough group. This group may or may not join If a larger or more influential group, in; they may leave. connect vision with individual values through framing.

Adapted from DuBois et al. (2013)

6.1  Internal Forces

103

6.1.2 Deliberate Choices Intentions are the best predictor of conscious sustainable behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Armitage & Conner, 2001; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1977), so the natural next question is how can we positively impact intentions to behave sustainably? According to the Theory of Planned Behavior, a variety of perceptions—namely, attitudes, subjective norms, and control—combine to influence sustainable behavior intentions (Abrahamse & Steg, 2011; Bamberg & Möser, 2007; Klöckner, 2013; Morren & Grinstein, 2016; Yuriev et al., 2020). HEIs can influence these perceptions (Blok et al., 2015). Attitudes Attitudes are positive or negative evaluative judgments regarding things, situations, or behaviors (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Judge et al., 2017). In HEIs, sustainability attitudes might include how employees think and feel about, and then form intentions toward, behaviors such as replacing flights with videoconferencing or using gray water for watering flowers and pavement cleaning (Tusiime et al., 2022). While helpful, having a positive attitude doesn’t necessarily lead to sustainable behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1977). This attitude-behavior gap, or inconsistency between peoples’ thoughts, feelings, and actual behavior, can be explained in part by social norms and perceptions of control, as well as real-world barriers (Katz et al., 2022). Subjective Norms The perceived expected behaviors in one’s culture or group, termed subjective norms, are powerful drivers of behavior (Cialdini & Jacobson, 2021; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1977; Park & Smith, 2007). As described in Chap. 2, norms are part of the broader institutional culture and are communicated and maintained by co-­workers— especially in teams (Schneider et  al., 2013). A faculty member might think, for example, “my collaborators believe that meeting in-person rather than Zooming is essential for finishing our project.” A robust body of research demonstrates that subjective norms impact co-worker sustainable behavior (Blok et al., 2015; Greaves et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2014; Lo et al., 2012; Norton et al., 2015; Siero et al., 1989). Behavioral Control Behavioral control is the belief that one is able to choose what to do, highlighting not only the context of an action but also its cost (Ajzen, 2002). When a behavior is high cost in time or effort, people perceive less behavioral control and, consequently, are less likely to establish sustainability intentions (Diekmann & Preisendörfer,

6  Unpacking Motivation

104

2003). While behavioral control is a perception, it can reflect real constraints such as task difficulty and inconvenience (Greaves et al., 2013; Lo et al., 2012; Lülfs & Hahn, 2014; Madden et al., 1992; Zacher et al., 2023). For instance, it is currently much harder to locate information about the sustainability of office supplies than it is to find details about price, style, or extra features. Thinking about attitudes, norms, and perceived control in combination illuminates why our behaviors often contradict our own attitudes and social norms: even if one wants to be sustainable, and it is socially acceptable to do so, it is not always possible due to low levels of real, or perceived, control. In other words, when the going gets tough, attitudes are not enough to ensure the translation of intentions into behavior (Stern, 2005). When a person has a sense of control, they are more likely to seek out information and try new things, whereas a lack of control is related to stress (Davis & Coan, 2015; Stouten et al., 2018). Unfortunately, when at work, employees tend to have less control than in their private lives (Norton et al., 2015). To combat this, HEIs need to design interventions that improve sustainability-related perceived control (see Table  6.3; Katz et  al., 2022; Steinmetz et  al., 2016). Especially if barriers cannot be removed, HEIs can highlight normative information and enhance positive attitudes to increase sustainability intentions (see Table 6.3; Werner, 2013). Intentions are not the whole story, however. Situational factors have the power to promote, or stymie, sustainable behavior.

Table 6.3  HEI interventions that can increase sustainability intentions Psychological concept Attitudes: positive or negative evaluative judgments regarding things, situations, or behaviors Subjective norms: perceived expected behaviors in one’s culture or group

Sustainability interventions Enhance positive attitudes about sustainable work through faculty and staff workshops.

Behavioral control: believing that one is capable in a situation and that the behavior comes at a reasonable cost

Support sustainable purchasing behavior through improved infrastructure such as “sustainable buying guides”.

Model sustainable action such as hosting “bike-to-work” Fridays; Regularly highlight sustainability champions across the institution.

Further reading Cialdini et al. (1981) Blok et al. (2015) Boiral et al. (2015) Greaves et al. (2013) Kraut (1976) Blok et al. (2015) Boiral et al. (2015)

6.2  Situational Forces

105

6.2 Situational Forces All workplace situations include contingencies, external forces that affect the behavior of individuals in that particular context. Contingencies include antecedents, cues that precede behavior, and consequences, outcomes that reward or punish. In HEIs, workplace contingencies include structural features such as physical spaces (e.g., office design), policies (e.g., purchasing criteria), and incentives (e.g., merit pay; Leung & Rosenthal, 2019), which were described in more detail in Chap. 2. Contingencies are also social, including communication and setting an example, referred to as modeling, between administrators, colleagues, groups, departments, and students (Leung & Rosenthal, 2019). And although contingencies can create or maintain destructive actions, they can be adjusted to motivate more sustainable behaviors (Geller, 1987).

6.2.1 Antecedents Appropriate infrastructure such as recycling bins, bicycle racks, and subsidized bus passes, is a critical prerequisite for behavior (Young et al., 2015). Each situation provides a variety of additional antecedent stimuli, such as information, modeling, prompts, and defaults, that cue behavior (see Table 6.4). Providing basic information, for instance, through posters and flyers, is best suited for increasing easy behaviors with few barriers to implementation (Steg & Vlek, 2009). As well, people gather much information about how to behave by watching and imitating what others do (Boiral et al., 2015; Craddock et al., 2012; Taylor et al., 2005; Young et al., 2015). This modeling by others is especially influential when situations are unfamiliar or ambiguous (Bandura, 1977). Importantly, people are most likely to copy the behaviors displayed by members of relevant, respected, and immediate reference groups, such as colleagues in their own department or academic field (Carrico & Riemer, 2011; Endrejat & Kauffeld, 2018). Prompts trigger appropriate behavior at the point when action is needed. Prompts such as a simple image, word, or phrase that remind people of their long-term Table 6.4  Examples of antecedents to increase sustainable behavior in HEIs Antecedent type Information Modeling Prompts Green defaults

HEI-specific example Send an email announcement to explain organizational policies like new tree-free paper purchasing or instituting electronic forms Invite the chancellor to lead the ride on bike-to-work Fridays Create reminders at the point where behavior begins, such as reducing napkin use at the dispenser To save paper resources, set electronic forms as the default for everything from purchasing to declaring a major

106

6  Unpacking Motivation

sustainability goals can compel behavior without the need for conscious intentions (Austin et al., 1993; Papies, 2016; Unsworth et al., 2013; Werner, 2013). Prompts have earned some of the strongest empirical support for their impact on sustainable behaviors, especially when used in combination with supplemental contingency techniques such as feedback (Osbaldiston & Schott, 2012). The chances of translating intentions into actions can also be enhanced by creating polite, specific, and well-placed reminders to trigger intended behaviors (Lehman & Geller, 2004; Sussman & Gifford, 2012). Green defaults make sustainability the pre-set option unless people deliberately opt out (Sunstein & Reisch, 2013). For instance, institutional printers can be set to automatically print double sided (United Nations Environmental Programme, 2017). To support autonomy, employees can still choose the less sustainable option, in this case printing single sided. This extra step, however, is likely to deter most people from going that route. Configuring options to make sustainability the default eliminates the need for individuals to effortfully consider the consequences of every action; if no choice is made, the most sustainable option prevails.

6.2.2 Consequences Every behavior has consequences, some which drive people to repeat that behavior and others which entice them to try something different the next time around. Rewarding consequences, called reinforcers, strengthen or increase the likelihood of a behavior. If generating creative ideas during an invigorating bike ride to work leads to a better marketing plan, biking to work becomes more likely in the future. In contrast, punishers are unpleasant and thus reduce the probability of repeating that behavior, like being soggy after a rainy bike ride to work. Currently, most unsustainable behaviors are rewarded by valued outcomes such as efficiency, social status, comfort, and financial incentives, whereas sustainable behaviors are not. In fact, some of the consequences of sustainable behaviors may even be punishing, for example, if investigating the sustainability bona fides of a vendor delays a purchase. It is important to understand that whether a particular consequence is reinforcing or punishing depends on how the situation is interpreted by an individual. Of course, some sustainable actions are not likely to be inherently fulfilling. These are good targets for encouraging behavior through incentives—as are situations in which compliance is necessary, when stakes are particularly high (Cerasoli et  al., 2014; Norton et  al., 2015), or for longer timelines (Avissar et  al., 2018). Incentives can also help people innovate when under strain (Delmas & Pekovic, 2018). When rewards are consistent with an organization’s sustainability commitments, they are perceived as organizational support, which helps employees see that their behavior matters and inspires reciprocation in the form of employee engagement

6.2  Situational Forces

107

(Dumont et  al., 2017; Paillé et  al., 2022; Unsworth & Tian, 2018). Specifically, sustainable work behavior has been increased by linking it to pay (Jackson et al., 2011; Renwick et al., 2013; Zibarras & Coan, 2015) and other financial incentives from gift certificates to bonuses and paid time off (reviewed in Renwick et al., 2013; Young et al., 2015). Non-financial incentives work well too, such as positive individual- and team-­ level performance feedback (Carrico & Riemer, 2011; Lingard et al., 2001). Social rewards, such as awards, praise, recognition, and plaques, are also very effective (Al-Mansoori & Koç, 2019; Handgraaf et al., 2013; Ramus 2002; Unsworth & Tian, 2018), especially when presented publicly, like at team meetings (Renwick et al., 2016; reviewed in Zibarras & Coan, 2015). Using money, feedback, and social recognition in combination tends to foster the most forward movement (Stajkovic & Luthans, 2003). Feelings associated with consequences can themselves become contingencies (Bissing-Olson et al., 2016; reviewed in Brosch, 2021; Schneider et al., 2021). For instance, people tend to gravitate toward sustainable behaviors when they are positively associated with emotions like pride, whereas they may avoid unsustainable behaviors that are associated with guilt (Shipley & van Riper, 2022). Of critical importance, punishment often triggers unintended side effects such as feeling coerced or manipulated (DeYoung, 2000). In fact, if people are punished while they imperfectly ramp up their sustainable behavior, they may simply stop engaging (Jackson et al., 2011). So, finding creative ways to reward environmentally appropriate behaviors should be prioritized (Brosch, 2021; Schneider et al., 2021).

6.2.3 Habits One of the biggest obstacles to sustainable behavior is that many unsustainable behaviors are strongly habitual and notoriously difficult to change (Verplanken & Orbell, 2019; Verplanken & Whitmarsh, 2021). Habits are automatic responses to a situation built through repeated association (Neal et al., 2006). The fact that behavioral responses are automatic means they are outside of conscious control and, by definition, no longer motivated in the standard sense. Developing habits is one of the many brain strategies to reduce demands on its limited processing capacity— people go through much of their daily routines on this kind of autopilot. Importantly, weak sustainability behaviors can eventually become consistent and durable— habitual—if they are supported by contingencies. Even when people are enthusiastic about changing their behavior, it often doesn’t stick. This is because new behaviors tend to be weak, inconsistent, and no match for long-reinforced habits. Instead, new routines require considerable

108

6  Unpacking Motivation

Table 6.5  Methods of disrupting habits (Verplanken & Whitmarsh, 2021) Strategies Remove cues that launch old habits

HEI examples Make less sustainable options less salient. For example, move copy machines to a less visible space. Minimize napkin dispensers on individual tables in the dining hall Create new, Create simple prompts that remind people before they act. For instance, attention-grabbing provide branded keychain tags that say “Going to lunch? Grab your to-go cues box!” Add signage near monitors and light switches that say “turn me off before you leave!” Take advantage of The biggest context disruptions are the normal changes in the lifecycle of natural work such as being new to campus, the start of each new academic term, discontinuities moving into a new building, or taking on a new position in the institution. So, create some simple prompts, for example, a quick announcement to faculty to “Consider referencing the syllabus online the first day of class, instead of printing copies!”

attention and practice to become established (Neal et  al., 2006). Intentionally planning where, when, and how new behaviors need to occur can help establish them (Holland et al., 2006). Visualizing or writing them down begins to create a cognitive connection between the situational cues and the new behavior (Taylor et al., 2005). Because habits are jump-started by contextual cues (i.e., antecedents), the context must change in some way to disrupt old connections (Holland et  al., 2006). Disrupting habits is much harder to do in HEIs than in one’s private sphere but can be done nonetheless (see Table  6.5; Blok et  al., 2015; Nye & Hargreaves, 2010).

6.3 Conclusion There is no “one way” to think about motivation; however, each of the approaches presented in this chapter provides a set of questions that can help diagnose the state of motivation among HEI employees (see Table 6.6). Understanding what is propelling or arresting sustainable behavior is critical for making sure the right drivers are in place to direct, mobilize, and maintain effort. There are many things one can do to boost the chances that people will participate in sustainability initiatives. Workplace design can enable sustainable behavior and constrain unsustainable behavior. Motivational techniques such as goal setting and job crafting can translate aspirations into actionable plans and encourage greater self-regulation. A rich literature, reviewed in Chap. 7, provides an abundance of tools for managing motivation so that it is directed, mobilized, and maintained toward sustainability.

References

109

Table 6.6  Checklist for identifying underlying motivation behind unsustainable behavior Motivational approach Needs Taxonomies and Self-­ Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000)

Questions to identify motivation Does this opportunity fulfill or threaten someone’s basic human needs? What kind of information or communication could imbue an action with intrinsic value? What alternative options could enhance their sense of belongingness? Autonomy? Competence? Theory of Planned Behavior What has their previous behavior looked like? (Ajzen, 1991) Do they have a positive or negative attitude toward the behavior? What do they think others think about it? Does the person feel like there are too many barriers to try (skill, convenience, availability, support)? Behavioral Contingencies and What situational cues are propelling unsustainable behavior? Habits Does behaving sustainably feel punishing? (Neal et al., 2006; Skinner, 1953) Does behaving unsustainably feel rewarding? Are unsustainable behaviors automatic?

References Abrahamse, W., & Steg, L. (2011). Factors related to household energy use and intention to reduce it: The role of psychological and socio-demographic variables. Human Ecology Review, 18(1), 30–40. Aitken, N. M., Pelletier, L. G., & Baxter, D. E. (2016). Doing the difficult stuff: Influence of self-­ determined motivation toward the environment on transportation proenvironmental behavior. Ecopsychology, 8(2), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2015.0079 Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-­5978(91)90020-­T Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1559-­1816.2002.tb00236.x Al-Mansoori, R. S., & Koç, M. (2019). Transformational leadership, systems, and intrinsic motivation impacts on innovation in higher education institutes: Faculty perspectives in engineering colleges. Sustainability, 11(15), 4072. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154072 Armitage, C.  J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499. https://doi. org/10.1348/014466601164939 Austin, J., Hatfield, D. B., Grindle, A. C., & Bailey, J. S. (1993). Increasing recycling in office environments: The effects of specific, informative cues. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26(2), 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1993.26-­247 Avissar, I., Alkaher, I., & Gan, D. (2018). The role of distributed leadership in mainstreaming environmental sustainability into campus life in an Israeli teaching college: A case study. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(3), 518–546. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJSHE-­07-­2017-­0105 Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002 Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall. Bateman, T.  S., & Barry, B. (2012). Masters of the long haul: Pursuing long-term work goals. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(7), 984–1006. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1778

110

6  Unpacking Motivation

Bissing-Olson, M. J., Fielding, K. S., & Iyer, A. (2016). Experiences of pride, not guilt, predict pro-­ environmental behavior when pro-environmental descriptive norms are more positive. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.01.001 Blanco-Portela, N., Benayas, J., Pertierra, L. R., & Lozano, R. (2017). Towards the integration of sustainability in Higher Education Institutions: A review of drivers of and barriers to organizational change and their comparison against those found of companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 563–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.252 Blok, V., Wesselink, R., Studynka, O., & Kemp, R. (2015). Encouraging sustainability in the workplace: A survey on the pro-environmental behaviour of university employees. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.063 Blom, R., Kruyen, P.  M., Van der Heijden, B.  I. J.  M., & Van Thiel, S. (2020). One HRM fits all? A meta-analysis of the effects of HRM practices in the public, semipublic, and private sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(1), 3–35. https://doi.org/10.117 7/0734371X18773492 Boiral, O., Talbot, D., & Paillé, P. (2015). Leading by example: A model of organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(6), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1835 Brosch, T. (2021). Affect and emotions as drivers of climate change perception and action: A review. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cobeha.2021.02.001 Campbell, J.  P., & Prichard, R.  D. (1976). Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 131–146). Rand McNally. Carrico, A.  R., & Riemer, M. (2011). Motivating energy conservation in the workplace: An evaluation of the use of group-level feedback and peer education. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.11.004 Cerasoli, C.  P., Nicklin, J.  M., & Ford, M.  T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 980–1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035661 Church, A.  T., Katigbak, M.  S., Locke, K.  D., Zhang, H., Shen, J., de Jesús Vargas-Flores, J., Ibáñez-Reyes, J., Tanaka-Matsumi, J., Curtis, G.  J., Cabrera, H.  F., Mastor, K.  A., Alvarez, J. M., Ortiz, F. A., Simon, J.-Y. R., & Ching, C. M. (2013). Need satisfaction and well-being: Testing self-determination theory in eight cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(4), 507–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022112466590 Cialdini, R. B., & Jacobson, R. P. (2021). Influences of social norms on climate change-related behaviors. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cobeha.2021.01.005 Cialdini, R. B., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitude and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 357–404. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.002041 Craddock, E.  B., Huffman, A.  H., & Henning, J.  B. (2012). Taming the dragon: How industrial–organizational psychologists can break barriers to “green” business. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5(4), 484–487. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1754-­9434.2012.01483.x Darner, R. (2014). Influences on students’ environmental self determination and implications for science curricula. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 9, 21–39. Davis, M. C., & Coan, P. (2015). Organizational change. In J. L. Robertson & J. Barling (Eds.), The psychology of green organizations (pp.  244–274). Oxford University Press. https://doi. org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199997480.003.0011 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer. Delmas, M. A., & Pekovic, S. (2018). Corporate sustainable innovation and employee behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 150, 1071–1088. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-­016-­3163-­1

References

111

Den Hartog, D. N., De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Keegan, A. E. (2007). The interactive effects of belongingness and charisma on helping and compliance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1131–1139. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-­9010.92.4.1131 DeYoung, R. (2000). New ways to promote proenvironmental behavior: Expanding and evaluating motives for environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 509–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-­4537.00181 Diekmann, A., & Preisendörfer, P. (2003). Green and greenback: The behavioral effects of environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations. Rationality and Society, 15(4), 441–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463103154002 DuBois, C. L. Z., Astakhova, M. N., & DuBois, D. A. (2013). Motivating behavior change to support organizational environmental sustainability goals. In A. H. Huffman & S. R. Klein (Eds.), Green organizations: Driving change with IO psychology (pp. 186–207). Routledge. Dumont, J., Shen, J., & Deng, X. (2017). Effects of green HRM practices on employee workplace green behavior: The role of psychological green climate and employee green values. Human Resource Management, 56(4), 613–627. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21792 Eagly, A.  H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Endrejat, P. C., & Kauffeld, S. (2018). Motivation towards “green” behaviour at the workplace: Facilitating employee pro-environmental behaviour through participatory interventions. In V. K. Wells, D. Gregory-Smith, & D. Manika (Eds.), Research handbook on employee pro-­ environmental behaviour. Edward Elgar Publishing. Ferrer-Balas, D., Adachi, J., Banas, S., Davidson, C.  I., Hoshikoshi, A., Mishra, A., Motodoa, Y., Onga, M., & Ostwald, M. (2008). An international comparative analysis of sustainability transformation across seven universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(3), 295–316. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370810885907 Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1977). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley. Gagné, M., & Deci, E.  L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322 Geller, E. S. (1987). Applied behavior analysis and environmental psychology: From strange bedfellows to a productive marriage. In D. S. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 361–387). Wiley. Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 317–375. https://doi. org/10.5465/19416520903047327 Graves, L.  M., Sarkis, J., & Zhu, Q. (2013). How transformational leadership and employee motivation combine to predict employee proenvironmental behaviors in China. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.05.002 Greaves, M., Zibarras, L. D., & Stride, C. (2013). Using the theory of planned behavior to explore environmental behavioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.02.003 Handgraaf, M. J. J., de Jeude, M. A. V. L., & Appelt, K. C. (2013). Public praise vs. private pay: Effects of rewards on energy conservation in the workplace. Ecological Economics, 86, 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.11.008 Holland, R. W., Aarts, H., & Langendam, D. (2006). Breaking and creating habits on the working floor: A field-experiment on the power of implementation intentions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(6), 776–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.11.006 Howard, J. L., Gagné, M., & Bureau, J. S. (2017). Testing a continuum structure of self-­determined motivation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 143(12), 1346–1377. https://doi. org/10.1037/bul0000125 Jackson, S.  E., Renwick, D.  W. S., Jabbour, C.  J. C., & Muller-Camen, M. (2011). State-ofthe-­art and future directions for green human resource management: Introduction to the ­special issue. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(2), 99–116. https://doi. org/10.1177/239700221102500203

112

6  Unpacking Motivation

Judge, T. A., Weiss, H. M., Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Hulin, C. L. (2017). Job attitudes, job satisfaction, and job affect: A century of continuity and of change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 356–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000181 Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. D. (2008). The three C’s of work motivation: Content, context, and change. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. D. Pritchard (Eds.), Work motivation. Past, present, and future (pp. 1–16). Routledge. Katz, I.  M., Rauvola, R.  S., Rudolph, C.  W., & Zacher, H. (2022). Employee green behavior: A meta-analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(5), 1146–1157. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2260 Kim, A., Kim, Y., Han, K., Jackson, S. E., & Ployhart, R. E. (2014). Multilevel influences on voluntary workplace green behavior: Individual differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1335–1358. https://doi.org/10.7282/T3XW4MT5 Klöckner, C. A. (2013). A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behavior— A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1028–1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2013.05.014 Kraut, A.  I. (1976). Behavior modeling symposium: Developing managerial skills in modeling techniques: Some positive research findings. Personnel Psychology, 29(3), 325–328. Lehman, P.  K., & Geller, E.  S. (2004). Behavior analysis and environmental protection: Accomplishments and potential for more. Behavior and Social Issues, 13, 13–33. https://doi. org/10.5210/bsi.v13i1.33 Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., & Roser-Renouf, C. (2009). Saving energy at home and on the road: A survey of Americans’ energy saving behaviors, intentions, motivations, and barriers. Yale University and George Mason University. Yale Project on Climate Change. Leung, Y.  W., & Rosenthal, S. (2019). Explicating perceived sustainability-related climate: A situational motivator of pro-environmental behavior. Sustainability, 11(1), 231. https://doi. org/10.3390/su11010231 Lingard, H., Gilbert, G., & Graham, P. (2001). Improving solid waste reduction and recycling performance using goal setting and feedback. Construction Management and Economics, 19(8), 809–817. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190110070952 Lo, S. H., Peters, G.-J. Y., & Kok, G. (2012). A review of determinants of and interventions for proenvironmental behaviors in organizations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(12), 2933–2967. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-­1816.2012.00969.x Lülfs, R., & Hahn, R. (2014). Sustainable behavior in the business sphere: A comprehensive overview of the explanatory power of psychological models. Organization & Environment, 27(1), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026614522631 Madden, T. J., Ellen, P. S., & Ajzen, I. (1992). A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(1), 3–9. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0146167292181001 Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. Mitchell, T. R., & Daniels, D. (2003). Motivation. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 225–254). Wiley. Morren, M., & Grinstein, A. (2016). Explaining environmental behavior across borders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47, 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvp.2016.05.003 Neal, D. T., Wood, W., & Quinn, J. M. (2006). Habits—A repeat performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(4), 198–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­8721.2006.00435.x Norton, T.  A., Parker, S.  L., Zacher, H., & Ashkanasy, N.  M. (2015). Employee green behavior: A theoretical framework, multilevel review, and future research agenda. Organization & Environment, 28(1), 103–125. Nye, M., & Hargreaves, T. (2010). Exploring the social dynamics of proenvironmental behavior change: A comparative study of intervention processes at home and work. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14(1), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-­9290.2009.00193.x

References

113

Osbaldiston, R., & Schott, J.  P. (2012). Environmental sustainability and behavioral science: Meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environment and Behavior, 44(2), 257–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511402673 Paillé, P., Valéau, P., & Carballo-Penela, A. (2022). Green rewards for optimizing employee environmental performance: Examining the role of perceived organizational support for the environment and internal environmental orientation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2022.2092723 Papies, E. K. (2016). Goal priming as a situated intervention tool. Current Opinion in Psychology, 12, 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.008 Park, H. S., & Smith, S. W. (2007). Distinctiveness and influence of subjective norms, personal descriptive and injunctive norms, and societal descriptive and injunctive norms on behavioral intent: A case of two behaviors critical to organ donation. Human Communication Research, 33(2), 194–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-­2958.2007.00296.x Ramus, C.  A. (2002). Encouraging innovative environmental actions: What companies and managers must do. Journal of World Business, 37(2), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1090-­9516(02)00074-­3 Renwick, D. W., Redman, T., & Maguire, S. (2013). Green human resource management: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), 1–14. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1468-­2370.2011.00328.x Renwick, D.  W., Jabbour, C.  J. C., Muller-Camen, M., Redman, T., & Wilkinson, A. (2016). Contemporary developments in Green (environmental) HRM scholarship. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(2), 114–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958519 2.2015.1105844 Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V., & Williams, C. A. (2006). Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: An organizational justice framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 537–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.380 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi. org/10.1037/0003-­066X.55.1.68 Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-­psych-­113011-­143809 Schneider, C.  R., Zaval, L., & Markowitz, E.  M. (2021). Positive emotions and climate change. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 114–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cobeha.2021.04.009 Shipley, N.  J., & van Riper, C.  J. (2022). Pride and guilt predict pro-environmental behavior: A meta-analysis of correlational and experimental evidence. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 79, 101753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101753 Siero, S., Boon, M., Kok, G., & Siero, F. (1989). Modification of driving behavior in a large transport organization: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(3), 417–423. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0021-­9010.74.3.417 Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Free Press. Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (2003). Behavioral management and task performance in organizations: Conceptual background, meta-analysis, and test of alternative models. Personnel Psychology, 56(1), 155–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-­6570.2003.tb00147.x Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004 Steinhorst, J., & Klöckner, C. A. (2018). Effects of monetary versus environmental information framing: Implications for long-term pro-environmental behavior and intrinsic motivation. Environment and Behavior, 50(9), 997–1031. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517725371 Steinmetz, H., Knappstein, M., Ajzen, I., Schmidt, P., & Kabst, R. (2016). How effective are behavior change interventions based on the theory of planned behavior? Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 224(3), 216–233. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-­2604/a000255

114

6  Unpacking Motivation

Stern, P. C. (2005). Understanding individuals’ environmentally significant behavior. Environmental Law Reporter: News and Analysis, 35, 10785–10790. Stouten, J., Rousseau, D.  M., & De Cremer, D. (2018). Successful organizational change: Integrating the management practice and scholarly literatures. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 752–788. Sunstein, C. R., & Reisch, L. A. (2013). Automatically green: Behavioral economics and environmental protection. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 38(1), 127–158. https://doi. org/10.2139/ssrn.2245657 Sussman, R., & Gifford, R. (2012). Please turn off the lights: The effectiveness of visual prompts. Applied Ergonomics, 43(3), 596–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2011.09.008 Taylor, P.  J., Russ-Eft, D.  F., & Chan, D.  W. (2005). A meta-analytic review of behavior modeling training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 692–709. https://doi. org/10.1037/0021-­9010.90.4.692 Tokarz, A., & Malinowska, D. (2019). From psychological theoretical assumptions to new research perspectives in sustainability and sustainable development: Motivation in the workplace. Sustainability, 11(8), 2222. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082222 Tusiime, A., Solihu, H., Sekasi, J., & Mutanda, H. E. (2022). Performance of lab-scale filtration system for grey water treatment and reuse. Environmental Challenges, 9, 100641. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.envc.2022.100641 United Nations Environment Programme. (2017). Consuming differently, consuming sustainability: Behavioural insights for policymaking. https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/27236. Unsworth, K.  L., & Tian, A. (2018). Motivation and GHRM: Overcoming the paradox. In D.  W. Renwick (Ed.), Contemporary developments in green human resource management research (pp. 23–38). Routledge. Unsworth, K. L., Dmitrieva, A., & Adriasola, E. (2013). Changing behaviour: Increasing the effectiveness of workplace interventions in creating pro-environmental behaviour change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1837 Verplanken, B., & Orbell, S. (2019). Habit and behavior change. In K. Sassenberg & M. L. W. Vliek (Eds.), Social psychology in action: Evidence-based interventions from theory to practice. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­13788-­5 Verplanken, B., & Whitmarsh, L. (2021). Habit and climate change. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 42–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.020 Webb, D., Soutar, G. N., Mazzarol, T., & Saldaris, P. (2013). Self-determination theory and consumer behavioural change: Evidence from a household energy-saving behaviour study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.04.003 Werner, C. M. (2013). Designing interventions that encourage permanent changes in behavior. In A. H. Huffman & S. R. Klein (Eds.), Green organizations: Driving change with IO psychology (pp. 208–230). Routledge. Young, W., Davis, M., McNeill, I.  M., Malhotra, B., Russell, S., Unsworth, K., & Clegg, C. W. (2015). Changing behaviour: Successful environmental programmes in the workplace. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(8), 689–703. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1836 Yuriev, A., Dahmen, M., Paillé, P., Boiral, O., & Guillaumie, L. (2020). Pro-environmental behaviors through the lens of the theory of planned behavior: A scoping review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 155, 1879–1658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104660 Zacher, H., Rudolph, C.  W., & Katz, I.  M. (2023). Employee green behavior as the core of environmentally sustainable organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 465–494. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-­orgpsych-­120920-­050421 Zibarras, L. D., & Coan, P. (2015). HRM practices used to promote pro-environmental behavior: A UK survey. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(16), 2121–2142. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.972429

Chapter 7

Managing Motivation

There are several tried and true strategies for improving motivation, built upon decades of scientific theory and research. In particular, people are more likely to pursue sustainable behavior if they experience positive consequences and believe the situation is fair, when their actions are guided by “SMART” goals and they have access to useful feedback, when their jobs are enriched, and when they are empowered to take control of their own job design. This chapter delves into each of these motivational strategies.

7.1 Using Incentives Wisely Chapter 6 laid out how intrinsic motivation is most likely to yield long-term behavior change, but that adjusting situational consequences may also be necessary. Understanding the punishers that discourage sustainable behavior and the reinforcers that keep unsustainable behavior in place can help Institutions of Higher Education (HEIs) identify additional opportunities for redesigning the situation. Organizations often use incentives to encourage new behaviors. While people typically think of incentives as financial or other rewards, in fact, the threat of something negative can also be an incentive. For this and other reasons, the use of incentives is trickier than one would think (Skinner, 1953). When consequences aren’t immediate—and it can sometimes take a while for a check to arrive or an award to be received—their connection with behavior is not always clear, driving effectiveness down (Paillé et  al., 2022). In addition, for many behaviors, the immediate rewards are stronger than the more distant punishers for a particular behavior (Toates, 2009). For instance, the immediate comfort and convenience of driving to campus is often more compelling than a monthly bill for gas and a parking permit. Some forms of incentives, like a free bus pass, can shift this punisher/reinforcer ratio toward encouraging alternative forms of commuting. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. L. Amel et al., Fostering Sustainability in Higher Education, Psychology and Our Planet, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50555-3_7

115

116

7  Managing Motivation

When designing incentives, making the stakes too high, like an official reprimand, can lead to people engaging in deceptive or unethical behavior, while making them too low, like failing to publicly recognize a major campus-wide effort, may reduce further effort (Jackson et al., 2011). And, because people are motivated by different things, a one-size-fits-all incentive is unlikely to work, yet creating a smorgasbord of incentives adds up quickly in time and money (Hostager et al., 1998; Zibarras & Coan, 2015). Perhaps the most important thing to remember about incentives is that they work better for one-time behaviors rather than repeated actions. This is because the effects of incentives tend to be temporary: once rewards or punishers are removed, behavior is likely to revert to what it was before. To alter repeated actions through incentives, reinforcers or punishers must be doled out until the goal behavior becomes habitual (Geller, 2002; Werner, 2013). Influencing sustainable work behavior through incentives is even more complex given the added layers of group membership and organizational culture (Barnes et al., 2011). See Table 7.1 for HEI examples of, and potential solutions for, these challenges.

7.2 Magnifying Motivation 7.2.1 Fairness For many people, working sustainably will incur costs in time and money. People can feel threatened by change because it exposes them to unknowns and potential risk, which makes them feel vulnerable. However, people tend to be motivated to accept this discomfort and take the risks if they trust that the situation is fair (Saunders & Thornhill, 2003; May et al., 2021). Extensive research about the workplace reveals that, when people believe they are treated fairly, they can better deal with uncertainty, perform better, are more likely to help others, and are more committed to and feel more satisfied about their job and their organization (Brammer et  al., 2007; Cohen-Charash & Specter, 2001; Colquitt et  al., 2013; Cropanzano et  al., 2007; Diehl et  al., 2018; Martínez-Tur et  al., 2020; Zapata-Phelan et  al., 2009). And being treated fairly just plain feels good (Colquitt et al., 2013)! But how do people determine what makes something fair? Here, the focus is on three types of fairness: how outcomes are distributed, the process by which decisions are made, and the interpersonal treatment one receives (Colquitt et al., 2001; Cropanzano et al., 2007; Greenberg, 1990). Table 7.2 provides more detail about the various types of justice perceptions. Evidence suggests that perceiving at least one of these types of justice can reduce the negative effects of other sources of injustice (Cropanzano et  al., 2007). For instance, if a faculty member works unpaid during the summer to integrate sustainability into a course, they may legitimately feel underpaid and overworked. But if

7.2  Magnifying Motivation

117

Table 7.1  Incentive caveats and how HEIs can minimize their effects Caveat General: Connection with behavior may not be clear In HEIs: Annual awards limit the perceived connection between action and consequences General: Short term is prioritized over long term In HEIs: Driving alone to work increases one’s carbon footprint, but the immediate reinforcement of convenience and sense of control overrides this worry General: Spending resources on inconsequential behaviors won’t maximize sustainable change In HEIs: Incentivizing water bottle recycling is trivial compared to sustainable building renovation General: Making the stakes too high or too low may not stimulate motivation In HEIs: Rewarding employee behavior with an insignificant incentive like a free pen

Solution Solutions in the real world Sources Deliver incentives in Host monthly recognitions at Paillé et al. a timely manner department meetings to create (2022) clear action-consequence connections

Align short- and long-term consequences

Subsidize and, therefore, reduce the cost of using public transportation while limiting the number of parking permits available

Toates (2009), Young et al. (2015), Van Houten et al. (1981)

Support significant, one-time actions that establish green defaults or foundational infrastructure that facilitate mass, ongoing engagement

Provide executive bonuses for significant innovations such as executing a LEED gold building design, creating sustainable purchasing policies, or integrating sustainability into endowment criteria

Gardner and Stern (2008), Geller (2002), Unsworth and Tian (2018), Werner (2013)

Jackson et al. Make the stakes just Provide conveniences like right easy-access parking for bikes, (2011) carpools, and electric vehicles

(continued)

7  Managing Motivation

118 Table 7.1 (continued) Caveat General: A one-size-fits-all incentive is unlikely to work In HEIs: Providing a free academic book to faculty, coaches, and maintenance workers may feel rewarding to some but not others General: Incentives tend to restrict focus to the specific action, which can reduce creativity across the board In HEIs: Giving an incentive to reduce the number of flights a department takes in a year ignores other potentially valuable behaviors General: Individual incentives can adversely affect teamwork In HEIs: Institutional structures such as salary, promotion, and tenure rules are not typically designed to celebrate group work General: External rewards can reduce people’s intrinsic motivation In HEIs: Adding an external incentive when an employee is already intrinsically motivated

Solution Offer a variety of incentives

Solutions in the real world Create an array of incentives that address money, time, convenience, status, pride, etc. this could mean a free book; sustainably manufactured merchandise from the campus store; a free fair-trade, organic coffee when you show your bike helmet; or early departure from campus on Fridays Reward employees for experimenting creatively to reach important sustainability outcomes (carbon, water, energy, waste)

Sources Hostager et al. (1998), Zibarras and Coan (2015)

For teams, prioritize Create competitions and prizes for team-level progress rewarding group over individual effort

Barnes et al. (2011), Cerasoli et al. (2014), Ferrer-Balas et al. (2008), Grant and Parker (2009), Paillé et al. (2016), Young et al. (2015)

Avoid “crowding out” behaviors

Foster autonomy, competence, and belonging with incentives

Create incentives such as a prize for the sports team that develops the most innovative strategy for reducing water use in the locker room

Byron and Khazanchi (2012), Cerasoli et al. (2014)

Gardner et al. (2011), Stahl et al. (2020), Unsworth and Tian (2018)

7.2  Magnifying Motivation

119

Table 7.2  Types of justice perceptions and HEI examples Distributive justice (Cropanzano et al., 2007) Definition Whether or not “outcomes” such as opportunities and resources are perceived to be allocated fairly among employees

Maximizing justice perceptions This perception may differ by employee. Some may view that anything sustainable should be rewarded, and others think it’s fairer when more substantial sustainability work receives more recognition Ask people about their perceptions and modify distribution accordingly Procedural justice (Greenberg, 1993; Shapiro & Brett, 2013) Definition Maximizing justice perceptions How a decision is made. Importantly, people are more When rules mysteriously appear after likely to accept an outcome, even one that is lopsided or “closed door” meetings, it is easy to disadvantageous, if they believe the process used to get assume that they were built with to it was fair dishonest intentions, and the affected people will likely reject the results Get people’s input on decisions regarding sustainability and do so in a way that is visible to others Interactional justice (Bies, 2001; Greenberg, 1993) Subtype Definition Maximizing justice perceptions Recognition Building trust through Conscientiously listening to and inclusion integrating people’s ideas and feedback is better than superficially gathering ideas after decisions are a done deal Involve people in the early stages of sustainable change Respectful communication Acknowledging the Supervisors who show empathy are challenges that people signaling their support for workers will encounter who are trying new things Acknowledge that certain changes may be bumpy or difficult Transparency Providing transparent Openly sharing the considerations communication about informing a decision-making process why and how allows those affected to see where institutional decisions their perspective is represented are made Include descriptions of process and rationale for sustainability actions at all-campus meetings

they experience prompt, positive feedback about the value of the course to the institution, and the department chair acknowledges that lack of pay is unfortunate, their distributive and procedural injustice perceptions may become less salient. Work expectations will inevitably change during a sustainability transformation. The moral of the story is that these changes will be easier to accept when they follow distributive, procedural, and interactional justice principles (Cropanzano et al., 2007).

120

7  Managing Motivation

7.2.2 Goal Setting Changing one’s job to include sustainability, as described in Chap. 3, or attempting to transform some aspect of an HEI to be more sustainable can be a potentially overwhelming prospect. Motivation can suffer as a result. Some of the most robust tools for helping people accomplish such challenging undertakings are derived from Goal Setting Theory. A goal is a desired end point or future state. Goals can be general, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with athletics, or targeted, like creating a policy to provide vegan meals in the dining hall. Goal setting is the process of intentionally establishing goals and then developing strategies to help achieve those goals. Goals are extremely effective since they support all three features of motivation: directing our attention, regulating how much energy to put forth, and sustaining momentum over long periods of time (Locke, 2001; Locke & Latham, 1990). Setting goals has been shown to help employees contribute to sustainability efforts (Lingard et al., 2001; Zacher et al., 2023). And, although participation in setting the goals is not necessary, it can help increase perceptions of justice and acceptance of specific factors like deadlines. Goal setting works best as a motivator when people commit to specific (Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002), personally relevant goals (Unsworth & McNeill, 2017) that are relatively difficult but still realistically attainable (Latham & Locke, 2006). Having adequate information about progress (Bandura & Cervone, 1983; Becker, 1978; Karlin et al., 2015) and a clear timeframe for goal completion (Fulton et al., 2013; Herweg & Müller, 2011) enhances people’s goal achievement. These key features, that goals should be specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-­ bound, can be remembered using a handy acronym: SMART (adapted from Meyer, 2003; see Table 7.3). Goal-oriented strategies won’t necessarily work the same way for all people (Davis et al., 2019). For example, externally imposed goals may suppress the behavior of intrinsically motivated individuals. Thus, rather than designing a single initiative for everyone, goals that contribute to the institution’s vision should be autonomously set by employees themselves.

7.2.3 Feedback We humans need to know how we are doing—especially regarding progress toward goals that we value. Unfortunately, many environmental impacts (both negative and positive) are hard to see, especially immediately, and so we need additional information to guide our behavior (Buchanan et  al., 2014). Feedback is information about the effect of one’s actions. Useful feedback informs people about their current state so that they can evaluate their progress toward a goal (reviewed in Abrahamse et al., 2005; Osbaldiston & Schott, 2012; Young et al., 2015) and is a critical feature of the goal setting process (Becker, 1978; Karlin et al., 2015).

7.2  Magnifying Motivation

121

Table 7.3  SMART goals and HEI examples SMART Specific

Definition Identified tasks should be concrete

Measurable A project needs clear (quantifiable) starting and end points, plus methods to verify the progress made along the way

Attainable

Challenging goals are more likely to substantially “move the needle” on behavior, while overly challenging goals are avoided. Setting concrete, short-term goals in service to the overarching goal increases motivation and performance

Relevant

Relevant goals are those related to a person’s job responsibilities, personal sphere of influence, and what they can realistically impact. Also, a goal that relates to a person’s values is more likely to resonate. One especially effective strategy is to increase self-concordance, which is thinking about how something new can help one do things that increase happiness

HEI example An international education director could set a goal to develop guidelines for sustainable travel (e.g., using public transport, walking tours, vegetarian meals, sustainable hotels) that will be used to guide all international programming Groundskeepers might develop a goal to replace all (100%) annual flowers with native perennial species that will attract pollinators. This activity provides natural feedback: progress is visible as the look of the flower beds changes. Also, a checklist of all of the areas to be replanted can communicate the status of each An administrative assistant could set a goal to purchase sustainable (e.g., recyclable, made of recycled material, by local artisans, bleach-free) office supplies for their department. This goal can then be broken up into subgoals for each type of office supply

Often DEI and environmental work is siloed in HEIs. These seemingly divergent goals are deeply intertwined, but people often need help connecting the dots. Administrators could connect the explosion of green jobs with preparing BIPOC students for success in these jobs and, in doing this, foster both DEI and environmental goals

Sources Locke and Latham (1990), Locke and Latham (2002)

Bandura and Cervone (1983), Becker (1978), Davis et al. (2019), Karlin et al. (2015)

Albrecht et al. (2015), Amel et al. (2011), Latham and Locke (2006), Leung and Rosenthal (2019), Tims and Bakker (2010), Young et al. (2015) Unsworth and McNeill (2017); Unsworth and Tian (2018)

(continued)

7  Managing Motivation

122 Table 7.3 (continued) SMART Time-­ bound

Definition Deadlines get people moving and keep people on task

HEI example Faculty often use the summer months to revise courses. Faculty members could set the goal of developing and integrating a sustainability module into a course by the end of the summer. The goal could be further subdivided into weekly tasks such as conducting background research, drafting lesson plans, locating supporting media, and developing exercises

Sources Fulton et al. (2013), Herweg and Müller (2011)

Feedback helps people “self-regulate” by adjusting their effort, correcting errors, or even revising their goals if necessary. Importantly, the more frequent the feedback, the better (Abrahamse et al., 2005). Feedback is a form of contingency, as described earlier in Chap. 6. And just as punishers can backfire, so can negative feedback. Thus, aim for positive feedback. This means that focusing on progress is more likely to inspire motivation even if folks are falling short on their goals. If the results from an action itself are not evident, external sources of feedback are needed to help maintain progress toward sustainability. Today’s technologies often provide both real-time feedback and the ability to adjust through remote control. For instance, carbon accounting apps that gamify tracking and reducing one’s own and their institution’s fossil fuel use are evermore available and can increase conservation behaviors (Yun et al., 2017). Comparative feedback is another incredibly useful strategy for providing sustainability information, ideally in real time. Not only does it provide individuals with data about their own impacts but it also gives them information about how others are doing (Shalley et al., 1987; Siero et al., 1996). Such social comparison is a powerful motivator for change, as folks don’t like feeling they are doing “worse than” others (Schultz et al., 2007; Ayres et al., 2013). Social comparison strategies influence attitudes, perceptions of norms, and control described in Chap. 5 (Dixon et al., 2015). Further, social comparisons can fuel competitive streaks to increase effort (Jackson & Zedeck, 1982; Shalley et  al., 1987). Providing information about how many people within a group are taking action provides compelling descriptive norms (Dixon et  al., 2015; Wong-Parodi et  al., 2019). Chapter 2 reported how critical descriptive norms are for guiding behavior, even for people who don’t have strong sustainability attitudes or intentions. However, there are several caveats when using comparative feedback. First, comparative feedback can backfire for the people in the lead who may decide they can relax when they see how far ahead they are. To avoid this boomerang effect, leading contributors should be reinforced with social approval feedback (e.g.,

7.3  Making Work Meaningful

123

“Congratulations on saving the most energy, You’re our hero!”; Schultz et al., 2007). Comparative feedback can also fail when it communicates that very few people are making progress. To avoid this, communicating dynamic norms, which describe that things are trending in a particular direction, will be more effective (Cialdini & Jacobson, 2021; Mortensen et al., 2019; Schultz, 2022). Alternatively, one can set the bar for expected behavior by highlighting a particular group that is doing well (Wong-Parodi et al., 2019).

7.3 Making Work Meaningful Psychological growth and vitality in work performance tends to result from a combination of self-determined motivation and feeling that one’s work is meaningful (Barrick & Parks-Leduc, 2019). In other words, believing one’s work matters… matters! Engaging in sustainability can bring a sense of purpose to one’s work, especially for those who hold themselves to a high moral standard (Bhattacharya et al., 2023; Li et al., 2020). If provided a supportive setting to pursue sustainability at work, these employees will take action. The design of work and the workplace itself is therefore relevant as it can support, or flout, action (Zacher et al., 2023). Two primary approaches are modifying the characteristics of jobs and allowing people to craft these characteristics in a way that fits their needs.

7.3.1 Job Characteristics Each job has a design, and some designs create more meaning for employees than others. In addition, the structure of a job influences how much responsibility they feel and whether they can effectively self-regulate (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Humphrey et al., 2007; Jiang et al., 2012). The more enriching the features of a job, the more motivational they are. There are many models of core job features, but the most referenced is the Job Characteristics Model (JCM; Hackman & Oldham, 1980). In JCM, five core characteristics impact psychological states, ultimately leading to important job outcomes. These characteristics can focus on sustainable behavior as the important outcome. According to the JCM, job characteristics include skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. Skill variety is high when jobs necessitate using different skills and performing diverse tasks. Task identity includes being able to see a project through from beginning to end, or at least understanding where one’s piece fits into the whole. Task significance is the feeling that the work matters

124

7  Managing Motivation

because it makes a positive impact. Autonomy, covered in Chap. 6, and feedback are considered the most important characteristics in the JCM. For faculty and many other HEI employees, these job characteristics may already be strong and therefore motivational. But, there is always room for improvement! Plus, for jobs that are not so inherently interesting or meaningful, adding a sustainability element can actually enhance each job characteristic (Barrick & Parks-­ Leduc, 2019; Siero et  al., 1989; Smith & O’Sullivan, 2012; Yuriev et  al., 2018; Werner, 2013). For instance, highlighting how a boring activity is related to an organization’s success can heighten a sense of significance (Grant & Parker, 2009; Steingut et al., 2017). Also, posing questions such as “how do you think your job tasks could facilitate sustainability?” can increase perceptions of skill variety by piquing curiosity and encouraging further investigation (Moller et  al., 2006). Table  7.4 provides examples of these core job characteristics and their potential relevance to sustainability. HEIs are known to be dynamic environments. While this can create uncertainty among employees, it also creates opportunities for employees to feel empowered as

Table 7.4  Job characteristic effects on motivation using a food service sustainability example Food service sustainability example Connect the idea of food waste to its impact on others both now and in future generations Relate food waste reduction to the institution’s sustainability rankings Discretion about what Encourage servers to suggest to do and when to do ways to reduce food waste it

Job characteristic Motivation effect Task Significance Perceptions that one does important work and tasks have an impact on others

Sources Barrick and Parks-Leduc (2019), Cascio (2003)

Autonomy

Siero et al. (1989), Smith and O’Sullivan (2012), Yuriev et al. (2018) Fried and Ferris (1987), Sonnentag (2017)

Task Identity

Skill Variety

Feedback

Ownership through completing a task from beginning to end Diverse tasks leverage different skills

Tasks themselves provide clear feedback about progress

Provide resources to food service staff who propose innovations so that they can implement them Encourage servers to ask diners what portion size they’d like, thereby increasing variety by using cognitive and social skills (while reducing food waste!) Provide a running tab of the amount of food waste at each meal, which can help servers identify which items need smaller serving sizes

Barrick et al. (2013), Fried and Ferris (1987)

Podsakoff et al. (2000), Siero et al. (1989)

7.3  Making Work Meaningful

125

they take initiative in response to change (reviewed in Zibarras & Coan, 2015). Empowerment, or when one has a sense of authorization to act, allows for proactivity, which can play out as people taking control of their own job design (Grant & Parker, 2009).

7.3.2 Job Crafting People inherently desire control within their workplace. When the situation is empowering, employees will take the initiative to redesign what they work on and how they do it—called job crafting—to make their jobs fit their needs and preferences (Demerouti, 2014; Grant et  al., 2011; Grant & Parker, 2009; Le Blanc et  al., 2017). This makes work more intrinsically motivating (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Jiang et  al., 2012), meaningful, and satisfying (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Job crafting can take a variety of forms (Demerouti et  al., 2019). Sometimes people redesign by seeking resources (e.g., feedback, advice, support, participation, or opportunities to develop skills). Some adapt by seeking challenging new tasks or asking for more responsibilities. In other cases, it may be more about optimizing or reducing emotional, mental, or physical demands. Whether folks job craft depends on a variety of factors. For example, job crafting depends on an individual’s needs (Bindl et al., 2019), organizational context as elaborated in Chap. 2, and leadership, which will be described in more detail in Chap. 8 (Wang et al., 2017). The important point is that HEIs can prioritize and support job crafting for sustainability. Practically speaking, employees are optimally suited to boost the sustainability of their jobs because of their direct experience, positioning them to identify meaningful solutions (Boiral et al., 2015; Ramus, 2002). Job crafting is associated with higher worker engagement (Berg et  al., 2013; Tokarz & Malinowska, 2019) and improved performance (Pimenta de Devotto & Wechsler, 2019). Job crafting is related to many other positive outcomes for the institution as well such as higher levels of employee job satisfaction and resilience (Berg et al., 2013; Tokarz & Malinowska, 2019), as well as well-being (Pimenta de Devotto & Wechsler, 2019). Job crafting is also known to energize employees facing undesirable working conditions (e.g., boredom and career stagnation) and depleted personal resources (Aguinis & Glavas, 2019). Further, it is a key mechanism for engaging employees in organizational change, which will be outlined in Chap. 9 (Demerouti et al., 2019; Pimenta de Devotto & Wechsler, 2019). In other words, encouraging job crafting toward sustainability simply makes a whole lot of sense (Allan et al., 2019; Zacher et al., 2023).

126

7  Managing Motivation

7.4 Stages of Change Situations are a powerful force for or against motivation. But even if the situation appears to promote sustainable behavior, not all individuals will be equally ready to approach their jobs more sustainably. One reason why people behave differently when faced with the prospect of change is that change is a process, and each individual is starting from a different point (Bamberg, 2013). Motivation is enhanced and reactions to change improve when support is tailored to the unique demands of each stage (Harris & Cole, 2007). Stages of change analyses have been used by organizations largely to explain differences in readiness to learn and responses to planned organizational change efforts, both of which are relevant to sustainability transformation in HEIs (Brown & Charlier, 2013; Davis et al., 2015; Grant, 2010; Grimolizzi-Jensen, 2018; Harris & Cole, 2007). And, considering different stages of readiness has shown promise as a way to develop and provide stage-matched interventions that address HEI employee behavior (see Fig.  7.1 and Table  7.5; Dawson et  al., 2020; Levesque et al., 1999).

Fig. 7.1  Matching interventions to stages of readiness for change

7.5 Conclusion

127

Table 7.5  How HEIs can provide stage-appropriate support using purchasing personnel example Employee Stage behavior Pre-­ Either doesn’t contemplation know or doesn’t believe change is necessary Pre-decision Considers the pros and cons of changing and whether change is feasible

Purchasing behavior example Buys cheapest option

How to support Raise awareness

Considers what searching for alternatives will do for their reputation, their budget, and impact on other departments Imagines the steps and sources needed to change vendors

Build excitement

Pre-action

Is committed to change, but has not yet acted

Communicate opportunities

Action

Plans how to implement the change and executes it

Investigates vendors Provide and chooses a resources and low-carbon option helpers

Post-action

Assesses the effectiveness of the action and modifies it accordingly

Tries a second Celebrate! vendor for comparison; seeks feedback from users

Examples of support Provide article or webinar about the impact of purchasing decisions Share who has changed; develop goal and criteria for performance

Send employee to a sustainability vendor fair; discuss process for obtaining approvals for change Approve new vendor; expand money in budget; connect employee to other purchasers Change job description; ask the employee to share their experience; raise awareness of change; include in institutional reporting

7.5 Conclusion Understanding what is propelling or arresting sustainable behavior is critical for making sure the right drivers are in place to direct, mobilize, and maintain effort. Which motivational strategies work best depends on the individuals, jobs, and institutional culture. Nobody has a crystal ball revealing what makes each employee tick. Instead, asking what people need and want, and then structuring the situation to support them, will be most effective. Each approach presented in this chapter provides a set of questions that can help facilitate motivation toward sustainable behavior among HEI employees (see Table 7.6). As can be seen throughout this chapter, leaders play an essential role in setting the stage for motivation. Leadership is the crucial factor that galvanizes change, sets direction, and supports the long-term work of whole groups. Chapter 8 focuses on the key leadership processes that can facilitate HEI transformation.

128

7  Managing Motivation

Table 7.6  Checklist for managing motivation for sustainable behavior Motivational approach Incentives

Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1976)

Equity and Procedural Justice Theory (Thibaut & Walker, 1975)

Goal Setting Theory (Locke, 1968)

Stages of change (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006; Heckhausen & Gollwitzer, 1987)

Questions to facilitate motivation What consequences would make sustainable behavior feel more rewarding? What would make unsustainable behavior feel punishing? Does the work feel significant? Do people feel micromanaged? Do they feel like they have a choice in their behavior? Does the work itself provide useful feedback? Can tasks be carried out from beginning to end, or is it clear how the work fits into the big picture? How might engaging in sustainability feel inequitable? Do people feel like they do more or get less than others whom they see? Who are people comparing themselves to? Do their perceptions of equity match reality? Would some other distribution of outcomes have felt fairer? Is the goal ambiguous? Is it too difficult? Do people have the feedback necessary to know where they stand in relation to their goal? Is the goal consistent with the person’s values? Is there a clear and reasonable deadline? Do people believe change is necessary or good? Are the opportunities to engage clearly communicated? Are there resources available to help? Are successes celebrated and failures seen as learning opportunities?

References Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.002 Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2019). On corporate social responsibility, sensemaking, and the search for meaningfulness through work. Journal of Management, 45(3), 1057–1086. https://doi. org/10.1177/0149206317691575 Albrecht, S. L., Bakker, A. B., Gruman, J. A., Macey, W. H., & Saks, A. M. (2015). Employee engagement, human resource management practices and competitive advantage: An integrated approach. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 2(1), 7–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-­08-­2014-­0042 Allan, B. A., Batz-Barbarich, C., Sterling, H. M., & Tay, L. (2019). Outcomes of meaningful work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 56(3), 500–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/ joms.12406 Amel, E. L., Manning, C. M., Forsman, J. W., & Scott, B. A. (2011). Goal specificity, goal difficulty and perceived need to develop skills in the context of environmental sustainability. Symposium for Society for Human Ecology.

References

129

Ayres, I., Raseman, S., & Shih, A. (2013). Evidence from two large field experiments that peer comparison feedback can reduce residential energy usage. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 29(5), 992–1022. https://doi.org/10.3386/w15386 Bamberg, S. (2013). Changing environmentally harmful behaviors: A stage model of self-­ regulated behavioral change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 151–159. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.01.002 Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(5), 1017–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­3514.45.5.1017 Barnes, C. M., Hollenbeck, J. R., Jundt, D. K., DeRue, D. S., & Harmon, S. J. (2011). Mixing individual incentives and group incentives: Best of both worlds or social dilemma? Journal of Management, 37(6), 1611–1635. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309360845 Barrick, M.  R., & Parks-Leduc, L. (2019). Selection for fit. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-­orgpsych-­012218-­015028 Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Li, N. (2013). The theory of purposeful work behavior: The role of personality, higher-order goals, and job characteristics. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 132–153. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0479 Becker, L. J. (1978). Joint effect of feedback and goal setting on performance: A field study of residential energy conservation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(4), 428–433. https://doi. org/10.1037/0021-­9010.63.4.428 Berg, J.  M., Dutton, J.  E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2013). Job crafting and meaningful work. In B.  J. Dik, Z.  S. Byrne, & M.  F. Steger (Eds.), Purpose and meaning in the workplace (pp. 81–104). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14183-­005 Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S., Edinger-Schons, L. M., & Neureiter, M. (2023). Corporate purpose and employee sustainability behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 183(4), 963–981. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10551-­022-­05090-­5 Bies, R.  J. (2001). Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In J.  Greenberg & R.  Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp.  89–118). Stanford University Press. Bindl, U.  K., Unsworth, K.  L., Gibson, C.  B., & Stride, C.  B. (2019). Job crafting revisited: Implications of an extended framework for active changes at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(5), 605–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000362 Boiral, O., Talbot, D., & Paillé, P. (2015). Leading by example: A model of organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(6), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1835 Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Rayton, B. (2007). The contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(10), 1701–1719. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190701570866 Brown, K. G., & Charlier, S. D. (2013). An integrative model of e-learning use: Leveraging theory to understand and increase usage. Human Resource Management Review, 23(1), 37–49. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.06.004 Buchanan, K., Russo, R., & Anderson, B. (2014). Feeding back about eco-feedback: How do consumers use and respond to energy monitors? Energy Policy, 73, 138–146. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.05.008 Byron, K., & Khazanchi, S. (2012). Rewards and creative performance: A meta-analytic test of theoretically derived hypotheses. Psychological Bulletin, 138(4), 809–830. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0027652 Cascio, W. F. (2003). Changes in workers, work, and organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 401–422). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei1216 Cerasoli, C.  P., Nicklin, J.  M., & Ford, M.  T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 980–1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035661

130

7  Managing Motivation

Cialdini, R. B., & Jacobson, R. P. (2021). Influences of social norms on climate change-related behaviors. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cobeha.2021.01.005 Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-­analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321. https://doi. org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2958 Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-­9010.86.3.425 Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 199–236. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0031757 Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D.  E., & Gilliland, S.  W. (2007). The management of organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.5465/ amp.2007.27895338 Davis, E., Corr, L., Gilson, K.-M., Ting, C., Ummer-Christian, R., Cook, K., & Sims, M. (2015). Organisational capacity building: Readiness for change in Australian child care. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 40(1), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693911504000107 Davis, M. C., Unsworth, K. L., Russell, S. V., & Galvan, J. J. (2019). Can green behaviors really be increased for all employees? Trade-offs for “deep greens” in a goal-oriented green human resource management intervention. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(2), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2367 Dawson, D., Hepworth, J., Bugaian, L., & Williams, S. (2020). The drivers of higher education leadership competence: A study of Moldovan HEI’s. Studies in Higher Education, 45(6), 1217–1232. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1557135 Demerouti, E. (2014). Design your own job through job crafting. European Psychologist, 19(4), 237–247. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-­9040/a000188 Demerouti, E., Peeters, M. C. W., & van den Heuvel, M. (2019). Job crafting interventions: Do they work and why? In L. E. Van Zyl & S. Rothman Sr. (Eds.), Positive psychological intervention design and protocols for multi-cultural contexts (pp. 103–125). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­20020-­6_5 Diehl, M.-R., Richter, A., & Sarnecki, A. (2018). Variations in employee performance in response to organizational justice: The sensitizing effect of socioeconomic conditions. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2375–2404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316671581 Dixon, G.  N., Deline, M.  B., McComas, K., Chambliss, L., & Hoffmann, M. (2015). Using comparative feedback to influence workplace energy conservation: A case study of a university campaign. Environment and Behavior, 47(6), 667–693. https://doi. org/10.1177/0013916513520417 Ferrer-Balas, D., Adachi, J., Banas, S., Davidson, C.  I., Hoshikoshi, A., Mishra, A., Motodoa, Y., Onga, M., & Ostwald, M. (2008). An international comparative analysis of sustainability transformation across seven universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(3), 295–316. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370810885907 Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-­ analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40(2), 287–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-­6570.1987. tb00605.x Fulton, L.  V., Ivanitskaya, L.  V., Bastian, N.  D., Erofeev, D.  A., & Mendez, F.  A. (2013). Frequent deadlines: Evaluating the effect of learner control on healthcare executives’ performance in online learning. Learning and Instruction, 23, 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. learninstruc.2012.09.001 Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (2008). The short list: The most effective actions U.S. households can take to curb climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.50.5.12-­25

References

131

Gardner, T.  M., Wright, P.  M., & Moynihan, L.  M. (2011). The impact of motivation, empowerment, and skill-enhancing practices on aggregate voluntary turnover: The mediating effect of collective affective commitment. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 315–350. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1744-­6570.2011.01212.x Geller, E. S. (2002). The challenge of increasing proenvironmental behavior. In R. B. Betchel & A.  Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. 2, pp.  525–540). John Wiley & Sons. Gollwitzer, P.  M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. In M.  P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 38, pp.  69–119). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0065-­2601(06)38002-­1 Grant, A.  M. (2010). It takes time: A stages of change perspective on the adoption of workplace coaching skills. Journal of Change Management, 10(1), 61–77. https://doi. org/10.1080/14697010903549440 Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 317–375. https://doi. org/10.5465/19416520903047327 Grant, A. M., Fried, Y., & Juillerat, T. (2011). Work matters: Job design in classic and contemporary perspectives. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 1. Building and developing the organization (pp. 417–453). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12169-­013 Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639001600208 Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1993.1004 Grimolizzi-Jensen, C.  J. (2018). Organizational change: Effect of motivational interviewing on readiness to change. Journal of Change Management, 18(1), 54–69. https://doi.org/10.108 0/14697017.2017.1349162 Hackman, J.  R., & Oldham, G.  R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279. https://doi. org/10.1016/0030-­5073(76)90016-­7 Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work Redesign. Addison–Wesley. Harris, S. G., & Cole, M. S. (2007). A stages of change perspective on managers’ motivation to learn in a leadership development context. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(6), 774–793. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810710831019 Heckhausen, H., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1987). Thought contents and cognitive functioning in motivational versus volitional states of mind. Motivation and Emotion, 11(2), 101–120. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF00992338 Herweg, F., & Müller, D. (2011). Performance of procrastinators: On the value of deadlines. Theory and Decision, 70(3), 329–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-­010-­9195-­6 Hostager, T.  J., Neil, T.  C., Decker, R.  L., & Lorentz, R.  D. (1998). Seeing environmental opportunities: Effects of intrapreneurial ability, efficacy, motivation and desirability. Journal of Organisational Change Management, 11(1), 11–25. https://doi. org/10.1108/09534819810369536 Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332–1356. https://psycnet.apa. org/doi/10.1037/0021-­9010.92.5.1332 Jackson, S. E., & Zedeck, S. (1982). Explaining performance variability: Contributions of goal setting, task characteristics, and evaluative contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(6), 759–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-­9010.67.6.759

132

7  Managing Motivation

Jackson, S.  E., Renwick, D.  W. S., Jabbour, C.  J. C., & Muller-Camen, M. (2011). State-ofthe-­art and future directions for green human resource management: Introduction to the ­special issue. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(2), 99–116. https://doi. org/10.1177/239700221102500203 Jiang, K., Lepak, D.  P., Hu, J., & Baer, J.  C. (2012). How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1264–1294. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0088 Karlin, B., Zinger, J. F., & Ford, R. (2015). The effects of feedback on energy conservation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 141(6), 1205–1227. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039650 Latham, G.  P., & Locke, E.  A. (2006). Enhancing the benefits and overcoming the pitfalls of goal setting. Organizational Dynamics, 35(4), 332–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. orgdyn.2006.08.008 Le Blanc, P. M., Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2017). How can I shape my job to suit me better? Job crafting for sustainable employees and organizations. In N. Chmiel, F. Fraccaroli, & M. Sverke (Eds.), An introduction to work and organizational psychology: An international perspective. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119168058.ch3 Leung, Y.  W., & Rosenthal, S. (2019). Explicating perceived sustainability-related climate: A situational motivator of pro-environmental behavior. Sustainability, 11(1), 231. https://doi. org/10.3390/su11010231 Levesque, D. A., Prochaska, J. M., & Prochaska, J. O. (1999). Stages of change and integrated service delivery. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 51(4), 226–241. https:// doi.org/10.1037/1061-­4087.51.4.226 Li, Z., Xue, J., Li, R., Chen, H., & Wang, T. (2020). Environmentally specific transformational leadership and employee’s pro-environmental behavior: The mediating roles of environmental passion and autonomous motivation. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1408. https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01408 Lingard, H., Gilbert, G., & Graham, P. (2001). Improving solid waste reduction and recycling performance using goal setting and feedback. Construction Management and Economics, 19(8), 809–817. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190110070952 Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 3(2), 157–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-­5073(68)90004-­4 Locke, E. A. (2001). Motivation by goal setting. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 43–56). CRC Press. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Prentice-Hall. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.103 7/0003-­066X.57.9.705 Martínez-Tur, V., Moliner, C., & Maniezki, A. (2020). Organizational justice. In V.  I. Sessa & N. A. Bowling (Eds.), Essentials of job attitudes and other workplace psychological constructs (pp. 45–70). May, A.  Y. C., Hao, G.  S., & Carter, S. (2021). Intertwining corporate social responsibility, employee green behavior, and environmental sustainability: The mediation effect of organizational trust and organizational identity. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets, 16(2), 32–61. https://doi.org/10.22381/emfm16220212 Meyer, P. J. (2003). What would you do if you knew you couldn’t fail? Creating S.M.A.R.T. goals. In Attitude is everything: If you want to succeed above and beyond. Meyer Resource Group. Moller, A. C., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-determination theory and public policy: Improving the quality of consumer decisions without using coercion. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25(1), 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.25.1.104 Mortensen, C.  R., Neel, R., Cialdini, R.  B., Jaeger, C.  M., Jacobson, R.  P., & Ringel, M.  M. (2019). Trending norms: A lever for encouraging behaviors performed by the minority. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(2), 201–210. https://doi. org/10.1177/1948550617734615

References

133

Osbaldiston, R., & Schott, J.  P. (2012). Environmental sustainability and behavioral science: Meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environment and Behavior, 44(2), 257–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511402673 Paillé, P., Mejía-Morelos, J.  H., Marché-Paillé, A., Chen, C.  C., & Chen, Y. (2016). Corporate greening, exchange process among co-workers, and ethics of care: An empirical study on the determinants of pro-environmental behaviors at coworkers-level. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(3), 655–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-­015-­2537-­0 Paillé, P., Valéau, P., & Carballo-Penela, A. (2022). Green rewards for optimizing employee environmental performance: Examining the role of perceived organizational support for the environment and internal environmental orientation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2022.2092723 Pimenta de Devotto, R., & Wechsler, S. M. (2019). Job crafting interventions: Systematic review. Trends in Psychology, 27(2), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.9788/TP2019.2-­06 Podsakoff, P.  M., MacKenzie, S.  B., Paine, J.  B., & Bachrach, D.  G. (2000). Organisational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563. https://doi. org/10.1177/014920630002600307 Ramus, C.  A. (2002). Encouraging innovative environmental actions: What companies and managers must do. Journal of World Business, 37(2), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1090-­9516(02)00074-­3 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi. org/10.1037/0003-­066X.55.1.68 Saunders, M.  N. K., & Thornhill, A. (2003). Organisational justice, trust and the management of change: An exploration. Personnel Review, 32(3), 360–375. https://doi. org/10.1108/00483480310467660 Schultz, P.  W. (2022). Secret agents of influence: Leveraging social norms for good. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(5), 443–450. https://doi. org/10.1177/09637214221109572 Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18(5), 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­9280.2007.01917.x Shalley, C. E., Oldham, G. R., & Porac, J. F. (1987). Effects of goal difficulty, goal-setting method, and expected external evaluation on intrinsic motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 30(3), 553–563. https://doi.org/10.2307/256014 Shapiro, D.  L., & Brett, J.  M. (2013). What is the role of control in organizational justice? In J.  Greenberg & J.  Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp.  155–177). Psychology Press. Siero, S., Boon, M., Kok, G., & Siero, F. (1989). Modification of driving behavior in a large transport organization: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(3), 417–423. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0021-­9010.74.3.417 Siero, F.  W., Bakker, A.  B., Dekker, G.  B., & van den Burg, T.  C. (1996). Changing organizational energy consumption behaviour through comparative feedback. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(3), 235–246. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Free Press. Smith, A. M., & O’Sullivan, T. (2012). Environmentally responsible behaviour in the workplace: An internal social marketing approach. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(3–4), 469–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2012.658837 Sonnentag, S. (2017). A task-level perspective on work engagement: A new approach that helps to differentiate the concepts of engagement and burnout. Burnout Research, 5, 12–20. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.burn.2017.04.001 Stahl, G. K., Brewster, C. J., Collings, D. G., & Hajro, A. (2020). Enhancing the role of human resource management in corporate sustainability and social responsibility: A multi-stakeholder,

134

7  Managing Motivation

multidimensional approach to HRM. Human Resource Management Review, 30(3), 100708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100708 Steingut, R. R., Patall, E. A., & Trimble, S. S. (2017). The effect of rationale provision on motivation and performance outcomes: A meta-analysis. Motivation Science, 3(1), 19–50. https://doi. org/10.1037/mot0000039 Thibaut, J.  W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. L.  Erlbaum Associates. Tims, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841 Toates, F. (2009). Burrhus F. Skinner. Palgrave Macmillan. Tokarz, A., & Malinowska, D. (2019). From psychological theoretical assumptions to new research perspectives in sustainability and sustainable development: Motivation in the workplace. Sustainability, 11(8), 2222. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082222 Unsworth, K. L., & McNeill, I. M. (2017). Increasing pro-environmental behaviors by increasing self-concordance: Testing an intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(1), 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000155 Unsworth, K.  L., & Tian, A. (2018). Motivation and GHRM: Overcoming the paradox. In D.  W. Renwick (Ed.), Contemporary developments in green human resource management research (pp. 23–38). Routledge. Van Houten, R., Nau, P. A., & Merrigan, M. (1981). Reducing elevator energy use: A comparison of posted feedback and reduced elevator convenience. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14(4), 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1981.14-­377 Wang, H.-J., Demerouti, E., & Le Blanc, P. (2017). Transformational leadership, adaptability, and job crafting: The moderating role of organizational identification. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 100, 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.03.009 Werner, C. M. (2013). Designing interventions that encourage permanent changes in behavior. In A. H. Huffman & S. R. Klein (Eds.), Green organizations: Driving change with IO psychology (pp. 208–230). Routledge. Wong-Parodi, G., Krishnamurti, T., Gluck, J., & Agarwal, Y. (2019). Encouraging energy conservation at work: A field study testing social norm feedback and awareness of monitoring. Energy Policy, 130, 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.03.028 Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.5465/ amr.2001.4378011 Young, W., Davis, M., McNeill, I.  M., Malhotra, B., Russell, S., Unsworth, K., & Clegg, C. W. (2015). Changing behaviour: Successful environmental programmes in the workplace. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(8), 689–703. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1836 Yun, R., Aziz, A., Lasternas, B., Loftness, V., Scupelli, P., & Zhang, C. (2017). The persistent effectiveness of online feedback and controls for sustainability in the workplace. Energy Efficiency, 10, 1143–1153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-­017-­9509-­4 Yuriev, A., Boiral, O., Francoeur, V., & Paillé, P. (2018). Overcoming the barriers to pro-­ environmental behaviors in the workplace: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.041 Zacher, H., Rudolph, C.  W., & Katz, I.  M. (2023). Employee green behavior as the core of environmentally sustainable organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 465–494. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-­orgpsych-­120920-­050421 Zapata-Phelan, C.  P., Colquitt, J.  A., Scott, B.  A., & Livingston, B. (2009). Procedural justice, interactional justice, and task performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 93–105. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.08.001 Zibarras, L. D., & Coan, P. (2015). HRM practices used to promote pro-environmental behavior: A UK survey. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(16), 2121–2142. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.972429

Chapter 8

Leadership

Throughout human history, group coordination has played a critical role in survival. Leadership, for better or worse, has evolved to serve that purpose (Van Vugt et al., 2008). In our contemporary world, transformational changes within organizations rely heavily on leadership to reorient goals, generate and maintain commitment, and ensure actions align with new goals (Aung & Hallinger, 2022; Quinn & Dalton, 2009). But a leader isn’t necessarily the most powerful person. Although in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) leadership by the university or college president is enormously helpful (Akins et al., 2019), leadership at its core is a process and a pretty challenging one that evolves as needs change (Bendell et al., 2017; Ferguson et al., 2015). This chapter is intended to articulate the various aspects of leadership that are likely to facilitate sustainability transformation in HEIs.

8.1 Defining Leadership The concept of leadership is well-studied (Northouse, 2022), and, although the study of sustainability leaders has only recently begun (e.g., van Velsor & Quinn, 2012; Robertson, 2018), a growing body of international research indicates that a leader’s commitment to sustainability can make a big difference in sustainable employee behavior (Katz et al., 2022; Zacher et al., 2023). Definitions of, and theories regarding, leadership abound, but basic trends describe leadership as a process that involves maintaining cooperative relationships, influencing and motivating groups toward a common goal, and using technical and analytical skills to foster sound decisions amidst uncertainty (see Fig. 8.1; Northouse, 2022; Yukl, 1994). Individuals demonstrating leadership use varying strategies (Azizi, 2023), but leadership boils down to social influence within relationships that changes and coordinates the direction, alignment, and commitment (Hull et  al., 2021; Quinn & Dalton, 2009), as well as the actions of others (Bolden et al., 2008). © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. L. Amel et al., Fostering Sustainability in Higher Education, Psychology and Our Planet, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50555-3_8

135

136

8 Leadership

Fig. 8.1  Leadership is a process of influencing and motivating groups toward a common goal

8.2 Leadership for Sustainability As seen throughout this book, leadership is one of the several critical workplace factors that impact employee sustainable behavior (Zacher et al., 2023). Discussed in Chap. 9, leadership at HEIs means creating a vision that connects academic (e.g., teaching, research, and service) and operational activities (e.g., facilities and support services) to long-term sustainability goals, generating enthusiasm throughout disparate departments about the work that needs to be done, and developing support structures that drive the ongoing behavior of all organizational members—administration, faculty, staff, and students (Aung & Hallinger, 2023). In other words, the primary task of sustainability leaders is no less than forging a culture that legitimizes and supports sustainable action across the whole institution, which we depicted in Chap. 2 (Latham, 2019; Schein, 2015; van Velsor & Quinn, 2012). Leaders can influence a variety of building blocks for sustainable behavior (Katz et al., 2022), including employee attitudes (Han et al., 2016; Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012; Paillé et  al., 2019) and emotions (Robertson & Barling, 2013; Russell &

8.2  Leadership for Sustainability

137

Ashkanasy, 2021; Saifulina & Carballo-Penela, 2017), perceptions of support and trust (Li et al., 2019; Paillé et al., 2019), and motivation (Afsar & Masood, 2018; Fernet et al., 2015; Graves et al., 2013; Ramus & Steger, 2000). Leaders can help employees see how their work is connected to sustainability (Katz et al., 2022) and empower innovation (Arici & Uysal, 2022; Karimi et al., 2023; Li et al., 2019). Leadership for sustainability is exceptionally challenging because it is constantly evolving over time (Bendell et al., 2017; Ferguson et al., 2015), and HEIs, by definition, are comprised of people with a diversity of jobs, values, priorities, and skills (Haddock-Fraser et al., 2018; Tight, 2022). Plus, as outlined in Chap. 1, sustainability is a complex, interdisciplinary endeavor (Akins et  al., 2019) requiring wholistic solutions and an integrated strategy (Cortese, 2003). It is no surprise, then, that HEI leaders who have experienced success in this arena tend to display attributes such as systems-oriented and long-term thinking and a focus on innovation and interdisciplinarity (Leal Filho et al., 2020). Ironically, given their position as role models for cutting-edge experimentation, barriers to sustainability efforts in HEIs often have to do with lack of awareness and resources, as well as rigid institutional structures like siloed disciplines (Akins et al., 2019; Avissar et al., 2018; Blanco-Portela et al., 2017; Verhulst & Lambrechts, 2015). Sustainability leadership in HEIs can effectively move sustainability forward in the following four ways: stimulating awareness, building collaborations, allocating resources, and counteracting resistance.

8.2.1 Awareness Raising awareness by communicating the importance of sustainable behaviors is a critical first step for behavior change (Greaves et al., 2013; Robertson & Barling, 2013; Smith & O’Sullivan, 2012). Leaders can legitimize engagement by clearly and repeatedly stating simple messages such as “this is part of everyone’s job” (Maibach et al., 2023). And, when leaders model sustainable behavior, work groups are more likely to openly discuss, share information, and encourage others to behave sustainably (Blok et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2018).

8.2.2 Collaboration Because of the aforementioned institutional barriers, sustainability efforts in HEIs have largely been a scattershot affair when, ideally, they need to be coordinated across the institution (Blanco-Portela et  al., 2017). Leaders can collaboratively develop and promote a sustainability vision that aligns the myriad of institutional activities (see Fig. 8.2; Aung & Hallinger, 2022; Avissar et al., 2018; Verhulst & Lambrechts, 2015). They can also create roles and coordinating bodies, as well as launch institution-wide strategic planning (Blanco-Portela et al., 2017).

138

8 Leadership

sustainability leadership defining a sustainability vision merging sustainability implementation institutional and cultural context influence everything!

transforming facilities and operations

incorporating sustainability in learning and research

developing sustainability culture

fostering community engagement

outputs sustainable university

sustainability knowledge and innovation

sustainability mindset and behavior

community improvement

outcome: a resilient university and sustainable society Fig. 8.2  Leadership drives vision, thus coordinating activities among the diverse participants in an institution (Adapted from Aung & Hallinger, 2022)

8.2.3 Resources Leaders invested in the long-term survival of their institutions can allocate resources including time, funding, coordinating personnel, information, and incentives (Avissar et al., 2018; Blanco-Portela et al., 2017).

8.2.4 Resistance Leadership is especially important in the face of resistance to change (Oreg & Berson, 2019). Change is difficult. In general, resistance to sustainability occurs if people feel like their autonomy and influence are reduced or if there are reductions in availability of resources (Bien & Sassen, 2020; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). In HEIs specifically, resistance can be explained by the value of academic freedom, limited

8.3  Who Should Be Leading?

139

knowledge (especially among more veteran faculty for which sustainability was not in the forefront of their education), an already overcrowded curriculum, lack of recognition for engagement, or a general lack of desire to change (Leal Filho et al., 2020). And some employees are just plain dispositionally opposed to change (Hon et al., 2014; Oreg & Berson, 2011). Transformational leadership can reduce the likelihood that recalcitrant individuals engage in resistant behaviors (Oreg & Berson, 2011). Three specific aspects of leadership behavior notably affect people’s receptivity to change: effective communication, being attentive to recipients’ concerns, and engaging people in planning (Oreg & Berson, 2019). When leaders do these, people are more receptive and better able to act in sync with the institution’s goals (Oreg & Berson, 2019). Micromanaging and other controlling approaches are generally not effective (Higgs & Rowland, 2011; Oreg & Berson, 2019) and may even stimulate resistance.

8.3 Who Should Be Leading? Effective sustainability implementation in HEIs will rely both on top-down imperatives, such as those originating from senior staff or HR, and on bottom-up initiatives originating from the grass roots of the institution (Weiss & Rupp, 2011). Because every aspect of an HEI affects sustainability, leadership is also needed from the middle out (Azizi, 2023).

8.3.1 Top-Down Whether change in HEIs is incremental or transformational, it often relies heavily on formal leaders who have been appointed or elected to their positions (legitimate leaders; French & Raven, 1959). HEIs typically have a strong, centralized leadership structure that includes trustees, presidents, presidents’ councils (including VPs and deans in academic, student, and financial affairs), provosts, or chancellors, who have the potential to catalyze sustainability efforts (Avissar et  al., 2018; Bess & Dee, 2012; Phillips & Snodgrass, 2022). They can also make progress really difficult (Akins et al., 2019). When formal leaders advocate for sustainability, they are in a position to catalyze campus-wide engagement (Cleveland & Kalamas, 2015; Leal Filho et  al., 2020; Zepeda Quintana et  al., 2022). Executives of the most sustainable organizations actively make it visible through exhibiting their own commitment (van Velsor & Quinn, 2012). They reorient direction, making sure actions across the institution are synced by earmarking resources, authorizing groups and individuals to coordinate action (Akins et al., 2019; Barlett & Chase, 2013), and generating and maintaining commitment among others (see Table  8.1; Aung & Hallinger, 2022; Phillips & Snodgrass, 2022; Quinn & Dalton, 2009; van Velsor & Quinn, 2012).

8 Leadership

140 Table 8.1  Key leadership roles and activities for transforming HEIs Leadership role Setting direction

Activities Frame message

Identify roles

Creating alignment

Maintaining commitment

Attend to timing and readiness Focus effort Develop practices Engage Infuse Treat employees as assets Build reputation

Build networks

Examples Make it positive and compelling Link to practical matters such as future economic viability Relate to meaningful work Invite initiators, implementors, and advisors to play different roles Start anywhere; apply different paces for different levels of readiness Use decisions, rules, principles, or standards Integrate sustainability into roles, goals, measurement, and/or professional development Include employees, students, alumni, and vendors Integrate ideas into both academics and operations Be a good place to work Listen to employee concerns Repeatedly make sustainable choices Consider third-party sustainability certification (i.e., AASHE STARS) Share ideas among other HEIs pursuing sustainability Set up a support system between these HEIs

Adapted from Quinn and Dalton (2009)

Formal leaders play a large role in creating culture by sharing their values and beliefs (Bertels et al., 2010; Hejjas et al., 2019; Schein, 1992) and cultivating shared meaning among others (Bien & Sassen, 2020). Formal leaders are positioned to develop systemic solutions and influence policy development (Leal Filho et  al., 2020) and can use their position to communicate said developments (Azizi, 2023; Robertson & Barling, 2013). When leaders act sustainably, they signal that it is a core value rather than a peripheral activity (Hejjas et al., 2019). Sustainable behaviors can flow down from leaders to supervisors and then to subordinates, creating a critical mass of support (Andersson & Bateman, 2000; Andersson et  al., 2005; Robertson & Carleton, 2018). Sustainability executives have become more common in academia (Ernst & Young, 2022). They can stimulate HEI transformation by setting up the strategy, policies, and procedures that drive behavior in a coherent direction (Dierdorff et al., 2013; Strand, 2014). Those with the ability to learn new ways of approaching the world adapt accordingly. And those who can discern the right action in the right moment are in position to change patterns of behavior across the institution (Boal & Hooijberg, 2000). Their visibility makes them especially powerful role models (Hejjas et al., 2019). Supportive immediate supervisors can also make a difference. While management and leadership are not the same thing, managers can develop leadership skills,

8.3  Who Should Be Leading?

141

execute leadership behaviors, and, critically, model sustainable behavior (Blok et al., 2014). Support can take the form of communication and competence building (Delmas & Pekovic, 2018), as well as providing resources and fostering autonomy (Yuriev et al., 2018). Supervisors are known to impact workers’ attitudes and behaviors (Afsar et al., 2018b). Evidence suggests that people are more willing to engage in sustainability initiatives when their supervisors support people’s ideas for innovative, sustainable behavior (Cantor et al., 2012; Ramus & Steger, 2000; Tafvelin et al., 2019).

8.3.2 Bottom-Up Students have led many significant change efforts at HEIs, most prominently fossil fuel divestment campaigns (Maina et al., 2020), which push institutions to move their endowments away from stocks, bonds, and other investment instruments connected to unethical industries. Effective past divestment campaigns focused, for example, on tobacco companies or companies doing business with the apartheid government in South Africa. Students have an abundance of opportunities on campus including research, extracurricular activities, student government, employment, internships, and volunteering, in which they can integrate sustainability. Student leadership has many advantages since students are innovative and can more easily transcend academic boundaries (Drupp et al., 2012). Being digital natives, they nimbly communicate and are in prime position to diffuse change throughout the student body (Lee et al., 2023). Students who engage in sustainability leadership develop skills (e.g., teamwork, communication, project management, and leadership), solidify their values and aspirations, build their networks, and, importantly, beat back feelings of powerlessness with hope and self-confidence (Lee et al., 2023). The more HEIs provide formal and informal sustainability education, motivational stimulation, and opportunities to engage, the better equipped students will be to lead campus initiatives (Akhtar et  al., 2022). For instance, creating sustainability-oriented living-­ learning communities and other first-year experiences can orient students to campus initiatives, while infusing sustainability into core curriculum requirements can provide the knowledge to insightfully engage.

8.3.3 Middle-Out Many stories of HEI transformation have begun with a few determined faculty and staff (Adams et  al., 2018; Brinkhurst et  al., 2011). Faculty, especially, have the autonomy to make changes in their own sphere and push for institutional change

142

8 Leadership

(Akins et  al., 2019). Although it’s not a guarantee, and it certainly entails risks, internal pushing can be successful (Briscoe & Gupta, 2016; Carrington et al., 2019; Girschik et al., 2022). Faculty play an especially important role in preparing students to become the next generation of sustainability leaders. They are perfectly positioned to influence students’ transformational leadership through coursework by addressing critical thinking and interpersonal skills, as well as increasing sustainability knowledge (Azizi, 2023; Balwant, 2016; Leal Filho et al., 2018). The fact is any employee can become a sustainability champion or change agent (Davis & Coan, 2015). It may start small, with employees increasing the sustainability content of their own jobs based on their intimate knowledge of the work needing to be done (Boiral et al., 2015). For instance, a Career Services employee might decide to develop a sustainable jobs fair. For more detail about job crafting, see Chap. 7. Effective champions have the most impact when they identify, package, and sell sustainability issues (see Table  8.2; Andersson & Bateman, 2000; Falbe & Yukl, 1992; Uhl-Bein et  al., 2014). But the superpower of professors, program directors, administrative assistants, and folks who have served on committees is the substantial networks across an institution they can influence (Bolden et al., 2008). Importantly, employees can proactively influence legitimate leaders (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014; Grant & Ashford, 2008). Building relationships with top administrators can eventually lead to increased support. A particularly effective strategy for relationship building is providing regular “good news” updates to an HEI’s president. Presidents deal with a lot of challenging problems every day; reliably

Table 8.2  Successful “middle-level” champion behaviors (Andersson & Bateman, 2000) Champion activities Identify issues

Scanning

Package issues

Framing

Presenting

Sell issues

Influencing

Timing

Successful actions Read/research/seek knowledge Attend conferences Identify experts and consultants Remember, addressing sustainability can:  Create financial opportunity  Make a significant local impact  Be tailored to important values  Provide good publicity Keep it simple Use metaphors Speak in culturally relevant language Use rational persuasion Make inspirational appeals Build coalitions Act on opportunities as soon as they emerge

8.4  Leadership Models for Change

143

sharing news they can be proud of, get excited about, and publicize will ensure their continuing commitment.

8.4 Leadership Models for Change When people are pushing sustainability from the middle-out and the bottom-up, it can help to understand the various types of effective, future-oriented leadership behavior. Future-oriented leadership requires an understanding of the current culture in order to align it with a new vision, address the shared assumptions and norms, and, eventually, transform the culture (Bass & Avolio, 1993; Craddock et al., 2012; Smith & O’Sullivan, 2012). HEIs that are intent on becoming sustainable need such transformation (Akins et al., 2019).

8.4.1 Transformational Leadership Specific combinations of leader behavior are well suited for changing the way organizations work (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Ferrer-Balas et al., 2008; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Because of the magnitude of work that lies ahead, and the fact that many HEIs are relatively late to the effort, sustainability leadership must, by definition, be transformational. Transformational leadership, a compelling style of leadership that often impels follower buy-in and action, is particularly influential during crises (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Robertson & Barling, 2013) and inspires others to achieve extraordinary outcomes (Bass, 1985; Bass & Riggio, 2006). This form of leadership is positively related to openness, commitment, and readiness to change and is inversely related to resistance to and cynicism about change (Peng et al., 2021). Transformational leadership increases knowledge sharing (Han et  al., 2016) and also increases employee retention (Tian et al., 2020). Transformational leaders help people to refocus attention, reprioritize tasks, persevere in the face of adversity, and feel good about it at the same time (see Fig. 8.3). Such leaders embody “the four I’s” (Bass, 1990): Idealized Influence Leaders who use a combination of expert power (being known for one’s expertise) and referent power (power derived from strong interpersonal respect) (French & Raven, 1959) create trust by repeatedly making sound decisions (Pierro et al., 2013; Li et  al., 2019), walking-the-talk by consistently modeling sustainable behavior (Robertson & Barling, 2013).

144

8 Leadership

build trust through expert and referent power

encourage critical thinking

transformational leader

display passion

boost others' selfefficacy

Fig. 8.3  Transformational leadership behaviors

Inspirational Motivation Transformational leaders passionately promote a vision of what a sustainable future can look like (Afsar et al., 2020; Akins et al., 2019). They encourage others to think critically and creatively about sustainability, empowering them to innovate and overcome challenges (Chen & Chang, 2013; Koh et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020; Li et al., 2019; Mittal & Dhar, 2016; Yi et al., 2019; Zheng et al., 2017). Intellectual Stimulation Transformational leaders influence how people think about their jobs and their organization. They support an innovative mindset that will help employees solve sustainability problems (Bass & Avolio, 1997; Begum et al., 2022; Hughes et al., 2018). Under this type of leadership, people perceive that they have more autonomy and that their jobs are more challenging and important. These perceptions make tasks more intrinsically motivating and increase people’s commitment to reaching their goals (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). For more detail about intrinsic motivation, see Chap. 6.

8.4  Leadership Models for Change

145

Individualized Consideration Transformational leaders also make others feel capable and important, empowering their followers to become leaders themselves (Afsar et al., 2018b; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Li et al., 2019). These kinds of leaders display empathy and encouragement, enhancing others’ self-efficacy (Barling et  al., 2011)—all critically relevant to encouraging faculty and staff to take risks, suggest, and implement sustainability initiatives. Transformational leaders have the strong potential to influence the culture of the workplace by creating a critical mass of co-workers who are focused on sustainability at work (Smith & O’Sullivan, 2012). In fact, Robertson and Barling (2013) coined the term “environmentally specific transformational leadership” to denote leadership that intentionally directs core transformational principles toward environmental action. Transformational leadership galvanizes in-role sustainability behavior (Chen et al., 2014; Graves et al., 2013; Katz et al., 2022), as well as discretionary, extra-­ role behaviors like self-development and encouraging co-workers to conserve resources (Jiang et  al., 2017; Robertson & Barling, 2017). Chapter 3 delineates these different categories of work behavior. Evidence suggests that it also increases employee communication about, and mindful attention to, sustainable behavior (Chen & Wu, 2022). It is also linked to sustainability-related work engagement (Vila-Vázquez et al., 2018), which is described further in Chap. 10, as well as energizing employee passion (Robertson & Barling, 2013). A variety of other forms of leadership suggest additional behaviors that can enhance employee buy-in for sustainability. We describe authentic, servant, generative, and ecological leadership next, followed by one approach to avoid: toxic leadership.

8.4.2 Authentic Leadership The need for authentic leadership emerged after a spate of high-profile organizational failures resulting from unethical leadership engendering dysfunctional organizational cultures (Northouse, 2022). Subsequently, people have demanded transparency from their leaders. Authentic leaders walk-the-talk by unambiguously disclosing their values and acting on them (Avolio et al., 2004). Similar to transformational leaders, authentic leaders exude positivity and exhibit a pattern of behaviors that foster the same positivity in others (Luthans & Avolio, 2003; Northouse, 2022; Walumbwa et al., 2008; Walumbwa & Wernsing, 2013). An explicitly ethical approach, authentic leaders tend to display behaviors like following their moral compass instead of bowing to pressure and being honest with others about their emotions and thoughts (Walumbwa et al., 2008).

146

8 Leadership

Authentic sustainability leaders not only invest tangible time, money, and human resources into sustainable efforts but also influence all levels of an institution to be similarly authentic through modeling. Indeed, in HEIs, both modeling and transparent decisions have been linked with employee perceptions that their institution is capable of becoming sustainable (Srivastava et al., 2020).

8.4.3 Servant Leadership Another ethics-centered leadership style, servant leadership, adds a focus on humility (Northouse, 2022; Schermuly et al., 2022). Essentially, good servant leaders put others first by paying close attention, listening, and displaying empathy toward them (Greenleaf, 1970; Hoch et  al., 2018). Servant leaders want their colleagues to flourish, their organizations to succeed, and to positively impact society (Northouse, 2022). Servant leaders are also supportive of others’ personal well-being (Van Dierendonck, 2011). They are known for building high-performance organizational cultures that forefront service to others (Eva et al., 2019). Not surprisingly, several studies have linked servant leadership to sustainable workplace behavior (Katz et al., 2022). Servant leadership specifically directed at sustainability has been linked to sustainable extra-role behavior (Afsar et al., 2018a, 2022), sustainability-oriented job crafting (Elshaer et al., 2023; Tuan, 2021), and perceived meaningful work and going above and beyond to display loyalty toward one’s organization (Elshaer et al., 2023).

8.4.4 Generative Leadership Yet another relevant conceptualization of leadership has emerged specifically to address complex, fast-evolving situations (i.e., wicked problems, as defined in this book’s introduction) in which leaders may not be able to sufficiently devise a guiding vision. Instead, generative leadership focuses on articulating the problem at hand and engaging others to generate novel solutions (Bushe, 2019). Generative leadership is based on several assumptions: cognitive and motivational resources are required for creative thinking, collaboration practices will unleash these resources, and leaders are directly responsible for creating the conditions for collaborative work. In their role, generative leaders identify the challenge, provide resources and clear boundaries, strengthen communication and relationships, and scale up the most promising innovations (Bushe, 2019). Generative leadership has shown promise for driving sustainability-related norms, employee commitment, and creativity (Afridi et al., 2023).

8.4  Leadership Models for Change

147

8.4.5 Ecological Leadership Since organizations are complex systems that need to adapt, thinking about them with an ecological mindset, as described in Chap. 3, can illuminate additional appropriate leadership strategies (Avolio et  al., 2009b; Uhl-Bien et  al. 2007; Wielkiewicz & Stelzner, 2010). Ecological leadership recognizes that organizations are an interdependent network of beings with reciprocal relationships that adapts based on feedback from the system. Interdependent systems require a more extensive examination of context when making decisions. It also suggests minimizing constraints to maximize adaptive outcomes such as learning and innovation. Ecological leaders include diverse perspectives to increase resilience and adaptation in the face of disruptions. They understand that people across the institution possess unique, relevant expertise and can provide detailed information about disparate functions, provide important feedback loops, and improve decision-making by providing a variety of alternatives. Here again, empowerment becomes critical, because it allows employees to adapt to their changing environment.

8.4.6 Shared Leadership Most modern bureaucratic organizations headed by a single powerful leader belie our evolutionary origins in which the person most equipped to take on a task emerged as the leader in that particular situation, but otherwise remained as a collaborator in their groups (Van Vugt et al., 2008). There is evidence that more flexible, shared leadership—leading one another laterally, upward, or downward according to whether one’s expertise is relevant —can be effective in today’s institutions (Avissar et al., 2018; Avolio et al., 2009b). Shared leadership is suited for HEI cultures in which collegiality and autonomy are expected (Avissar et al., 2018). The integrative collaboration that emerges across roles and departments is highly adaptive (Wielkiewicz & Stelzner, 2010), allowing for diverse solutions to emerge (Avissar et al., 2018). The most striking theme across these leadership models is relationship building (Spreitzer, 2008; Schermuly et al., 2022). A focus on relationships engenders others’ trust, which reduces negative emotions (e.g., anxiety, threat) and increases positive emotions such as hope and enthusiasm, the benefits of which we discuss in Chap. 10 (Oreg & Berson, 2019).

8.4.7 Toxic Leadership Of course, HEI leadership is not all rainbows and unicorns. In fact, many leaders in HEIs are known for their toxic leadership (Smith & Fredricks-Lowman, 2020). Toxic leadership results from a combination of self-interest and lack of concern for

148

8 Leadership

the well-being of others. These behaviors, while stemming from certain individuals, are often supported by a culture that values high performance without concern for how that performance is achieved. Allowing toxic leadership to persist undermines individual employees and perpetuates a toxic culture. Clearly antithetical to the ethos of sustainability, which values the flourishing of people and planet, toxic leaders are unlikely to support sustainability work (Boddy, 2023). Toxic leadership reduces the resilience employees need to move sustainability forward (Koo et al., 2022). Luckily, there are specific strategies for enhancing leadership that supports sustainability in HEIs.

8.5 Enhancing Sustainability Leadership in HEIs Sustainability leadership is needed, and quickly. Leading for sustainability requires a combination of empowering leadership skills and a sustainabilityoriented worldview (Allen et  al., 1999; Wielkiewicz & Stelzner, 2010). Here, we revisit the processes of bringing in new talent, discussed in Chap. 4, as well as developing current talent, discussed in Chap. 5, as they apply specifically to leadership.

8.5.1 Seeking New Leaders One way to increase the reach and pace of sustainability transformation in HEIs is to forefront sustainability competency and transformational leadership skills when recruiting and selecting new employees across the institution. There are validated long- and short-form scales specific to environmental transformational leadership that can be given to applicants at any leadership level (ETFL; Robertson, 2018). Alternatively, interview questions can be developed based on the four transformational leadership dimensions (see Table 8.3).

8.5.2 Developing Current Leaders Combined with a sustainability competency, future-oriented leadership is a potent combination for shifting an organization. It may seem like only a rare individual who can pull this off. Some employees already have leadership skills but need to better understand sustainability, while others are knowledgeable about sustainability but don’t possess the leadership skills. The good news is that both skillsets are learnable.

8.5  Enhancing Sustainability Leadership in HEIs

149

Table 8.3  Sample interview questions for sustainability transformational leadership Leadership dimension Idealized influence Inspirational motivation Intellectual stimulation

Individualized consideration

Definition Ability for a leader to serve as a role model; has high standards and is trusted and respected Ability to articulate an idea or vision that can inspire others to perform beyond expectation Ability to connect with team members and provide each individual with tasks that push them Ability to attend to team member’s needs and serve as a mentor

Sample interview question Describe ways in which you act as a sustainability role model Provide an example of how you’ve communicated your passion about sustainability to a group How would you enable others to think creatively about improving our organization’s sustainability performance? How, specifically, do you take note of individual contributions to the organization’s sustainability performance?

Adapted from Robertson (2018)

Preparing Leaders for Sustainability Work Future-oriented sustainability leaders think about the world differently, understanding the implications of varying worldviews, interdisciplinary collaboration, thinking in systems, and focusing on the long term (Barth et al., 2007; Goleman et al., 2012; Leal Filho et al., 2020; Rooke & Torbert, 2005; Schein, 2017). Development efforts can help these leaders heighten their sustainability-related awareness (Young et al., 2015) and augment knowledge (Alkaher & Avissar, 2017; Balda et al., 2023; Fawehinmi et al., 2020; Wolske & Stern, 2018). Training can help leaders acquire sustainability-specific skills and problem-solving capacity, as well as enhance their attitudes and beliefs about sustainability at work (Campbell et al., 2018). Preparing Sustainability Experts to Lead Future-oriented leadership, involving transformational, authentic, and servant behaviors, should not be assumed among upper administration in HEIs. For instance, one cross-cultural study found that transformational skills vary across academic deans but that, in general, they tend to fall below the norm among leaders (Al-Mansoori & Koç, 2019). And there are risks involved for anyone taking on a transformational role, such as emotional exhaustion (Lin et  al., 2019). However, boosting the number of future-oriented sustainability leaders is imperative, and anyone can learn to apply these leadership behaviors (Baron, 2016; Bass, 1990; Brown & May, 2012; Hull et  al., 2021; Kiersch & Peters, 2017; McMahone, 2012; Rimanoczy & Pearson, 2010; Robertson & Carleton, 2018).

8 Leadership

150

These kinds of leaders understand interdependence and therefore increase their scale of impact by working to create connections throughout systems. They collaborate across differences because the problem is enormous, difficult, and threatening, and they adapt because problems are uncertain, new, and dynamic (Hull et al., 2021; Leal Filho et al., 2020). As highlighted throughout this book, these are critical competencies that will help move the needle dramatically toward sustainability (see Table 8.4). Development interventions focused on a variety of leadership behaviors significantly impact emotional, cognitive, and behavior change among followers (Avolio et al., 2009a). In addition to effectively clarifying work roles, training and development can help leaders learn how to encourage commitment to goals, delegate responsibilities, coach others, model appropriate behavior, and provide support and recognition (Campbell et al., 2018). These skills can be directed toward sustainability. People can also develop skills associated with fostering collaboration, teamwork, and managing change (Ahmad, 2015; Aung & Hallinger, 2022). People can learn future-oriented leadership skills vicariously (Robertson & Barling, 2013). Additional, more formal methods for developing leadership skills include executive coaching, mentorship, networking, goal setting, practice, and feedback (Barling et al., 1996; Bass, 1990; Lacerenza et al., 2017). Post-graduate programs are also emerging to meet this need (Aung & Hallinger, 2022; Barth et al., 2020; Burns & Schneider, 2019; Hull et al., 2021; Wiek et al., 2011). Table 8.4  Leadership practices that address sustainability needs Sustainability needs Interconnection

Collaboration

Strategic adaptation

Adapted from Hull et al. (2020)

Leadership practices Accountability Storytelling Community of practice Train-the-trainer Scaling up Diffusion Collective impact Information/social marketing campaigns Counteracting biases Picking battles Joint fact finding Minimizing identity conflict Active, empathetic, respectful listening Repairing/developing trust Partnering Sensemaking Learning by doing Innovation Disruption Resilience Scenario planning Sharing lessons

References

151

8.6 Conclusion Leaders of all kinds are important catalysts for change efforts, yet leadership is not the only critical element, nor will greater cultural shifts be possible without more systematic efforts (Jackson et al., 2013). Organizational change principles, addressed next in Chap. 9, can be leveraged to simultaneously create culture change and ensure the alignment of organizational features that support it.

References Adams, R., Martin, S., & Boom, K. (2018). University culture and sustainability: Designing and implementing an enabling framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 171, 434–445. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.032 Afridi, S.  A., Shahjehan, A., Zaheer, S., Khan, W., & Gohar, A. (2023). Bridging generative leadership and green creativity: Unpacking the role of psychological green climate and green commitment in the hospitality industry. SAGE Open, 13(3), 1–17. https://doi. org/10.1177/21582440231185759 Afsar, B., & Masood, M. (2018). Transformational leadership, creative self-efficacy, trust in supervisor, uncertainty avoidance, and innovative work behavior of nurses. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(1), 36–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886317711891 Afsar, B., Cheema, S., & Javed, F. (2018a). Activating employee’s pro-environmental behaviors: The role of CSR, organizational identification, and environmentally specific servant leadership. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(5), 904–911. https://doi. org/10.1002/csr.1506 Afsar, B., Shahjehan, A., & Shah, I. (2018b). Leadership and employee proenvironmental behaviors. In V. K. Wells, D. Gregory-Smith, & D. Manika (Eds.), Research handbook on employee pro-environmental behaviour. Edward Elgar Publishing. Afsar, B., Maqsoom, A., Shahjehan, A., Afridi, S. A., Nawaz, A., & Fazliani, H. (2020). Responsible leadership and employee’s proenvironmental behavior: The role of organizational commitment, green shared vision, and internal environmental locus of control. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1), 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/ csr.1806 Ahmad, S. (2015). Green human resource management: Policies and practices. Cogent Business & Management, 2(1), 1030817. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2015.1030817 Akhtar, S., Khan, K. U., Atlas, F., & Irfan, M. (2022). Stimulating student’s pro-environmental behavior in higher education institutions: An ability–motivation–opportunity perspective. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(3), 4128–4149. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10668-­021-­01609-­4 Akins, E.  E., Giddens, E., Glassmeyer, D., Gruss, A., Kalamas Hedden, M., Slinger-Friedman, V., & Weand, M. (2019). Sustainability education and organizational change: A critical case study of barriers and change drivers at a higher education institution. Sustainability, 11(2), 501. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020501 Alkaher, I., & Avissar, I. (2017). Assessing the impact of a program designed to develop sustainability leadership amongst staff members in higher education institutes: A case study from a community of practice perspective. Environmental Education Research, 24(4), 492–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1291799 Allen, K. E., Stelzner, S. P., & Wielkiewicz, R. M. (1999). The ecology of leadership: Adapting to the challenges of a changing world. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 5(2), 62–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179199900500207

152

8 Leadership

Al-Mansoori, R. S., & Koç, M. (2019). Transformational leadership, systems, and intrinsic motivation impacts on innovation in higher education institutes: Faculty perspectives in engineering colleges. Sustainability, 11(15), 4072. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154072 Andersson, L.  M., & Bateman, T.  S. (2000). Individual environmental initiative: Championing natural environmental issues in U.S. business organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 548–570. Andersson, L., Shivarajan, S., & Blau, G. (2005). Enacting ecological sustainability in the MNC: A test of an adapted value-belief-norm framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-­005-­3440-­x Arici, H. E., & Uysal, M. (2022). Leadership, green innovation, and green creativity: A systematic review. The Service Industries Journal, 42(5–6), 280–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/0264206 9.2021.1964482 Ashraf, S., Afridi, S. A., & Saifullah, K. (2022). Employees voluntary green behavior: The role of servant leadership and psychological empowerment. NUML International Journal of Business & Management, 17(1), 10.52015/nijbm.v17i1.93. Aung, P.  N., & Hallinger, P. (2022). The intellectual structure of the literature on sustainability leadership in higher education: An author co-citation analysis. International Journal of Educational Management, 36(5), 784–799. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-­09-­2021-­0371 Aung, P. N., & Hallinger, P. (2023). Research on sustainability leadership in higher education: A scoping review. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 24(3), 517–534. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-­09-­2021-­0367 Avissar, I., Alkaher, I., & Gan, D. (2018). The role of distributed leadership in mainstreaming environmental sustainability into campus life in an Israeli teaching college: A case study. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(3), 518–546. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJSHE-­07-­2017-­0105 Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 801–823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.003 Avolio, B.  J., Reichard, R.  J., Hannah, S.  T., Walumbwa, F.  O., & Chan, A. (2009a). A meta-­ analytic review of leadership impact research: Experimental and quasi-experimental studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 764–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.006 Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009b). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421–449. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.psych.60.110707.163621 Azizi, L. (2023). Which leadership processes encourage sustainable transitions within universities? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 24(1), 46–68. Balda, J.  B., Stanberry, J., & Altman, B. (2023). Leadership and the regenerative economy-­ concepts, cases, and connections: Leveraging the sustainable development goals to move toward sustainability leadership. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2023(179), 121–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20574 Balwant, P.  T. (2016). Transformational instructor-leadership in higher education teaching: A meta-analytic review and research agenda. Journal of Leadership Studies, 9(4), 20–42. https:// doi.org/10.1002/jls.21423 Barlett, P. F., & Chase, G. W. (Eds.). (2013). Sustainability in higher education: Stories and strategies for transformation. MIT Press. Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 827–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-­9010.81.6.827 Barling, J., Christie, A., & Hoption, A. (2011). Leadership. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 183–240). American Psychological Association. Baron, L. (2016). Authentic leadership and mindfulness development through action learning. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(1), 296–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-­04-­2014-­0135

References

153

Barth, M., Godemann, J., Rieckman, M., & Stoltenberg, U. (2007). Developing key competencies for sustainable development in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 8(4), 416–430. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370710823582 Barth, M., Bruhn, A., Lam, D.  P., Bergmann, M., & Lang, D.  J. (2020). Capacity building for transformational leadership and transdisciplinarity. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 29(3), 195–197. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.29.3.12 Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-­2616(90)90061-­S Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112–121. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Concepts of leadership. In Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in organizations. University of Notre Dame Press. https://doi. org/10.2307/j.ctvpg85tk.6 Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410617095 Begum, S., Ashfaq, M., Xia, E., & Awan, U. (2022). Does green transformational leadership lead to green innovation? The role of green thinking and creative process engagement. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(1), 580–597. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2911 Bendell, J., Sutherland, N., & Little, R. (2017). Beyond unsustainable leadership: Critical social theory for sustainable leadership. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 8(4), 418–444. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-­08-­2016-­0048 Bertels, S., Papania, L., & Papania, D. (2010). Embedding sustainability in organizational culture. A systematic review of the body of knowledge. Network for Business Sustainability. https://embeddingproject.org/pub/resources/EP-­Embedding-­Sustainability-­in-­Organizational-­ Culture.pdf Bess, J. L., & Dee, J. R. (2012). Understanding college and university organization: Theories for effective policy and practice – Dynamics of the system (Vol. 2). Routledge. Bien, C., & Sassen, R. (2020). Sensemaking of a sustainability transition by higher education institution leaders. Journal of Cleaner Production, 256, 120299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2020.120299 Blanco-Portela, N., Benayas, J., Pertierra, L. R., & Lozano, R. (2017). Towards the integration of sustainability in Higher Education Institutions: A review of drivers of and barriers to organisational change and their comparison against those found of companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 563–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.252 Blok, V., Wesselink, R., Studynka, O., & Kemp, R. (2014). Encouraging sustainability in the workplace: A survey on the pro-environmental behaviour of university employees. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.063 Boal, K. B., & Hooijberg, R. (2000). Strategic leadership research: Moving on. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 515–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-­9843(00)00057-­6 Boddy, C. R. (2023). Moving sustainability towards flourishing for all: The critical role of (toxic) leadership. Business and Society Review, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12309 Boiral, O., Paillé, P., & Raineri, N. (2015). The nature of employees’ pro-environmental behaviors. In J. L. Robertson & J. Barling (Eds.), The psychology of green organizations. Oxford Press. Bolden, R., Petrov, G., & Gosling, J. (2008). Tensions in higher education leadership: Towards a multi-level model of leadership practice. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(4), 358–376. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-­2273.2008.00398.x Brinkhurst, M., Rose, P., Maurice, G., & Ackerman, J. D. (2011). Achieving campus sustainability: Top-down, bottom-up, or neither? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(4), 338–354. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371111168269 Briscoe, F., & Gupta, A. (2016). Social activism in and around organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 671–727. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1153261

154

8 Leadership

Brown, W., & May, D. (2012). Organizational change and development: The efficacy of transformational leadership training. Journal of Management Development, 31(6), 520–536. https:// doi.org/10.1108/02621711211230830 Burns, H., & Schneider, M. (2019). Insights from alumni: A grounded theory study of a graduate program in sustainability leadership. Sustainability, 11(19), 5223. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su11195223 Bushe, G.  R. (2019). Generative leadership. Canadian Journal of Physician Leadership, 5(3), 141–147. Campbell, J. P., Kuncel, N. R., & Kostal, J. W. (2018). Training and learning in work roles. In D. S. Ones, N. Anderson, C. Viswesvaran, & H. K. Sinangil (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of industrial, work & organizational psychology: Personnel psychology and employee performance (pp. 533–610). Sage Reference. Cantor, D.  E., Morrow, P.  C., & Montabon, F. (2012). Engagement in environmental behaviors among supply chain management employees: An organizational support theoretical perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48(3), 33–51. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-­493X.2011.03257.x Carrington, M., Zwick, D., & Neville, B. (2019). Activism and abdication on the inside: The effect of everyday practice on corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 160, 973–999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-­018-­3814-­5 Chen, Y. S., & Chang, C. H. (2013). The determinants of green product development performance: Green dynamic capabilities, green transformational leadership, and green creativity. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(1), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-­012-­1452-­x Chen, T., & Wu, Z. (2022). How to facilitate employees’ green behavior? The joint role of green human resource management practice and green transformational leadership. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 906869. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.906869 Chen, Y. S., Chang, C. H., & Lin, Y. H. (2014). Green transformational leadership and green performance: The mediation effects of green mindfulness and green self-efficacy. Sustainability, 6(10), 6604–6621. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6106604 Cleveland, M., & Kalamas, M. (2015). Environmental locus of control. In J.  L. Robertson & J.  Barling (Eds.), The psychology of green organizations (pp.  187–212). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199997480.003.0009 Cortese, A.  D. (2003). The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. Planning for Higher Education, 31(3), 15–22. Craddock, E.  B., Huffman, A.  H., & Henning, J.  B. (2012). Taming the dragon: How industrial–organizational psychologists can break barriers to “green” business. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5(4), 484–487. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1754-­9434.2012.01483.x Davis, M. C., & Coan, P. (2015). Organizational change. In J. L. Robertson & J. Barling (Eds.), The psychology of green organizations (pp.  244–274). Oxford University Press. https://doi. org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199997480.003.0011 Delmas, M. A., & Pekovic, S. (2018). Corporate sustainable innovation and employee behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 150, 1071–1088. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-­016-­3163-­1 Dierdorff, E. C., Norton, J. J., Gregory, C. M., Rivkin, D., & Lewis, P. (2013). In A. H. Huffman & S.  R. Klein (Eds.), O*NET’s national perspective on the greening of the world of work. Routledge. Drupp, M. A., Esguerra, A., Keul, L., Beer, D. L., Meisch, S., & Roosen-Runge, F. (2012). Change from below – Student initiatives for universities in sustainable development. In W. Leal Filho (Ed.), Sustainable development at universities: New horizons (pp.  773–742). Peter Lang Scientific. Elshaer, I.  A., Azazz, A.  M., Kooli, C., Alshebami, A.  S., Zeina, M.  M., & Fayyad, S. (2023). Environmentally specific servant leadership and brand citizenship behavior: The role of green-crafting behavior and employee-perceived meaningful work. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 13(6), 1097–1116. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ejihpe13060083

References

155

Ernst & Young. (2022). ESG in higher education: From strategy to execution. https://assets. ey.com/content/dam/ey-­sites/ey-­com/en_us/topics/education/ey-­esg-­in-­higher-­education-­ from-­strategy-­to-­execution.pdf?download Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004 Falbe, C. M., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 638–652. Fawehinmi, O., Yusliza, M.  Y., Mohamad, Z., Noor Faezah, J., & Muhammad, Z. (2020). Assessing the green behaviour of academics: The role of green human resource management and environmental knowledge. International Journal of Manpower, 41(7), 879–900. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJM-­07-­2019-­0347 Ferguson, P. W., Hall, G. E., & Hopwood, J. D. (2015). Leading and managing the 21st century research university: Creating, implementing, and sustaining strategic change. International Journal of Leadership and Change, 3(1), 29–39. Fernet, C., Trépanier, S. G., Austin, S., Gagné, M., & Forest, J. (2015). Transformational leadership and optimal functioning at work: On the mediating role of employees’ perceived job characteristics and motivation. Work & Stress, 29(1), 11–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267837 3.2014.1003998 Ferrer-Balas, D., Adachi, J., Banas, S., Davidson, C.  I., Hoshikoshi, A., Mishra, A., Motodoa, Y., Onga, M., & Ostwald, M. (2008). An international comparative analysis of sustainability transformation across seven universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(3), 295–316. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370810885907 French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Institute for Social Research. Girschik, V., Svystunova, L., & Lysova, E. I. (2022). Transforming corporate social responsibilities: Toward an intellectual activist research agenda for micro-CSR research. Human Relations, 75(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726720970275 Goleman, D., Bennett, L., & Barlow, Z. (2012). Ecoliterate: How educators are cultivating emotional, social, and ecological intelligence. John Wiley & Sons. Grant, A.  M., & Ashford, S.  J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002 Graves, L.  M., Sarkis, J., & Zhu, Q. (2013). How transformational leadership and employee motivation combine to predict employee proenvironmental behaviors in China. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.05.002 Greaves, M., Zibarras, L. D., & Stride, C. (2013). Using the theory of planned behavior to explore environmental behavioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.02.003 Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Robert K. Greenleaf Center. Haddock-Fraser, J., Rands, P., & Scoffham, S. (2018). Sustainability and the leader as individual. In J. Haddock-Fraser, P. Rands, & S. Scoffham (Eds.), Leadership for sustainability in higher education. Bloomsbury Publishing. Han, S. H., Seo, G., Yoon, S. W., & Yoon, D. Y. (2016). Transformational leadership and knowledge sharing: Mediating roles of employee’s empowerment, commitment, and citizenship behaviors. Journal of Workplace Learning, 28(3), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-­09-­2015-­0066 Hejjas, K., Miller, G., & Scarles, C. (2019). “It’s like hating puppies!” Employee disengagement and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(2), 319–337. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10551-­018-­3791-­8 Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2011). What does it take to implement change successfully? A study of the behaviors of successful change leaders. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(3), 309–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886311404556 Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2018). Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 44(2), 501–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316665461

156

8 Leadership

Hon, A.  H., Bloom, M., & Crant, J.  M. (2014). Overcoming resistance to change and enhancing creative performance. Journal of Management, 40(3), 919–941. https://doi. org/10.1177/0149206311415418 Hughes, D. J., Lee, A., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Legood, A. (2018). Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(5), 549–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.03.001 Hull, R. B., Robertson, D. P., & Mortimer, M. (2020). Leadership for sustainability: Strategies for tackling wicked problems. Island Press. Hull, R. B., Robertson, D. P., & Mortimer, M. (2021). Teaching leadership skills to sustainability professionals. In W.  Leal Filho, A.  Lange Salvia, & F.  Frankenberger (Eds.), Handbook on teaching and learning for sustainable development (pp. 152–162). Edward Elgar. Jackson, T.  A., Meyer, J.  P., & Wang, X.  H. (2013). Leadership, commitment, and culture: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(1), 84–106. https://doi. org/10.1177/1548051812466919 Jiang, W., Zhao, X., & Ni, J. (2017). The impact of transformational leadership on employee sustainable performance: The mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior. Sustainability, 9(9), 1567. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091567 Judge, T.  A., & Piccolo, R.  F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-­ analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755. https://doi. org/10.1037/0021-­9010.89.5.755 Karimi, S., Ahmadi Malek, F., Yaghoubi Farani, A., & Liobikienė, G. (2023). The role of transformational leadership in developing innovative work behaviors: The mediating role of employees’ psychological capital. Sustainability, 15(2), 1267. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021267 Katz, I.  M., Rauvola, R.  S., Rudolph, C.  W., & Zacher, H. (2022). Employee green behavior: A meta-analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(5), 1146–1157. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2260 Kiersch, C., & Peters, J. (2017). Leadership from the inside out: Student leadership development within authentic leadership and servant leadership frameworks. Journal of Leadership Education, 16(1), 148–168. https://doi.org/10.12806/V16/I1/T4 Kim, M., Beehr, T. A., & Prewett, M. S. (2018). Employee responses to empowering leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25(3), 257–276. https://doi. org/10.1177/1548051817750538 Koh, D., Lee, K., & Joshi, K. (2019). Transformational leadership and creativity: A meta-analytic review and identification of an integrated model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(6), 625–650. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2355 Koo, I., Anjam, M., & Zaman, U. (2022). Hell is empty, and all the devils are here: Nexus between toxic leadership, crisis communication, and resilience in COVID-19 tourism. Sustainability, 14(17), 10825. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710825 Lacerenza, C. N., Reyes, D. L., Marlow, S. L., Joseph, D. L., & Salas, E. (2017). Leadership training design, delivery, and implementation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(12), 1686–1718. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000241 Latham, G. P. (2019). Perspectives of a practitioner-scientist on organizational psychology/organizational behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-­orgpsych-­012218-­015323 Leal Filho, W., Raath, S., Lazzarini, B., Vargas, V. R., de Souza, L., Anholon, R., Quelhas, O. L. G., Haddad, R., Klavins, M., & Orlovic, V.  L. (2018). The role of transformation in learning and education for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 199, 286–295. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.017 Leal Filho, W., Eustachio, J. H. P. P., Caldana, A. C. F., Will, M., Lange Salvia, A., Rampasso, I. S., Anholon, R., Platje, J., & Kovaleva, M. (2020). Sustainability leadership in higher education institutions: An overview of challenges. Sustainability, 12(9), 3761. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su12093761 Lee, B., Liu, K., Warnock, T. S., Kim, M. O., & Skett, S. (2023). Students leading students: A qualitative study exploring a student-led model for engagement with the sustainable development

References

157

goals. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 24(3), 535–552. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJSHE-­02-­2022-­0037 Li, H., Sajjad, N., Wang, Q., Muhammad Ali, A., Khaqan, Z., & Amina, S. (2019). Influence of transformational leadership on employees’ innovative work behavior in sustainable organizations: Test of mediation and moderation processes. Sustainability, 11(6), 1594. https://doi. org/10.3390/su11061594 Li, W., Bhutto, T.  A., Xuhui, W., Maitlo, Q., Zafar, A.  U., & Bhutto, N.  A. (2020). Unlocking employees’ green creativity: The effects of green transformational leadership, green intrinsic, and extrinsic motivation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 255, 120229. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120229 Lin, S. H., Scott, B. A., & Matta, F. K. (2019). The dark side of transformational leader behaviors for leaders themselves: A conservation of resources perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 62(5), 1556–1582. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1255 Luthans, F., & Avolio, B.  J. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K.  S. Cameron, J.  E. Dutton, & R.  E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp.  241–258). Berrett-Koehler. Maibach, E.  W., Uppalapati, S.  S., Orr, M., & Thaker, J. (2023). Harnessing the power of communication and behavior science to enhance society’s response to climate change. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 51, 53–77. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-­earth-­031621-­114417 Maina, N. M., Murray, J., & McKenzie, M. (2020). Climate change and the fossil fuel divestment movement in Canadian higher education: The mobilities of actions, actors, and tactics. Journal of Cleaner Production, 253, 119874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119874 McMahone, M. (2012). Servant leadership as a teachable ethical concept. American Journal of Business Education, 5(3), 339–346. https://doi.org/10.19030/ajbe.v5i3.7006 Mesmer-Magnus, J., Viswesvaran, C., & Wiernik, B.  M. (2012). The role of commitment in bridging the gap between organizational sustainability and environmental sustainability. In S. E. Jackson, D. S. Ones, & S. Dilchert (Eds.), Managing human resources for environmental sustainability (pp. 155–186). Jossey-Bass/Wiley. Mittal, S., & Dhar, R.  L. (2016). Effect of green transformational leadership on green creativity: A study of tourist hotels. Tourism Management, 57, 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tourman.2016.05.007 Northouse, P. G. (2022). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). Sage. Oreg, S., & Berson, Y. (2011). Leadership and employees’ reactions to change: The role of leaders’ personal attributes and transformational leadership style. Personnel Psychology, 64(3), 627–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-­6570.2011.01221.x Oreg, S., & Berson, Y. (2019). Leaders’ impact on organizational change: Bridging theoretical and methodological chasms. Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 272–307. https://doi. org/10.5465/annals.2016.0138 Paillé, P., Morelos, J. H. M., Raineri, N., & Stinglhamber, F. (2019). The influence of the immediate manager on the avoidance of non-green behaviors in the workplace: A three-wave moderated-­mediation model. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(3), 723–740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-­017-­3519-­1 Peng, J., Li, M., Wang, Z., & Lin, Y. (2021). Transformational leadership and employees’ reactions to organizational change: Evidence from a meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 57(3), 369–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886320920366 Phillips, T. J., & Snodgrass, L. L. (2022). Who’s got the power: Systems, culture, and influence in higher education change leadership. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Leadership Studies, 3(2), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.52547/johepal.3.2.7 Piccolo, R.  F., & Colquitt, J.  A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.20786079 Pierro, A., Raven, B. H., Amato, C., & Bélanger, J. J. (2013). Bases of social power, leadership styles, and organizational commitment. International Journal of Psychology, 48(6), 1122–1134. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.733398

158

8 Leadership

Quinn, L., & Dalton, M. (2009). Leading for sustainability: Implementing the tasks of leadership. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 9(1), 21–38. https:// doi.org/10.1108/14720700910936038 Ramus, C. A., & Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in employee “Ecoinitiatives” at leading-edge European companies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 605–626. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556357 Rimanoczy, I., & Pearson, T. (2010). Role of HR in the new world of sustainability. Industrial and Commercial Training, 42(1), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197851011013661 Robertson, J. L. (2018). The nature, measurement and nomological network of environmentally specific transformational leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(4), 961–975. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10551-­017-­3569-­4 Robertson, J.  L., & Barling, J. (2013). Greening organizations through leaders’ influence on employees’ pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 176–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1820 Robertson, J.  L., & Barling, J. (2017). Toward a new measure of organizational environmental citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Research, 75, 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2017.02.007 Robertson, J. L., & Carleton, E. (2018). Uncovering how and when environmental leadership affects employees’ voluntary pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25(2), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051817738940 Rooke, D., & Torbert, W. R. (2005). 7 transformations of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 83(4), 66–76. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15807040/ Russell, S. V., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2021). Pulling on heartstrings: Three studies of the effectiveness of emotionally framed communication to encourage workplace pro-environmental behavior. Sustainability, 13(18), 10161. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810161 Saifulina, N., & Carballo-Penela, A. (2017). Promoting sustainable development at an organization level: An analysis of the drivers of workplace environmentally friendly behaviour of employees. Sustainable Development, 25, 299–310. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1654 Schein, E. H. (1992). Organisational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Schein, E. H. (2015). Organizational psychology then and now: Some observations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-­orgpsych-­032414-­111449 Schein, S. (2017). A new psychology for sustainability leadership: The hidden power of ecological worldviews. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351286046 Schermuly, C.  C., Creon, L., Gerlach, P., Graßmann, C., & Koch, J. (2022). Leadership styles and psychological empowerment: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 29(1), 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518211067751 Smith, N., & Fredricks-Lowman, I. (2020). Conflict in the workplace: A 10-year review of toxic leadership in higher education. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 23(5), 538–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1591512 Smith, A. M., & O’Sullivan, T. (2012). Environmentally responsible behaviour in the workplace: An internal social marketing approach. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(3–4), 469–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2012.658837 Spreitzer, G. M. (2008). Taking stock: A review of more than twenty years of research on empowerment at work. In J. Barling & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 54–72). Sage. Srivastava, A. P., Mani, V., Yadav, M., & Joshi, Y. (2020). Authentic leadership towards sustainability in higher education – An integrated green model. International Journal of Manpower, 41(7), 901–923. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-­08-­2019-­0404 Strand, R. (2014). Strategic leadership of corporate sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 123, 687–706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-­013-­2017-­3 Tafvelin, S., Stenling, A., Lundmark, R., & Westerberg, K. (2019). Aligning job redesign with leadership training to improve supervisor support: A quasi-experimental study of the integra-

References

159

tion of HR practices. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2018.1541887 Tian, H., Iqbal, S., Akhtar, S., Qalati, S. A., Anwar, F., & Khan, M. A. S. (2020). The impact of transformational leadership on employee retention: Mediation and moderation through organizational citizenship behavior and communication. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 314. https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00314 Tight, M. (2022). Research into leadership in higher education: A systematic review. International Perspectives on Leadership in Higher Education, 15, 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/ S1479-­362820220000015001 Tuan, L. T. (2021). Effects of environmentally-specific servant leadership on green performance via green climate and green crafting. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 38(3), 925–953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-­019-­09687-­9 Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002 Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. leaqua.2013.11.007 Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228–1261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310380462 Van Velsor, E., & Quinn, L. (2012). Leadership and environmental sustainability. In S. E. Jackson, D.  Ones, & S.  Dilchert (Eds.), Managing human resources for environmental sustainability (pp. 241–262). Jossey-Bass. Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63(3), 182–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-­ 066X.63.3.182 Verhulst, E., & Lambrechts, W. (2015). Fostering the incorporation of sustainable development in higher education. Lessons learned from a change management perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.049 Vila-Vázquez, G., Castro-Casal, C., Álvarez-Pérez, D., & del Río-Araújo, L. (2018). Promoting the sustainability of organizations: Contribution of transformational leadership to job engagement. Sustainability, 10(11), 4109. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114109 Walumbwa, F.  O., & Wernsing, T. (2013). From transactional and transformational leadership to authentic leadership. In The Oxford handbook of leadership (pp.  392–400). Oxford University Press. Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308913 Weiss, H.  M., & Rupp, D.  E. (2011). Experiencing work: An essay on a person-centric work psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4(1), 83–97. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1754-­9434.2010.01302.x Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: A reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science, 6, 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-­011-­0132-­6 Wielkiewicz, R.  M., & Stelzner, S.  P. (2010). An ecological perspective on leadership theory, research, and practice. In B. W. Redekop (Ed.), Leadership for environmental sustainability (Vol. 3). Routledge. Wolske, K.  S., & Stern, P.  C. (2018). Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change: Opportunities through consumer behavior. In S.  Clayton & C.  Manning (Eds.), Psychology and climate change: Human perceptions, impacts, and responses (pp.  127–160). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­12-­813130-­5.00007-­2 Yi, L., Uddin, M., Das, A. K., Mahmood, M., & Sohel, S. M. (2019). Do transformational leaders engage employees in sustainable innovative work behaviour? Perspective from a developing country. Sustainability, 11(9), 2485. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092485

160

8 Leadership

Young, W., Davis, M., McNeill, I.  M., Malhotra, B., Russell, S., Unsworth, K., & Clegg, C. W. (2015). Changing behaviour: Successful environmental programmes in the workplace. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(8), 689–703. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1836 Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations (3rd ed.). Prentice-Hall. Yuriev, A., Boiral, O., Francoeur, V., & Paillé, P. (2018). Overcoming the barriers to pro-­ environmental behaviors in the workplace: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.041 Zacher, H., Rudolph, C. W., & Katz, I. M. (2023). Employee green behavior as the core of environmentally sustainable organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 465–494. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qvjsf Zepeda Quintana, D. S., Esquer, J., & Munguía, N. (2022). Factors that hinder the implementation of sustainability initiatives in higher education institutions. In D. S. Z. Quintana, J. Esquer, & N.  Munguía (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of sustainability in higher education learning and teaching (pp. 79–98). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119852858.ch5 Zheng, J., Wu, G., & Xie, H. (2017). Impacts of leadership on project-based organizational innovation performance: The mediator of knowledge sharing and moderator of social capital. Sustainability, 9(10), 1893. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101893

Chapter 9

Organizational Change

Transforming whole institutions, or even parts of one, is definitely challenging. It requires substantial time, effort, and persistence, but it can be done. Change efforts often focus on technology (e.g., a new digital purchasing system) and process (e.g., rules for analyzing investments) rather than on people, yet an institution’s people are the essential ingredient for making change stick (Davis & Coan, 2015; Levy & Marans, 2012; Verhulst & Lambrechts, 2015; see Bertels et al. (2010) for methods to support action). It takes one individual to begin a conversation to get change rolling within an institution; it is through individuals collectively acting that we begin to impact the systems that comprise organizations such as Institutions of Higher Education (HEIs). Supporting these employees can make or break their effort. Likewise, one “bad apple” can spoil (or at least delay) the effort if not managed carefully. HEIs share many common processes, problems, and opportunities, which means they can capitalize on the experience of other colleges and universities. However, each HEI likely has unique challenges that may impact the success of change efforts. Strengths for one institution may be barriers at another (Barth, 2015). For instance, having strong faculty governance would be a strength at an institution with many sustainable faculty but a barrier at an institution where fewer faculty are on board. Understanding these institutional idiosyncrasies and the psychology underlying organizational change can help foster momentum toward a sustainable future. While there is a logical order to many change activities (e.g., vision before planning), change is messy and often requires revisiting strategies over time (Stouten et  al., 2018; see Fig.  9.1). This chapter will describe a cluster of organizational levers that, combined with concepts detailed in previous chapters, consistently create behavioral momentum.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. L. Amel et al., Fostering Sustainability in Higher Education, Psychology and Our Planet, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50555-3_9

161

162

9  Organizational Change

Fig. 9.1  Organizational change is messy

9.1 Identify Gaps Change efforts are most successful—and people respond better to them—when they are perceived as planned (Oreg et al., 2011). So, the first step in any change effort is to understand where the institution wants to be, where it currently stands, and the nature of the discrepancy in between (Beer, 1980; Kanter et al., 1992; Kotter, 1996; Lewin, 1948). This kind of gap analysis can take many forms. Historically, a SWOT analysis—identifying internal strengths and weaknesses, as well as external opportunities and threats—has been a very popular strategy (Jacobs et al., 2013; Lohrke et al., 2022). There are reputable tools specific to sustainability in HEIs that can help facilitate a clear understanding of current conditions (Lambrechts, 2015). A primary example is the AASHE STARS® assessment, which focuses on a broad set of campus-wide indicators common to HEIs (see

163

9.1  Identify Gaps

exemplary practice innovation & leadership innovation

research

coordination & planning investment & finance

planning & administration

wellbeing & work

diversity & affordability

academics curriculum

aashe stars criteria & sub-criteria

purchasing operations engagement

grounds buildings

public engagement

campus engagement

water energy

food & dining

air & climate

waste transportation

Fig. 9.2  AASHE STARS® sustainability criteria and sub-criteria

Fig. 9.2; c.f. Amaral et al., 2015; Berzosa et al., 2017).1 Measuring these indicators provides both baseline data for the planning and budgeting necessary to execute changes (Stanley et al., 2019) and follow-up data for tracking progress over time. As areas of opportunity become apparent, a sense of legitimacy is created for the work ahead (Stouten et al., 2018). Underlying assumptions about the problems to be addressed, and the internal capacity to manage them, will inevitably shape proposed solutions. Especially for wicked problems like our current state of unsustainability, which was detailed in Chap. 1, agreeing on the elements of the problem is challenging. Asking lots of questions, including diverse stakeholders, and gathering data from many different sources can improve accuracy when examining where the problems lie (Rousseau, 2018). Approaching change as an iterative process, one that integrates up-to-date information and builds on smaller-scale successes over time, allows for learning from mistakes in a quickly changing environment (Franklin, 2021). In addition to understanding the state of sustainability, it is important to diagnose whether an organization and its people are ready to change. Common to HEIs, a culture of innovation provides a solid basis for change (Bien & Sassen, 2020;  https://stars.aashe.org/; see also UI GreenMetric World University Rankings, https://greenmetric. ui.ac.id, and Times Higher Education Impact Rankings https://www.timeshighereducation.com/ world-univérsity-rankings 1

164

9  Organizational Change

Leisyte & Dee, 2012). And, if employees have had positive experiences with change in the past, they are more likely to be ready to do it again. In contrast, when people believe that past change efforts were unfair or unsuccessful, cynicism can develop (Reichers et al., 1997). In this case, efforts must first be made to rebuild trust (Oreg et al., 2011; Stouten et al., 2018). As in any collective, people’s perceptions and past experiences differ depending on their identity, position, relative power, and a host of other variables that influence how change might impact them.

9.2 Engage Diverse Stakeholders Because sustainability is complex and any effective response needs to be organization-­wide, change efforts benefit from diverse and representative perspectives, input, and commitment (Akins et al., 2019; Bradley et al., 2018; Etzion, 2018; Rieg et al., 2021; Stanley et al., 2019). Given the importance of autonomy to academics, top-down change efforts may meet some resistance (Oreg & Berson, 2019; Rieg et al., 2021). But HEIs regularly engage diverse stakeholders for enterprise-­ wide efforts through ad hoc groups like strategic planning committees, standing department committees, and boards, all of which can be leveraged for leading sustainability efforts. Many HEIs already have official sustainability councils or advisory groups. An effective sustainability council includes representatives from each major division or department on campus. The specific people who need to be part of the ongoing work are likely to become apparent during the gap analysis. In HEIs, it may mean including influential faculty, students, staff, and administrators and addressing the full complement of units from athletics to academic affairs, food service to fundraising, and personnel to procurement (Lewis et al., 2021; Stanley et al., 2019). Regular meetings should provide a space for planning, communicating progress, collaborating, sharing ideas and concerns, and forming new norms (Avissar et al., 2018; Avolio et al., 2009; Bradley et al., 2018). Some institutions have a history of imbuing these types of groups with real decision-making power, in which case the council members can be a potent mechanism for handling sustainability-oriented change (Kanter et al., 1992: Kotter, 1996; Stouten et al., 2018). These formally recognized groups can also counteract typical barriers found in HEIs (see Table 9.1). They offer opportunities for members to influence each other with relevant information or knowledge of best practices (Avolio et al., 2009). They enhance alignment within and across various departmental goals and provide a venue for testing new ideas and getting feedback prior to implementing new initiatives. They can also signal the importance about change to a broad swath of employees (Bies, 2013; Kellogg, 2012; Vlachopoulos, 2021), as well as facilitate diffusion of innovations throughout the institution (Stouten et al., 2018). Importantly, these groups also provide psychological “safety in numbers” since, as a group, they are better able to speak truth to power.

9.3  Communicate Your Vision

165

Table 9.1  Typical change barriers in HEIs and how representative working groups can help (Avissar et al., 2018; Blanco-Portela et al., 2017) Barriers to change in HEIs Tendency toward highly centralized leadership Siloed departments with the separation of academics, operations, and administration Individual-oriented incentives that limit cooperation and collaboration Inertia or resistance based on belief that sustainability work is an add-on

Representative working groups’ solution Supports diffusion within and between social networks by including a diverse group of leaders Facilitates information sharing between different departments Provides an avenue for mutual support Fosters development of new norms

Getting groups of people to work effectively together is not necessarily easy (Thibaut & Kelly, 2017). There are many barriers to bringing people together around any new issue or task (e.g., too many commitments with too little time). To inspire engagement in formal working groups, participation needs to be recognized as part of an employee’s job description and performance goals, as described in Chap. 3 (Masri & Jaaron, 2017; Ribeiro et al., 2016). If an institution isn’t invested in change, it can take time to build trust among folks from different corners of the institution who may not know each other well. Group members can have different levels of enthusiasm, perspectives, or approaches to the change that may cause friction. As noted in Chap. 2, fostering a culture where there is a shared understanding of sustainability is crucial before change can take place effectively (Avolio et al., 2009; Bradley et al., 2018).

9.3 Communicate Your Vision Chapter 2 identified developing a compelling, shared vision of the future and communicating it as a critical early step for directing organizational change (Baum et al., 1998; Beer, 1980; Kanter et al., 1992; Kleingeld et al., 2011; Kotter, 1996; Schein, 2010; ten Have et al., 2016). Yet vision alone isn’t enough to create change. Vision needs to be turned into an implementable plan. As with developing a vision, the process for developing a plan should involve all HEI stakeholders (Lidstone et al., 2015). Engaging people in a robust collaborative-­ planning process reduces conflict while increasing buy-in and innovation (Conroy & Berke, 2004). Ideally, sustainability plans include responsible parties, timelines, and measurable indicators in order to increase motivation and assess progress (Brown & Hamburger, 2012; McNamara, 2010). Importantly, formally adopting the plan elevates its perceived importance (McNamara, 2010). Creating explicit connections with other institutional plans, such as including a sustainability statement in strategic, master, and capital plans, will help foster a consistent direction and increase legitimacy (White, 2014).

166

9  Organizational Change

Once a vision and plan are constructed, the next step is to communicate, communicate, communicate (McNamara, 2010). Even though sustainability is an urgent goal, and becoming more urgent over time, communicating too dire a sense of urgency for change can create fear and stress (Moser, 2007; Stouten et al., 2018). Instead, institutions should focus communication on the ways in which HEIs broadly can be instruments of sustainable change, as well as more specifically communicating optimism that positive change is possible at this particular institution. Referring to sustainability across a wide variety of official and informal communications, like signage or websites, keeps it salient and signals an organization’s commitment (Davis & Coan, 2015; Stanley et al., 2019). The key to a successful roll-out is finding a communication sweet spot between general phrases and specific priorities that allows diverse individuals to engage meaningfully (Etzion, 2018). In a religious institution, for instance, framing sustainability as care for creation might resonate with its pre-existing core values while explicitly highlighting the inclusion of non-human nature. Consistent and frequent communication reduces the uncertainty that inevitably accompanies change and the potential for cynicism to emerge (Davis & Coan, 2015; Reichers et al., 1997). Clear explanations and high-quality evidence can reduce uncertainty and help maintain positive emotions and attitudes among employees (Oreg & Berson, 2019). And clear expectations are necessary to coordinate with core institutional functions and develop professional development timelines and for other types of planning. Further, people will perceive change more favorably when communication speaks to their values, competencies, and identities and addresses their unique motivators, as described in Chap. 6 (Oreg et al., 2011; Stouten et al., 2018). For example, faculty may be more open to a sustainability focus when given specific resources in the form of time and ideas for integrating sustainability topics into their current curriculum. Clear communication and reasonable expectations are especially critical when change negatively impacts individual employees. Potential negative outcomes include changes in peoples’ jobs or perks, introducing onerous tasks, and changes in familiar organizational structures (Stouten et al., 2018). If custodians, for example, suddenly become tasked with emptying trash, recycling, and compost, their other job tasks need to be adjusted appropriately. Clearly communicating the rationale behind the change and its connection to the HEI’s vision will help the transition (Both-Nwabuwe et al., 2017). Importantly, good communication goes both ways. Soliciting feedback from faculty, staff, and students provides opportunity for people to voice their opinions. Sponsoring feedback sessions and other opportunities for respectful interactions helps foster positive reactions toward change (Davis & Coan, 2015; Stouten et al., 2018). Keeping communication lines open for discussion also contributes to a shared understanding, increasing the sense of identity, “we,” that propels action (Stam et al., 2014).

9.4  Enable Human Change

167

9.4 Enable Human Change There is no shortage of interventions that can improve campus sustainability.2 As emphasized throughout this book, a primary key to success is supporting the individuals who are implementing and encountering those interventions (Beer, 1980; Kanter et  al., 1992; Kotter, 1996). One useful way to think about supporting the human side of interventions is the classic AMO model (c.f., ADKAR model in Hiatt, 2006; Tang & Tang, 2019); people need the ability, motivation, and opportunity to behave effectively (Blom et al., 2020; Blumberg & Pringle, 1982; Renwick et al., 2013; see Table 9.2).

9.4.1 Ability Organizational change depends on individual-level change. Thus, it is important for HEIs to allocate resources for faculty, staff, and administrators to acquire environmental knowledge and build change-related skills (Fawehinmi et al., 2020; Stanley et al., 2019; Stouten et al., 2018). Find details about training and development in Chap. 5. Training, however, is not enough; people also need to feel psychologically safe to experiment with change in their daily work (Stouten et  al., 2018; Young et al., 2015). Group-level learning through exhibits, workshops, and special events can aid implementation as group members model behavior and provide mutual support for each other (Stouten et al., 2018).

9.4.2 Motivation Sustainability plans need to be translated into specific goals, which should be set at the individual, unit, and organizational levels (Stanley et al., 2019; Stouten et al., 2018). Communicating and celebrating interim wins through the campus newsfeed Table 9.2  Intervention support at HEIs using AMO framework AMO Ability

Intervention support Understanding challenges Procedural knowledge Motivation Incentives Goal setting Opportunity Empowerment

 For example, https://www.aashe.org/

2

HEI examples Courses, training, peer educators Workshops, guides, displays, programs Bus passes, bike shares, green funds, competitions Individual performance goals, institution strategic plan Invitations, job crafting

168

9  Organizational Change

or “State of the Institution” addresses can build credibility and bring more people on board with change (Stouten et al., 2018). Awards, though largely symbolic, not only recognize the good work of individuals but also can increase people’s acceptance of change by demonstrating the range of disciplines that can engage in sustainability work (Stanley et al., 2019; Stouten et al., 2018). For instance, when an award for innovative integration of sustainability into a course is awarded to scholars in fields as diverse as mathematics, English, art, nursing, and sociology, more people realize how their own disciplines are related to sustainability. Given that many HEIs have limited resources, one strategy is to redirect awards that are already in place, updating criteria to explicitly include sustainability.

9.4.3 Opportunity Although involving folks from all levels and all types of job categories in the sustainability culture shift can be challenging, sometimes it is as simple as inviting them. This can empower them to apply what they know, learn even more about sustainability, articulate concerns, share information, set goals, make plans, innovate, and make decisions (Oreg & Berson, 2019). An invitation signals that individuals’ contributions are valued (Davis & Coan, 2015). Moreover, being directly involved better ensures that the process of change addresses people’s needs, increases their self-efficacy (Latham et al., 1994), and translates into readiness for change (Coch & French, 1948).

9.5 Engage Social Networks Another opportunity is to capitalize on natural social networking processes. All organizations are social systems, and thus change can emerge through social networks outside of the official hierarchy (Hoover & Harder, 2015; Kotter, 1996; Nguyen-Van et al., 2021; Stouten et al., 2018). Faculty and staff convene both formally and informally for a variety of reasons (e.g., committees, events like graduation, shared childcare settings, and fitness classes) and develop trusted social relationships over time. Every individual, therefore, has the potential to be a node of transformation within their academic institution, to model a new behavior, offer support to others, and share resources. Change within a network generally originates with an individual, an innovator who is willing to try something new. These folks typically have relevant technical expertise and are comfortable with novelty, risk, and uncertainty. They tend to be able to absorb the consequences of trial and error (e.g., it’s difficult to fire faculty with tenure). When innovators are prolific communicators, they launch the spread

9.5  Engage Social Networks

169

of change throughout their social networks, a process described in the diffusion of innovation theory (Rogers, 2010; Tolba & Mourad, 2011). Faculty can be some of the staunchest defenders of the status quo, being wedded to institutional habits and the structures of academia itself. Yet many possess the fundamental attributes of innovators: they are expert discoverers who are tasked with translating their specialties for non-specialists. Because of their autonomy, and tenure protections for some, they are free to initiate change within their own work. And, because they are connected to each other as well as to administrators and students, they are perfectly positioned to push for institutional change (Akins et al., 2019). Though staff members generally lack the protections of tenure enjoyed by faculty, they are also frequently the source of bold ideas within HEIs. Students too, through volunteer leadership, campus jobs, targeted class projects or research, or student government, can exert pressure on administration to act. And through their own campus jobs, they can play a meaningful role in shifting the practices in a particular department. Note that in some circumstances, sharing ideas may be harder than it sounds. Most people have experienced situations in which they wanted to speak up but did not. Research shows that many people are reticent to discuss challenging issues such as climate change with others for fear of provoking a negative reaction or making a mistake about the underlying science (Geiger & Swim, 2016). But this is a solvable problem. In the case of climate change, people are more likely to engage in high-quality climate discussions and actually act when they learn effective communication strategies and clear information about solutions (Geiger et al., 2019; Swim et al., 2018). Providing a primer on sustainability may help people overcome their reticence to share their thoughts with their social contacts across the institution. For a change to gain momentum, the creative pioneer needs a few others to become early adopters—people who model enthusiastic support for an idea. These folks facilitate diffusion by inviting their networks to join in (Young, 2009). In an HEI, this might be a faculty member who learns about eco-friendly ways to deliver quality scientific lab experiences, who shares what they’ve discovered with other instructors. Early adopters like to try new things and have a knack for recognizing which innovations or strategies are likely to be successful, helping them develop a reputation as reliable experts. Opinion leaders—individuals who are trusted and highly connected around campus—create the most diffusion in the workplace, through word-of-mouth and modeling behavior that is easy for others to follow (Carrico & Riemer, 2011; Dearing, 2009). An example might be a staff member who orders a vegetarian buffet for the annual awards banquet. Evidence suggests that diffusion of sustainable action is most likely to occur for visible, public behaviors (e.g., joining the reusable to-go container program at the campus cafeteria), and participating in organization-­ sponsored activities (e.g., meetings, forums, campus events; Geiger et al., 2019), as opposed to less visible private sphere behaviors such as turning off a computer or reducing paper use.

170

9  Organizational Change

Identifying opinion leaders from each department or work unit can create more momentum, given that people are more responsive to changes proposed by people within their own groups than from those outside (Griffin et  al., 2004; Lam & Schaubroeck, 2000). Bringing together many opinion leaders from across campus into the aforementioned councils, task forces, or committees is likely to foster engagement widely throughout an institution (Leone et al., 2021). When people see the opinion leaders around them taking part in something new, most are likely to feel more confident about joining the effort. Although these folks, called the mainstream, typically take longer to jump in, once they do, the movement’s momentum is hard to stop. Change moves fastest in communities of people who share interests, such as a student services department or an academic discipline (Ferlie et al., 2005). This is another good reason to engage trusted individuals within each work unit. Often those who are last to join are cautious because they perceive they cannot afford to take material and social risks. Contingent faculty and other untenured employees may fear repercussions for speaking out too strongly or passionately in support of moving toward more sustainable campuses. Further, people who are new to an institution, both faculty and staff, tend to conform to the status quo in order to form social connections. However, as the level of adoption grows, the risks of participation drop significantly so people can join more and more confidently (Kim et  al., 2011). Employees who are initially reticent are more likely to engage in change when work groups are cohesive, and changes are framed as a team effort (Battilana & Casciaro, 2012). Of course, employees who aren’t powerful opinion leaders can still impact their personal social network through bold action (Davis & Coan, 2015), such as when a staff member rides their bike to work during inclement weather. Everyone, no matter their “status” in the HEI, has something to offer. When they make their efforts visible and convey their excitement for making such changes, others will follow.

9.6 Experiment One simple way to help folks accept (and even embrace) change efforts is to encourage tackling small, “chewable chunks,” for which failure is low stakes in terms of time and money. The complexity of HEIs means there are many points of entry for people to get involved (Etzion, 2018). Many small, diverse efforts also increase the chances of discovering effective solutions (Etzion, 2018). Implementing formal opportunities such as small grants can jump start pilot programs throughout campus (Stouten et al., 2018). Pilot testing initiatives can build psychological safety around larger-scale change. Employees are well positioned to see what needs to be done and have pertinent ideas for experimentation (Reay et al., 2006), especially in terms of redesigning their own jobs, which was detailed in Chap. 7 (Demerouti et al., 2017). Empowering them by promoting experimentation,

9.7  Assess Progress

171

adaptation, and learning from failure is essential (Etzion, 2018; Lambrechts et al., 2017; Stouten et al., 2018). Prompts for recycling, turning off lights, and utilizing online resources when appropriate are easy steps, and their impact can be measured and celebrated. Competitions can inspire creativity and promote waste reduction among several departments within an HEI. In this case, groups can strategize together to reduce their impact the most during a specified period. National competitions between HEIs such as the EcoChallenge3 and the Campus Race to Zero Waste4 can provide relatively inexpensive, turnkey opportunities to further inspire action. When initiatives work, they can be replicated elsewhere on campus. Sometimes, however, “local” initiatives may be uniquely effective in a specific context due to particular norms or resources. Scaling them up can be tricky and require some modifications. All else being equal, initiatives should be prioritized that address the systems level so that small shifts can produce large impacts. For instance, when courses include community engagement with local governments, the policy or infrastructure innovations suggested by students can influence whole cities (e.g., EPIC-N5; Etzion, 2018). University departments (e.g., food service, grounds, transportation) can also partner for such projects.

9.7 Assess Progress No matter the focus of the change or who is directing it, it is important to regularly assess progress to maintain strategies that are working, adjust when necessary, and replace those that aren’t (Beer, 1980; Kotter, 1996; Levy & Marans, 2012; Lewin, 1948; Stouten et al., 2018). Assessment is yet another area that benefits from engaging a broad array of employees (Stanley et al., 2019). The very act of gathering data engages people to think about what sustainability means for their work, and since the data must be collected from across an institution, it further strengthens the network of people involved (Arroyo, 2017; Rieg et al., 2021). Requiring annual progress reports at the unit level creates accountability and keeps sustainability salient (Stanley et al., 2019). They need not, and should not, be onerous (see Fig. 9.3). Periodic university-wide measurement of culture, including changes in commitment, competency, and efficacy of individuals, as well as the effectiveness of initiatives, is vital to ascertain progress. These reports can help identify new opportunities and direct strategy (Ceulemans et al., 2015).

 https://earthmonth.ecochallenge.org/  https://campusracetozerowaste.org/ 5  https://www.epicn.org/ 3 4

9  Organizational Change

172

0=

no evidence, strategies, or initiatives

1 =

implements strategies, initiatives, or programs without engaging measures; data reported without considering demographics

2=

links strategies to data; reports impacts of strategies (ex. changing demographics, number of participants)

3 =

implements strategies with institutional/ community collaboration; documents impact of strategies and integrates in planning

4 =

shares impact of strategies with others; leadership or strategies acknowledged by grants, funding, or recognition

Fig. 9.3  Example rubric to assess sustainability progress at the individual or unit level (Adapted from Stanley et al., 2019)

9.8 Institutionalize Change Many HEI change efforts focus on individual-level sustainability activities, such as supporting a faculty member to adjust their course content or a chef in food services to create a vegan lunch option. While certainly laudable, these piecemeal individual-­ level endeavors can be inefficient and are often short-lived (Rieg et al., 2021). In contrast, institutionalizing sustainability through administrative and operational policies is much more likely to create long-term, widespread change. When an institution codifies expected sustainability-oriented behavior through policy, even the late adopters, who are committed to the organization but not necessarily interested in sustainability, are forced to catch up (Stouten et al., 2018). Sustaining efforts over time and amidst change requires embedding it into organizational systems (Beer, 1980; Kanter et al., 1992; Kotter, 1996) including in curricula, budgets, governance, and Human Resource Management (HRM) policies (Leone et al., 2021; Stouten et al., 2018). As is always the case, these changes don’t just happen magically—they depend on the work of individuals throughout an academic institution. Much as we’ve seen from DEI efforts in academia (Stanley et al., 2019), institutionalization within the curriculum ensures that all students encounter sustainability in their coursework either through general education requirements or learning outcomes in their specific disciplines. However, it is difficult to “achieve institutionalization” because most institutions begin at the grassroots level with individual

9.8  Institutionalize Change

173

faculty integrating sustainability into their courses. With a lot of strategic faculty effort, this may eventually transform into degree programs or become part of the core curriculum once a critical mass of courses is established. In terms of campus operations, institutionalization is often accomplished by making a commitment to a sustainability-oriented framework such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals6 that then informs administrative decisions. Institutionalizing sustainable operations also requires that everyone on campus has access to the types of infrastructure that underpin sustainable living (e.g., low-­ carbon transportation options, low-waste purchases, plant-based food options). A variety of administrative systems determine policies including trustees, accreditation bodies, and the President’s cabinet (Stouten et  al., 2018). For schools with shared governance, committed individuals play a role by proposing policy changes surrounding performance evaluation, promotion, and tenure. As noted throughout this book, HRM practices create capacity among diverse employees to engage in daily and strategic sustainability efforts (Leone et al., 2021) and, thus far, have been underutilized to increase sustainable action (Zibarras & Coan, 2015). Creating a centralized sustainability office can facilitate these larger structural efforts. Sustainability offices often have a staff-led team with budget, space, and a charge to execute sustainability activities and are sometimes empowered to recommend strategy and develop policy (Hugé et al., 2018; Leal Filho et al., 2019). To operate effectively, a sustainability office needs to have a legitimate seat at the table when key decisions are made that will impact an institution’s sustainability performance. When empowered, sustainability personnel can build momentum by communicating, building collaborations, designing roles, identifying champions who can lead within diverse departments, creating accountability by assigning responsibilities, experimenting, and sharing winning solutions (Bertels et al., 2010; Leal Filho et al., 2019). They can provide training and guide other policymakers to consider sustainability. They can help groups develop indicators of success and encourage the redesign of incentives (Aung & Hallinger, 2022). Sustainability offices can also facilitate top-down implementation of goals through planning and oversight committees and measuring and reporting progress (Aung & Hallinger, 2022; Leal Filho et al., 2019; Niedlich et al., 2020). They can encourage and coordinate the grassroots energy of diverse groups (Hugé et  al., 2018; Niedlich et al., 2020) and, through supportive facilitation, ensure that sustainability engagement feels worthwhile (Disterheft et  al., 2015). Their capacity to bring together individuals from all corners of campus is likely to increase innovation across campus (Delmas & Pekovic, 2018; Endrejat & Kauffeld, 2018; Jiang et al., 2012; Paillé et al., 2016, 2022; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

 See also The Presidents’ Climate Leadership Commitments https://secondnature.org/signatoryhandbook/the-commitments/ 6

174

9  Organizational Change

9.9 Conclusion Although many HEIs still have a long way to go to integrate sustainability into their DNA, it is important to keep in mind the simple fact that it only takes one individual to start change. While pre-existing power structures and rules of an organization may initially limit an individual’s ability to formally initiate organizational change, an individual or group of individuals anywhere, at any level of the HEI, acting sustainably or prompting a sustainable decision within a group, may be more effective than any formal education or initiative. Changing an organizational system can feel slow. But even before results become visible, the work being done is likely having a ripple effect on the sensibilities of those working within it. One of the most powerful levers that pushes individuals to take action on climate change is their belief that friends, family, and co-workers think they should (Ballew et al., 2022). As described in Chap. 2, when an HEI places value on sustainable actions, institutional members will send new signals about what is accepted and admired, resulting in social norms that prioritize planetary health and social justice. Those who have been working diligently to foster sustainability in HEIs can attest to the fact that the work is deeply meaningful. And yet, so many feel stressed and burned out because it is hard work, and the news is a daily reminder that more needs to be done. Next, Chap. 10 describes the multiple stressors that make working toward sustainability exhausting and highlights ways that HEIs can better support the people on the front lines of transformation.

References Akins, E.  E., Giddens, E., Glassmeyer, D., Gruss, A., Kalamas Hedden, M., Slinger-Friedman, V., & Weand, M. (2019). Sustainability education and organizational change: A critical case study of barriers and change drivers at a higher education institution. Sustainability, 11(2), 501. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020501 Amaral, L. P., Martins, N., & Gouveia, J. B. (2015). Quest for a sustainable university: A review. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 16(2), 155–172. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJSHE-­02-­2013-­0017 Arroyo, P. (2017). A new taxonomy for examining the multi-role of campus sustainability assessments in organizational change. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1763–1774. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.100 Aung, P.  N., & Hallinger, P. (2022). The intellectual structure of the literature on sustainability leadership in higher education: An author co-citation analysis. International Journal of Educational Management, 36(5), 784–799. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-­09-­2021-­0371 Avissar, I., Alkaher, I., & Gan, D. (2018). The role of distributed leadership in mainstreaming environmental sustainability into campus life in an Israeli teaching college: A case study. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(3), 518–546. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJSHE-­07-­2017-­0105 Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421–449. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev. psych.60.110707.163621

References

175

Ballew, M. T., Marlon, J. R., Goldberg, M. H., Maibach, E. W., Rosenthal, S. A., Aiken, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2022). Changing minds about global warming: Vicarious experience predicts self-reported opinion change in the USA. Climatic Change, 173(3–4), 19. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10584-­022-­03397-­w Barth, M. (2015). Implementing sustainability in higher education: Learning in an age of transformation. Routledge. Battilana, J., & Casciaro, T. (2012). Change agents, networks, and institutions: A contingency theory of organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 381–398. https:// doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0891 Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Kirkpatrick, S. A. (1998). A longitudinal study of the relation of vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-­9010.83.1.43 Beer, M. (1980). Organization change and development: A systems view. Goodyear. Bertels, S., Papania, L., & Papania, D. (2010). Embedding sustainability in organizational culture: A systematic review of the body of knowledge. Network for Business Sustainability. https://embeddingproject.org/pub/resources/EP-­Embedding-­Sustainability-­in-­Organizational-­ Culture.pdf Berzosa, A., Bernaldo, M. O., & Fernández-Sanchez, G. (2017). Sustainability assessment tools for higher education: An empirical comparative analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 161, 812–820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.194 Bien, C., & Sassen, R. (2020). Sensemaking of a sustainability transition by higher education institution leaders. Journal of Cleaner Production, 256, 120299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2020.120299 Bies, R. J. (2013). The delivery of bad news in organizations: A framework for analysis. Journal of Management, 39, 136–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312461053 Blanco-Portela, N., Benayas, J., Pertierra, L. R., & Lozano, R. (2017). Towards the integration of sustainability in higher education institutions: A review of drivers of and barriers to organisational change and their comparison against those found of companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 563–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.252 Blom, R., Kruyen, P. M., Van der Heijden, B. I., & Van Thiel, S. (2020). One HRM fits all? A meta-­ analysis of the effects of HRM practices in the public, semipublic, and private sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(1), 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x18773492 Blumberg, M., & Pringle, C.  D. (1982). The missing opportunity in organizational research: Some implications for a theory of work performance. Academy of Management Review, 7(4), 560–569. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1982.4285240 Both-Nwabuwe, J. M., Dijkstra, M. T., & Beersma, B. (2017). Sweeping the floor or putting a man on the moon: How to define and measure meaningful work. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1658. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01658 Bradley, E.  H., Brewster, A.  L., McNatt, Z., Linnander, E.  L., Cherlin, E., Fosburgh, H., Ting, H.  H., & Curry, L.  A. (2018). How guiding coalitions promote positive culture change in hospitals: A longitudinal mixed methods interventional study. BMJ Quality & Safety, 27(3), 218–225. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-­2017-­006574 Brown, W.  M., & Hamburger, M.  W. (2012). Organizing for sustainability. New Directions for Student Services, 137, 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20016 Carrico, A.  R., & Riemer, M. (2011). Motivating energy conservation in the workplace: An evaluation of the use of group-level feedback and peer education. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.11.004 Ceulemans, K., Lozano, R., & Alonso-Almeida, M.  D. M. (2015). Sustainability reporting in higher education: Interconnecting the reporting process and organisational change management for sustainability. Sustainability, 7(7), 8881–8903. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7078881 Coch, L., & French, J. R. P., Jr. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1(4), 512–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674800100408

176

9  Organizational Change

Conroy, M. M., & Berke, P. R. (2004). What makes a good sustainable development plan? An analysis of factors that influence principles of sustainable development. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 36(8), 1381–1396. https://doi.org/10.1068/a367 Davis, M. C., & Coan, P. (2015). Organizational change. In J. L. Robertson & J. Barling (Eds.), The psychology of green organizations (pp.  244–274). Oxford University Press. https://doi. org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199997480.003.0011 Dearing, J.  W. (2009). Applying diffusion of innovation theory to intervention development. Research on Social Work Practice, 19(5), 503–518. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731509335569 Delmas, M.  A., & Pekovic, S. (2018). Corporate sustainable innovation and employee behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 150, 1071–1088. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551-­016-­3163-­1 Demerouti, E., Xanthopoulou, D., Petrou, P., & Karagkounis, C. (2017). Does job crafting assist dealing with organizational changes due to austerity measures? Two studies among Greek employees. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(4), 574–589. https:// doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1325875 Disterheft, A., Caeiro, S., Azeiteiro, U. M., & Leal Filho, W. (2015). Sustainable universities–a study of critical success factors for participatory approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.030 Endrejat, P. C., & Kauffeld, S. (2018). Motivation towards “green” behaviour at the workplace: Facilitating employee pro-environmental behaviour through participatory interventions. In I. V. K. Wells, D. Gregory-Smith, & D. Manika (Eds.), Research handbook on employee pro-­ environmental behaviour (pp. 267–286). Edward Elgar. Etzion, D. (2018). Management for sustainability. Nature Sustainability, 1(12), 744–749. https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41893-­018-­0184-­z Fawehinmi, O., Yusliza, M.  Y., Mohamad, Z., Noor Faezah, J., & Muhammad, Z. (2020). Assessing the green behaviour of academics: The role of green human resource management and environmental knowledge. International Journal of Manpower, 41(7), 879–900. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJM-­07-­2019-­0347 Ferlie, E., Fitzgerald, L., Wood, M., & Hawkins, C. (2005). The nonspread of innovations: The mediating role of professionals. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 117–134. https://doi. org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.15993150 Franklin, M. (2021). Agile change management: A practical framework for successful change planning and implementation. Kogan Page. Geiger, N., & Swim, J. K. (2016). Climate of silence: Pluralistic ignorance as a barrier to climate change discussion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47, 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvp.2016.05.002 Geiger, N., Swim, J. K., & Glenna, L. (2019). Spread the green word: A social community perspective into environmentally sustainable behavior. Environment and Behavior, 51(5), 561–589. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518812925 Griffin, M. A., Rafferty, A. E., & Mason, C. M. (2004). Who started this? Investigating different sources of organizational change. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(4), 555–570. https:// doi.org/10.1023/b:jobu.0000028451.22685.a4 Hiatt, J. (2006). ADKAR: A model for change in business, government, and our community. Prosci Research. Hoover, E., & Harder, M. K. (2015). What lies beneath the surface? The hidden complexities of organizational change for sustainability in higher education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2014.01.081 Hugé, J., Mac-Lean, C., & Vargas, L. (2018). Maturation of sustainability in engineering faculties  – From emerging issue to strategy? Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 4277–4285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.143 Jacobs, G., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Christe-Zeyse, J. (2013). A theoretical framework of organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26(5), 772–792. https://doi. org/10.1108/JOCM-­09-­2012-­0137

References

177

Jiang, K., Lepak, D.  P., Hu, J., & Baer, J.  C. (2012). How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1264–1294. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0088 Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1992). The challenge of organizational change: How companies experience it and leaders guide it. Free Press. Kellogg, K. C. (2012). Making the cut: Using status-based countertactics to block social movement implementation and microinstitutional change in surgery. Organization Science, 23(6), 1546–1570. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0704 Kim, T.  G., Hornung, S., & Rousseau, D.  M. (2011). Change supportive employee behavior: Antecedents and the moderating role of time. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1664–1693. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310364243 Kleingeld, A., van Mierlo, H., & Arends, L. (2011). The effect of goal setting on group performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1289–1304. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0024315 Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business Press. Lam, S.  S. K., & Schaubroeck, J. (2000). A field experiment testing frontline opinion leaders as change agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 987–995. https://doi. org/10.1037/0021-­9010.85.6.987 Lambrechts, W. (2015). The contribution of sustainability assessment to policy development in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(6), 801–816. https://doi. org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1040719 Lambrechts, W., Verhulst, E., & Rymenams, S. (2017). Professional development of sustainability competences in higher education: The role of empowerment. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18(5), 697–714. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJSHE-­02-­2016-­0028 Latham, G. P., Winters, D. C., & Locke, E. A. (1994). Cognitive and motivational effects of participation: A mediator study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(1), 49–63. https://doi. org/10.1002/job.4030150106 Leal Filho, W., Will, M., Salvia, A. L., Adomßent, M., Grahl, A., & Spira, F. (2019). The role of green and sustainability offices in fostering sustainability efforts at higher education institutions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 232, 1394–1401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2019.05.273 Leisyte, L., & Dee, J. R. (2012). Understanding academic work in a changing institutional environment: Faculty autonomy, productivity, and identity in Europe and the United States. In J. C. Smart & M. B. Paulsen (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 27, pp. 123–206). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­94-­007-­2950-­6_3 Leone, K., Davis, S., Velasquez, C., & Nagle-Roides, K. (2021). Creating a culture of sustainability: Organizational strategies and employee training. In K. Leone, S. Komisar, & E. M. Everham III (Eds.), Making the sustainable university: Education for sustainability (pp. 45–61). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­981-­33-­4477-­8_4 Levy, B. L. M., & Marans, R. W. (2012). Towards a campus culture of environmental sustainability: Recommendations for a large university. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13(4), 365–377. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371211262317 Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics. Harper. Lewis, N.  A., Jr., Green, D.  J., Duker, A., & Onyeador, I.  N. (2021). Not seeing eye to eye: Challenges to building ethnically and economically diverse environmental coalitions. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 60–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.025 Lidstone, L., Wright, T., & Sherren, K. (2015). Canadian STARS-rated campus sustainability plans: Priorities, plan creation and design. Sustainability, 7(1), 725–746. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su7010725 Lohrke, F.  T., Mazzei, M.  J., & Frownfelter-Lohrke, C. (2022). Should it stay or should it go? Developing an enhanced SWOT framework for teaching strategy formulation. Journal of Management Education, 46(2), 345–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/10525629211021143

178

9  Organizational Change

Masri, H. A., & Jaaron, A. A. (2017). Assessing green human resources management practices in Palestinian manufacturing context: An empirical study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 474–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.087 McNamara, K. H. (2010). Fostering sustainability in higher education: A mixed-methods study of transformative leadership and change strategies. Environmental Practice, 12(1), 48–58. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S1466046609990445 Moser, S. C. (2007). More bad news: The risk of neglecting emotional responses to climate change information. In S. C. Moser & L. Dilling (Eds.), Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and facilitating social change (pp. 64–80). Cambridge University Press. Nguyen-Van, P., Stenger, A., & Tiet, T. (2021). Social incentive factors in interventions promoting sustainable behaviors: A meta-analysis. PLoS One, 16(12), e0260932. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0260932 Niedlich, S., Kummer, B., Bauer, M., Rieckmann, M., & Bormann, I. (2020). Cultures of sustainability governance in higher education institutions: A multi-case study of dimensions and implications. Higher Education Quarterly, 74(4), 373–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12237 Oreg, S., & Berson, Y. (2019). Leaders’ impact on organizational change: Bridging theoretical and methodological chasms. The Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 272–307. https://doi. org/10.5465/annals.2016.0138 Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310396550 Paillé, P., Mejía-Morelos, J.  H., Marché-Paillé, A., Chen, C.  C., & Chen, Y. (2016). Corporate greening, exchange process among co-workers, and ethics of care: An empirical study on the determinants of pro-environmental behaviors at coworkers-level. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(3), 655–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-­015-­2537-­0 Paillé, P., Valéau, P., & Carballo-Penela, A. (2022). Green rewards for optimizing employee environmental performance: Examining the role of perceived organizational support for the environment and internal environmental orientation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2022.2092723 Reay, T., Golden-Biddle, K., & Germann, K. (2006). Legitimizing a new role: Small wins and microprocesses of change. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 977–998. https://doi. org/10.5465/amj.2006.22798178 Reichers, A.  E., Wanous, J.  P., & Austin, J.  T. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change. Academy of Management Perspectives, 11(1), 48–59. https://doi. org/10.5465/ame.1997.9707100659 Renwick, D. W. S., Redman, T., & Maguire, S. (2013). Green human resource management: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-­2370.2011.00328.x Ribeiro, M.  M., Hoover, E., Burford, G., Buchebner, J., & Lindenthal, T. (2016). Values as a bridge between sustainability and institutional assessment: A case study from BOKU University. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 17(1), 40–53. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-­12-­2014-­0170 Rieg, N.  A., Gatersleben, B., & Christie, I. (2021). Organizational change management for sustainability in higher education institutions: A systematic quantitative literature review. Sustainability, 13(13), 7299. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137299 Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). Simon and Schuster. Rousseau, D. M. (2018). Making evidence-based organizational decisions in an uncertain world. Organizational Dynamics, 47(3), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2018.05.001 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi. org/10.1037/0003-­066X.55.1.68 Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons. Stam, D., Lord, R.  G., van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2014). An image of who we might become: Vision communication, possible selves, and vision pursuit. Organization Science, 25(4), 1172–1194. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0891

References

179

Stanley, C. A., Watson, K. L., Reyes, J. M., & Varela, K. S. (2019). Organizational change and the chief diversity officer: A case study of institutionalizing a diversity plan. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 12(3), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000099 Stouten, J., Rousseau, D.  M., & De Cremer, D. (2018). Successful organizational change: Integrating the management practice and scholarly literatures. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 752–788. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0095 Swim, J. K., Geiger, N., Sweetland, J., & Fraser, J. (2018). Social construction of scientifically grounded climate change discussions. In S.  Clayton & C.  Manning (Eds.), Psychology and climate change (pp. 65–93). Academic Press. Tang, K. N., & Tang, K. N. (2019). Change management. In K. N. Tang (Ed.), Leadership and change management (pp. 47–55). Springer. ten Have, S., ten Have, W., Huijsmans, A.-B., & Otto, M. (2016). Reconsidering change management: Applying evidence-based insights in change management practice (Vol. 16). Thibaut, J. W., & Kelly, H. H. (2017). The social psychology of groups. Routledge. Tolba, A. H., & Mourad, M. (2011). Individual and cultural factors affecting diffusion of innovation. Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies, 5(1). Verhulst, E., & Lambrechts, W. (2015). Fostering the incorporation of sustainable development in higher education. Lessons learned from a change management perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.049 Vlachopoulos, D. (2021). Organizational change management in higher education through the lens of executive coaches. Education Sciences, 11(6), 269. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11060269 White, S. S. (2014). Campus sustainability plans in the United States: Where, what, and how to evaluate? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 15(2), 228–241. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-­08-­2012-­0075 Young, H.  P. (2009). Innovation diffusion in heterogeneous populations: Contagion, social influence, and social learning. American Economic Review, 99(5), 1899–1924. https://doi. org/10.1257/aer.99.5.1899 Young, W., Davis, M., McNeill, I.  M., Malhotra, B., Russell, S., Unsworth, K., & Clegg, C. W. (2015). Changing behaviour: Successful environmental programmes in the workplace. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(8), 689–703. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1836 Zibarras, L. D., & Coan, P. (2015). HRM practices used to promote pro-environmental behavior: A UK survey. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(16), 2121–2142. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.972429

Chapter 10

This Is Hard

As this book goes to press, the crisis created by unsustainable human behavior (more specifically, Western industrialized human behavior) has become obvious. Few, aside from staunch deniers, would claim that all is well with Earth’s ecological systems. Although we promised to skip the litany of woes at the beginning of this book, it is now worth highlighting that in recent years, climate change has directly impacted an estimated nine-out-of-ten US residents (AP-NORC, 2023; see Fig. 10.1). This chapter takes a deeper dive into the negative toll unsustainability is having on employees and concludes with pragmatic suggestions for healthy coping.

10.1 Physical and Emotional Tolls of Unsustainability Experiencing the direct effects of human-caused climate change takes its toll on human health: heat-related illnesses, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, injury from exposure to flooding and storm debris, illness from contaminated water, exposure to tick and other pest-borne illnesses, food-borne illnesses and contamination—it’s a lot to handle (e.g., McKillop et al., 2020). The harm inflicted by climate change impacts is exacerbated by other forms of unsustainable human activity like conventional agricultural practices that use harmful pesticides and lack crop diversity or chemical and plastic manufacturing leading to waste generation. Unsustainability is making people physically sick. Unsustainability is also negatively impacting mental and emotional well-being. Sudden-onset disasters like extreme storms, flooding, wildfires, and heatwaves are not only life-threatening—they are mentally and emotionally traumatic as they disrupt human lives. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is probably the most common outcome of surviving a disaster, but studies also find increased rates of anxiety, depression, substance abuse, insomnia, and other mental health issues after such © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. L. Amel et al., Fostering Sustainability in Higher Education, Psychology and Our Planet, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50555-3_10

181

182

10  This Is Hard

highest ocean temperatures in history off florida coast

ne hits d hurrica e t n e d e c ia unpre californ southern

extreme rainfall floods american northea st

poor air quality across the glo country due to wildfires mon be reco th in rds h ot over 125,0 test 00 y ears

Fig. 10.1  Headlines covering the increasing impact of climate change

events (Aylward et al., 2022; Beaglehole et al., 2018; Clayton et al., 2021; Lawrance et al., 2022). Prevalence and severity of symptoms vary widely depending on the characteristics of the event, how many events people are exposed to, and the resources available to help them recover afterward (e.g., Agyapong et al., 2022). While Hurricane Harvey (August 2017) left about 25% of Texas residents in the most-impacted counties reporting symptoms that met the diagnostic criteria of PTSD (Fitzpatrick, 2021), PTSD symptoms were even higher after Hurricane Maria tore through Puerto Rico (September 2017). More than 43% of Puerto Ricans who were displaced within the island, and more than 65% of those who had to flee to Florida, struggled with PTSD symptoms (Scaramutti et al., 2019). The statistics are similar for other types of climate-related disasters. Climate change also has slower-growing, chronic impacts. Hot days are becoming hotter, and more frequent, around the world (EPA, 2022b). Heat is linked to many negative mental health outcomes, such as higher numbers of mental health emergency room visits and increased incidence of mood and anxiety disorders (Clayton et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021). Even mild increases in heat, such as temperatures over 70  °F, correlate with people reporting fewer positive emotions, more negative emotions, and more fatigue (Noelke et al., 2016). Drought and desertification are other outcomes of climate change (Overpeck & Udall, 2020), both of which lead to significant emotional trauma for communities closely connected to the land, such as Indigenous peoples and farmers (Clayton et al., 2021). In addition, climate change contributes to worsening air quality through

10.1  Physical and Emotional Tolls of Unsustainability

183

wildfire smoke and because warmer temperatures trap pollutants such as particulate matter and ground-level ozone (EPA, 2022a). These are associated with higher use of mental health services, including mental health emergency room visits, and higher risk of mental disorders (Clayton et al., 2021; Lowe et al. 2021). Breathing polluted air also negatively impacts the ability to cognitively process information. In other words, pollution makes thinking more difficult (Lu, 2020). Even those who have not (yet) been directly impacted by the physical manifestations of climate change may struggle with mental health effects. Climate change causes people to worry: about their future, their children or grandchildren’s future, for young people everywhere, and the future generations whose lives will be increasingly worsened by the outcomes of unaddressed unsustainability (Clayton, et al., 2021). Feelings of fear are often accompanied by an array of other emotions: grief for the loss of species, for the damage to personally important natural places, and for the loss of traditional/Indigenous cultural practices; guilt due to a sense of not doing enough; helplessness because of not knowing what to do, or feeling that one’s individual efforts are inadequate; and anger because not enough is being done by others (Pihkala, 2020a, b). Researchers use a number of different terms to describe these climate-driven negative emotions, such as ecological grief, eco-anxiety, climate anxiety, or solastalgia (Coffey et al., 2021; Ojala et al., 2021; Pihkala, 2018, 2020a; Stanley et al., 2021), as concern for environmental degradation rises within a variety of research communities. As the evidence of climate change becomes more salient, worry is rising as well. Around 66% of Americans report they are at least “somewhat worried” about climate change and 30% say they are “very worried” (Leiserowitz et al., 2023). While negative emotions are a natural response to the clear dangers presented by environmental degradation and should not be considered “a disorder” (Clayton, 2020; Cunsolo et al., 2020), they sometimes can reach problematic levels (Uppalapati et  al., 2023). Around 51% of American young adults expressed worry about the impact of climate change on their mental health (American Psychiatric Association, 2022), and in a global survey of young people from ten countries, 45% say that climate change worries get in the way of their daily life functioning (Hickman et al., 2021). Young people also report high levels of anger, directed toward those in power, for not taking the crisis seriously (Hickman et al., 2021). The mental health burdens from unsustainability disproportionately affect those who have historically contributed least to the problems, such as Indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant workers, the elderly, and persons with disabilities or mental illness (Clayton et al., 2021). These groups are more likely to be exposed to climate change impacts such as heat or extreme storms, have lower access to resources that help buffer damage and contribute to recovery, and are thus at higher risk of climate-linked mental health problems. Even if Western industrial societies quickly and significantly curb unsustainable practices such as pumping greenhouse gases into the environment, the physical impacts of climate change are projected to increase for many years to come, and more people will be negatively affected, both directly and indirectly.

184

10  This Is Hard

10.2 Stress at Work These issues are relevant to workplaces, for no one is able to keep work and “non-­ work” separate. Decades of research have definitively shown that stress or conflict in one arena in life (e.g., family) impacts other areas of life (e.g., work, friendships). This is known by many names including work-family conflict and work-family spillover (e.g., Byron, 2005; Ford et al., 2007). The takeaway is that the emotional burdens of climate change, if not already, certainly will be felt at work. Anxiety, depression, and other mental health conditions are already responsible for absences from work and poor performance (Deady et al., 2022), and as unsustainability-related trauma grows, nearly every sector of employment, including Institutions of Higher Education (HEIs), will be affected. Likewise, if there is particular stress about sustainability in the work sphere, this can bleed over into non-work life. Work can, and should, be a source of positive well-being in people’s lives (Paul et al., 2023). Some argue that well-being at work should be a defining feature of the twenty-first-century workforce (Lowe, 2010) and a lack of well-being in one’s career may detract from other sources of general well-being like social, financial, physical, and community health (Gallup, n.d.). Understanding workplace stress and a related concept, burnout, is essential for providing appropriate support for HEI employee well-being, especially for those who are actively working toward a sustainability transformation.

10.2.1 Burnout Stress, both within and outside of the workplace, has reached epidemic proportions. Although it may seem obvious, the statistics support this intuition (Global Organization for Stress, n.d.). Even “post” pandemic, global workplace stress is on the rise with 80% of employees feeling stress and many of them desiring help to manage it. On top of experiencing “typical” workplace stressors (e.g., low autonomy/control, poor social support, lackluster leadership), those who work in HEIs have experienced unique stressors. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic caused a dramatic drop in tuition-paying students applying for college (Crawford & Cifuentes-Faura, 2022; O’Leary & June, 2023). As a result, many HEIs are facing significant budget shortfalls, and in response, administrators are making cuts in programs and staff and faculty positions, leaving an increased workload for those who remain, as well as overall fear of losing one’s job. This pattern is likely to worsen due to the lower number of college-aged students expected around 2025, a result of fewer births during the 2008 recession (Boeckenstedt, 2022). Particularly hard hit are institutions that traditionally serve

10.2  Stress at Work

185

lower-income and non-traditional student populations (Kelchen, 2023). While the most competitive institutions have to some extent been spared, there is a general sense of unease among HEI employees (Nature, 2021), with many wondering about the security of their own institution, department, or individual job. Feelings of uncertainty are compounded by increased tuition-related debt loads (Mitchell et al., 2019) as well as a drop in the perceived value of a post-secondary degree among the general American public (Belkin, 2023; Mintz, 2021). These apparently unrelenting conditions have left many faculty, staff, and administrators alike feeling, quite simply, burned out. While not synonymous, stress and burnout are highly related. And, although many of us colloquially use phrases such as “I’m so burned out!”, burnout is actually a workplace-specific phenomenon. Essentially, burnout is a severe stress syndrome: a steady emotional and motivational decline with a range of physical and mental symptoms, often leading to exhaustion (Maslach & Schaufeli, 1993). It is defined by its three dimensions: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced feelings of accomplishment (see Table 10.1; Jackson et al., 1986; Maslach et al., 2001). Burnout is associated with a myriad of negative outcomes for individuals. It has been linked to employee impulsivity, workaholism, negative job perceptions, absenteeism, depression, addiction, poor work-life balance, low-quality objective and self-rated job performance, lower work morale, insomnia, and negative physical symptoms (Childs & Stoeber, 2010; Demerouti et al., 2005; Koutsimani et al., 2019; Lee & Ashforth, 1996; Maudgalya et al., 2006; Schaufeli et al., 1996). These outcomes are not only problematic for employees but also have adverse financial implications for institutions. HEIs are experiencing alarmingly high levels of burnout among staff and faculty (Sabagh et al., 2018). Specifically, more than half of HEI faculty have strongly considered leaving teaching, largely blaming burnout resulting partly from the pandemic (Pettit, 2021). Workplace concerns about unsustainability may soon join the list of causes for burnout (Australian Psychological Society, n.d.). Table 10.1  Three dimensions of burnout Burnout dimension Emotional exhaustion

Depersonalization (aka cynicism)

Reduced feelings of personal accomplishment

Description Consistently emotionally drained, consistently working below one’s capacity Sense of detachment from others

Symptoms Anxiety, fatigue, tension, insomnia

Feelings of inefficacy

Stress, depression, reduced satisfaction with job-related achievements

Viewing others as objects or numbers (e.g., “butts in seats”)

Sources Jackson et al. (1986), Lee and Ashforth (1990), Maslach and Jackson (1981) Jackson et al. (1986), Lee and Ashforth (1990), Maslach (1973) Jackson et al. (1986), Lee and Ashforth (1990), Maslach and Jackson (1981, 1984)

186

10  This Is Hard

10.3 Attitudes and Motivational Experiences at Work To succeed along the long and difficult path toward sustainability, counteracting burnout and fostering well-being will be critical. Two important workplace phenomena, job satisfaction and work engagement, have been linked not only to burnout but also to well-being and many positive work outcomes.

10.3.1 Job Satisfaction Many people feel unhappy in their jobs, and this certainly includes academics (Nature, 2021). While not the same as happiness, job satisfaction is a primary work attitude that includes emotional (pride, joy, fear) and cognitive (appraisal of job or experiences on the job) components (Weiss, 2002). Currently, just over half of folks report being very or extremely satisfied with their jobs (Menasce Horowitz & Parker, 2023). This leaves much room for improvement as people who are more satisfied with their jobs experience lower stress and burnout levels (Faragher, et al., 2005) and fewer physical and mental health concerns (e.g., self-esteem, depression, subjective physical health). Job satisfaction is important to employers as well because it is affiliated with important behavioral outcomes (Weiss, 2002). Job satisfaction is somewhat predictive of in-role job performance (Judge et al., 2001), but more predictive of extra-role performance such as having a helpful spirit at work and being willing to go “above and beyond” core job retirements, as described earlier in Chap. 3 (Eatough et al., 2011; LePine et al., 2002). Further, satisfied employees tend to perform fewer deviant, or counterproductive, work behaviors such as sabotage, theft, and negative talk (Czarnota-Bojarska, 2015). Critical for sustainability efforts, employees are more satisfied when their own and their institution’s values align—called value congruence (Locke, 1969; Locke, 1976). When work aligns with values that are most important to an employee, workers are even more satisfied (McFarlin et al., 1995; Rice et al., 1991). Job satisfaction is also higher among workers who experience social support and who are given autonomy to make decisions (e.g., Tokarz & Malinowska, 2019). For more detail about the importance of autonomy, see Chap. 6. These patterns are further established through meta-analyses in the highly related literature on person-organization fit, as defined earlier in Chap. 4 (Earl, 2015; Morris, 2003; Verquer et al., 2003).

10.3.2 Work Engagement Work engagement is another concept important to understanding burnout (Demerouti et al., 2001). Work engagement is a motivational state commonly characterized by three interrelated dimensions: vigor, absorption, and dedication (Christian et  al.,

10.3  Attitudes and Motivational Experiences at Work

187

Table 10.2  Dimensions of work engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2002) Work engagement dimension Vigor Absorption Dedication

Description High energy, investment, persistence, and resilience while working Complete immersion in and total concentration on tasks Strong identification and involvement, including an emotional connection with job role

2011; Schaufeli et al., 2002; see Table 10.2). People who are more engaged with their work tend to experience less burnout (Christian, et  al., 2011; Halbesleben, 2010) and are less likely to consider leaving their jobs (Halbesleben, 2010). In addition, work engagement is positively related to job satisfaction and, like job satisfaction, is positively related to in-role performance, extra-role behavior (Christian et al., 2011; Halbesleben, 2010), and health (Halbesleben, 2010). As one can imagine, work engagement is a hot commodity in organizations. Value congruence, person-organization fit, and work engagement appear to be related and can help explain why people avoid jobs that conflict with deeply held values and beliefs, as they create discomfort and reduce well-being at work (Gupta et  al., 2022; Hicklenton et  al., 2019; Huhtala & Feldt, 2016; Li et  al., 2015). Increasingly, sustainability is one of the values that people are seeking to align in their work lives. By now, the principal takeaway may be very apparent: faculty, staff, and administrators for whom sustainability is a core value will be dissatisfied, be unengaged, and potentially pursue other job options if their workplace does not show obvious support for sustainability. Trends such as “climate quitting” indicate that jobseekers are paying attention to an organization’s reputation for social and environmental justice, and they are less willing to compromise their ethic in exchange for a higher paycheck (KPMG, 2023). As described in Chap. 4, this pattern likely will be exacerbated among younger people who care more and in greater numbers about sustainability (Cohen et al., 2010; Ro, 2022). On the flip side, for a certain number of individuals, sustainability may never be a core value. They may actively oppose investing any resources (personal or institutional) into sustainability, despite the strong scientific consensus about the dangers of climate change and other forms of unsustainability. In some cases, this is because the changes necessitated by sustainability programs (e.g., stopping sales of bottled water, eliminating gas-powered groundskeeping equipment, curtailing airline travel) feel like a reduction in personal freedom, resulting in psychological reactance, the motivation to take back a right that has been usurped (Brehm & Brehm, 1981). In other cases, rejection of sustainability initiatives may be rooted in personal ideology. Commitments to sustainability call into question some of the bedrock assumptions of the Western industrialized worldview, as described in Chap. 3 (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1984; Feygina, 2013). For employees most committed to these Western industrialized worldview beliefs, sustainability can feel like a personal threat, and they may be consciously or even unconsciously motivated to find

188

10  This Is Hard

reasons to dismiss it (Feygina et al., 2010). Because it is notoriously difficult to alter worldviews, which are built over a lifetime of experience, these employees may very likely continue to resist their HEI’s turn toward sustainability. Given the lack of person-organization fit in these cases, these folks are likely to be unengaged, less satisfied, and more likely to quit.

10.4 Fostering Resilience and Overall Well-Being One powerful personal resource that can create a buffer against burnout is resilience—an individual’s ability to constructively adapt in the face of significant challenges (Fisher et al., 2019; Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013; Luthar et al., 2014). Given that pursuing sustainability endeavors in HEIs is often challenging, a resilient person should be better equipped to continue in the face of adversity. It is highly adaptable individuals who can bounce back in the face of “naysayers” or lack of tangible support for sustainable initiatives, who will be the institution’s best sustainability advocates. Their resilience helps them maintain both their resolve and their good spirits. Both at work and in one’s personal life, capacity to handle adversity can be bolstered. HEIs can provide access to resilience training (Robertson et  al., 2015). Resilience training typically includes developing a variety of skills such as emotional regulation, impulse control, relaxation, mental rehearsal, acceptance, building positive relationships, positive self-talk, mindfulness, flexibility, and empathy. Effective programs not only provide opportunity for skill building but they also can present a roadmap to help people navigate the process of adapting, which is especially helpful prior to experiencing adversity (IJntema et al., 2019). Resilience training is most effective for individuals who are at greater risk for stress (Vanhove et al., 2016) and is especially effective in the form of one-on-one coaching (Robertson et al., 2015). In less formal ways, well-being is enhanced through supportive relationships with others. Positive and meaningful human connections are not only foundational to everyday well-being; they are critical during times of stress (Feeney & Collins, 2015). Supportive comrades provide empathy, recognize one’s strengths, and encourage problem-solving (Feeney & Collins, 2015). They may also help reframe a seemingly intractable situation toward one that can be tackled (Feeney & Collins, 2015). Groups and individuals alike can cultivate humor as a way to effectively cope (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012). Spending time outside, particularly in natural areas, is also a tried-and-true method to lower stress (Shuda et al., 2020) and lift one’s mood (Yao et al., 2021). Even just a short walk through a nearby park with natural features like a trickling stream feels restorative (Weber & Trojan, 2018). Time in nature may be even more powerful for personal resilience when it is done mindfully (Macy & Brown, 1998). Mindfulness is the practiced awareness of one’s inner state of mind and outer circumstances, along with the ability to be present and non-judgmental toward oneself and the world. Mindfulness has been linked

10.4  Fostering Resilience and Overall Well-Being

189

to stronger personal resilience (Nila et al., 2016), perhaps because it helps one find meaning in difficult situations (Garland et al., 2015). Mindfulness can be effectively learned through courses such as mindfulness-based stress reduction (Nila et al., 2016). Engaging in sustainability work in and of itself is good for well-being. People report that taking “green” actions feels ethical and meaningful and is thus associated with positive emotions (see Fig.  10.2; Venhoeven et  al., 2020). In addition, being part of sustainability efforts appears to directly benefit psychological well-­ being (Mock et al., 2019). Collaborative engagement with others in pursuit of sustainability goals leads to greater well-being, more social connection, a sense of competence, a sense of purpose, and the experience of personal growth (Mock et al., 2019). Sustainability-oriented employees who work for an HEI that has committed to sustainability can experience these benefits by getting involved in their workplace’s sustainability initiatives. New knowledge gained through collaboration can boost one’s sense of efficacy (Kolenatý et al., 2022; Nelson et al., 2022). Collaborations

Fig. 10.2  A transformation toward sustainability brings personal meaning and positive emotions

190

10  This Is Hard

within an institution that has made sustainability a priority should make it easier to connect with values-aligned people and projects and to have the support of colleagues and supervisors while contributing to something socially important, all of which enhance workplace thriving (Kleine et al., 2019). In addition, the ready availability of specific workplace sustainability projects can help channel eco-anxiety into constructive hope and action (Weber & Constantino, 2023) while reducing the overwhelm that many feel when confronted with too many choices for action (Andrews et al., 2022). Of course, many sustainability-oriented employees will find themselves at an HEI that hasn’t yet made a deep commitment to sustainability. Instead of joining organizationally supported sustainability efforts, they will have to weigh the pros and cons of pushing their institution toward sustainability—becoming “insider activists” (Briscoe & Gupta, 2016; Carrington et al., 2019). Because they are likely to face resistance to change, it can be helpful for insider activists to develop good coping skills. HEI sustainability professionals in unsupportive institutions have found a variety of coping mechanisms useful: building a supportive community (particularly with sympathetic faculty members), seeking creative solutions that respect financial resource limitations (e.g., holding effluent water in a pond on campus saves money on irrigation in addition to being more environmentally friendly), and focusing on a positive vision (what’s possible) rather than dwelling on the realities of here and now (Easter et al., 2022). Though pushing for change in an institution committed to the status quo is a stressful undertaking, being an insider activist may offset some of that stress by increasing well-being, perceived empowerment, and self-esteem (e.g., Vestergren et al., 2017). Regardless of whether employees engage in sustainability projects as in-role, organization-sanctioned work or as insider activists pushing their HEI onto a more sustainable path, their collaborative efforts are likely to have positive effects on their well-being. Action toward change may help alleviate some of the anxiety associated with unsustainability (Clayton, 2020) and also increase positive feelings (Schneider et al., 2021; Zawadzki et al., 2020). Collective action may even provide a protective buffer against more serious forms of mental health issues such as depression (Schwartz et al., 2022). Of course, the process of learning about current levels of unsustainability in our world and the urgent need for change is neither easy nor enjoyable. Being confronted with unfamiliar ideas can threaten some people’s sense of competence. Others may experience anxiety as they encounter the sobering facts. In a supportive environment that allows space for emotions to be felt and processed, colleagues can move through these emotions constructively (Pihkala, 2018).

10.5 In Closing: The Ripple Effect of Change As the dangers of the unsustainable status quo become real and immediate, it is clear that society must embrace sustainability, and quickly. HEIs are well-positioned to facilitate a wider social transformation; they are training members of civic

References

191

society and future leaders and are sites of technology development, social experimentation, and demonstration. HEIs also hold important discursive power; through producing and transmitting knowledge, they shape social norms and opinions. HEIs arguably have an ethical obligation to lead the transition to sustainability. HEIs’ raison d’etre is preparing students for the future. Further, HEIs can provide crucial resources to support student resilience as they anticipate the future (Brewer et al., 2019). Institutions that offer young people concrete opportunities to make a difference—especially as part of collective actions—may help them protect their mental health (Schwartz et al., 2022). HEIs also have a practical reason to commit to sustainability. Most people, youth included, are seeking ways to be involved in solutions, and institutions with a strong track record of sustainability will become more appealing as awareness of environmental degradation grows. The Princeton Review surveys consistently find that over three quarters of parents and teens say having information about an HEI’s commitment to sustainability would influence their decision to apply to or attend a school (Princeton Review, 2022). Every HEI that embraces sustainability will have a direct impact on its current employees and students. This impact will ripple out into the larger community, through the improved human and environmental conditions created by the institution; through the learning and action of students as they move out into the world; through the increased well-being and resilience of those engaged in sustainability efforts; and through the ethical example that the institution sets with its commitments. The psychological research shared in this book can help catalyze these hopeful transformations.

References Agyapong, B., Shalaby, R., Eboreime, E., Obuobi-Donkor, G., Owusu, E., Adu, M.  K., Mao, W., Oluwasina, F., & Agyapong, V.  I. O. (2022). Cumulative trauma from multiple natural disasters increases mental health burden on residents of Fort McMurray. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2022.2059999 American Psychiatric Association. (2022, April 5). Americans report mental health effects of climate change, worry about future. https://www.psychiatry.org/news-­room/news-­releases/ americans-­report-­mental-­health-­effects-­of-­climate Andrews, T. M., Kline, R., Krupnikov, Y., & Ryan, J. B. (2022). Too many ways to help: How to promote climate change mitigation behaviors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 81, 101806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101806 AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. (2023, September 25). Nine in ten have experienced extreme weather and most blame climate change. AP-NORC. https://apnorc.org/projects/ nine-­in-­ten-­have-­experienced-­extreme-­weather-­and-­most-­blame-­climate-­change/ Australian Psychological Society. (n.d.). Climate change and dealing with burnout. APS. https://psychology.org.au/for-­the-­public/psychology-­topics/climate-­change-­psychology/ climate-­change-­and-­dealing-­with-­burnout Aylward, B., Cunsolo, A., Vriezen, R., & Harper, S. L. (2022). Climate change is impacting mental health in North America: A systematic scoping review of the hazards, exposures, vulnerabili-

192

10  This Is Hard

ties, risks and responses. International Review of Psychiatry, 34(1), 34–50. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/09540261.2022.2029368 Beaglehole, B., Mulder, R., Frampton, C., Boden, J., Newton-Howes, G., & Bell, C. (2018). Psychological distress and psychiatric disorder after natural disasters: Systematic review and meta-analysis. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 213(6), 716–722. https://doi.org/10.1192/ bjp.2018.210 Belkin, D. (2023, March 31). Americans are losing faith in College Education, WSJ-NORC Poll Finds. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/ americans-­are-­losing-­faith-­in-­college-­education-­wsj-­norc-­poll-­finds-­3a836ce1 Boeckenstedt, J. (2022, March 22). Will your college survive the demographic cliff? The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/ will-­your-­college-­survive-­the-­demographic-­cliff Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance – A theory of freedom and control. Academic Press. Brewer, M. L., van Kessel, G., Sanderson, B., Naumann, F., Lane, M., Reubenson, A., & Carter, A. (2019). Resilience in higher education students: A scoping review. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(6), 1105–1120. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1626810 Briscoe, F., & Gupta, A. (2016). Social activism in and around organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 671–727. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1153261 Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(2), 169–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.08.009 Carrington, M., Zwick, D., & Neville, B. (2019). Activism and abdication on the inside: The effect of everyday practice on corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 160, 973–999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-­018-­3814-­5 Childs, J. H., & Stoeber, J. (2010). Self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially prescribed perfectionism in employees: Relationships with burnout and engagement. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 25(4), 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/15555240.2010.518486 Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-­6570.2010.01203.x Clayton, S. (2020). Climate anxiety: Psychological responses to climate change. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, Article 102263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102263 Clayton, S., Manning, C. M., Speiser, M., & Hill, A. N. (2021). Mental health and our changing climate: Impacts, inequities, responses. American Psychological Association and ecoAmerica. Coffey, Y., Bhullar, N., Durkin, J., Islam, M. S., & Usher, K. (2021). Understanding eco-anxiety: A systematic scoping review of current literature and identified knowledge gaps. The Journal of Climate Change and Health, 3, 2667–2782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joclim.2021.100047 Cohen, E., Taylor, S., & Muller-Camen, M. (2010). HRM’s role in corporate social and environmental sustainability. SHRM Foundation. https://www.shrm.org/hr-­today/ trends-­a nd-­f orecasting/special-­r eports-­a nd-­expert-­v iews/Documents/Corporate-­S ocial-­ Environmental-­Sustainability.pdf Crawford, J., & Cifuentes-Faura, J. (2022). Sustainability in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Sustainability, 14(3), 1879. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su14031879 Cunsolo, A., Harper, S. L., Minor, K., Hayes, K., Williams, K. G., & Howard, C. (2020). Ecological grief and anxiety: The start of a healthy response to climate change? Lancet Planet Health, 4(7), e261–e263. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2542-­5196(20)30144-­3 Czarnota-Bojarska, J. (2015). Counterproductive work behavior and job satisfaction: A surprisingly rocky relationship. Journal of Management & Organization, 21(4), 460–470. https://doi. org/10.1017/jmo.2015.15 Deady, M., Collins, D. A. J., Johnston, D. A., Glozier, N., Calvo, R. A., Christensen, H., & Harvey, S. B. (2022). The impact of depression, anxiety and comorbidity on occupational outcomes. Occupational Medicine, 72(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqab142

References

193

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.  B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W.  B. (2001). The job demands-­ resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499. Demerouti, E., Verbeke, W.  J., & Bakker, A.  B. (2005). Exploring the relationship between a multidimensional and multifaceted burnout concept and self-rated performance. Journal of Management, 31(2), 186–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304271602 Dunlap, R., & Van Liere, K. D. (1984). Commitment to the dominant social paradigm and concern for environmental quality. Social Science Quarterly, 65(4), 1013–1028. Earl, K. A. (2015). Interest congruence and job satisfaction: A quantitative review [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Easter, S., Ceulemans, K., & Lynn, M. L. (2022). Moving beyond Sisyphus: Pursuing sustainable development in a business-as-usual world. Business & Society, 61(4), 924–963. https://doi. org/10.1177/00076503211015914 Eatough, E.  M., Chang, C.  H., Miloslavic, S.  A., & Johnson, R.  E. (2011). Relationships of role stressors with organizational citizenship behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 619–632. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021887 EPA. (2022a, December 13). Climate change impacts on air quality. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/climateimpacts/climate-­change-­impacts-­air-­quality EPA. (2022b, July). Climate change indicators: Heat waves. https://www.epa.gov/ climate-­indicators/climate-­change-­indicators-­heat-­waves Faragher, E. B., Cass, M., & Cooper, C. L. (2005). The relationship between job satisfaction and health: A meta-analysis. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 62(2), 105–112. https:// doi.org/10.1136/oem.2002.006734 Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2015). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(2), 113–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314544222 Feygina, I. (2013). Social justice and the human–environment relationship: Common systemic, ideological, and psychological roots and processes. Social Justice Research, 26(3), 363–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-­013-­0189-­8 Feygina, I., Jost, J. T., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209351435 Fisher, D.  M., Ragsdale, J.  M., & Fisher, E.  C. S. (2019). The importance of definitional and temporal issues in the study of resilience. Applied Psychology, 68(4), 583–620. https://doi. org/10.1111/apps.12162 Fitzpatrick, K.  M. (2021). Post-traumatic stress symptomatology and displacement among Hurricane Harvey survivors. Social Science & Medicine, 270, 113634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. socscimed.2020.113634 Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2013). Psychological resilience: A review and critique of definitions, concepts, and theory. European Psychologist, 18(1), 12–23. https://doi. org/10.1027/1016-­9040/a000124 Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer, K. L. (2007). Work and family satisfaction and conflict: A meta-analysis of cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 57–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-­9010.92.1.57 Gallup. (n.d.). What is employee well-being? And why does it matter? Gallup Workplace. https:// www.gallup.com/workplace/404105/importance-­of-­employee-­well-­being.aspx.aspx. https:// doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2021.679019 Garland, E. L., Farb, N. A., Goldin, P. R., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2015). Mindfulness broadens awareness and builds eudaimonic meaning: A process model of mindful positive emotion regulation. Psychological Inquiry, 26(4), 293–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2015.1064294 Global Organization for Stress. (n.d.). Stress facts. Global Organization for Stress. http://www. gostress.com/stress-­facts/ Gupta, A., Chakravorty, A., Garg, N., & Singh, P. (2022). Job security, value congruence, and work outcomes: Revisiting the mediating role of work engagement. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-­01-­2022-­0002

194

10  This Is Hard

Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 102–117). Psychology Press. Hicklenton, C., Hine, D.  W., & Loi, N.  M. (2019). Does green-person-organization fit predict intrinsic need satisfaction and workplace engagement? Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2285. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2019.02285 Hickman, C., Marks, E., Pihkala, P., Clayton, S., Lewandowski, R. E., Mayall, E. E., Wray, B., Mellor, C., & van Susteren, L. (2021). Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: A global survey. Lancet Planetary Health, 5(12), e863–e873. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2542-­5196(21)00278-­3 Huhtala, M., & Feldt, T. (2016). The path from ethical organisational culture to employee commitment: Mediating roles of value congruence and work engagement. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 10.16993/sjwop.6. IJntema, R. C., Burger, Y. D., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2019). Reviewing the labyrinth of psychological resilience: Establishing criteria for resilience-building programs. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 71(4), 288–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000147 Jackson, S.  E., Schwab, R.  L., & Schuler, R.  S. (1986). Toward an understanding of the burnout phenomenon. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 630–640. https://doi. org/10.1037/0021-­9010.71.4.630 Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-­2909.127.3.376 Kelchen, R. (2023, June 14). The haves and have-nots of higher education: College enrollments are becoming increasingly unequal. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-­haves-­and-­have-­nots-­of-­higher-­education. Kleine, A. K., Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2019). Thriving at work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(9–10), 973–999. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2375 Kolenatý, M., Kroufek, R., & Činčera, J. (2022). What triggers climate action: The impact of a climate change education program on students’ climate literacy and their willingness to act. Sustainability, 14(16), 10365. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610365 Koutsimani, P., Montgomery, A., & Georganta, K. (2019). The relationship between burnout, depression, and anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 284. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00284 KPMG. (2023, January 24). Climate quitting - younger workers voting with their feet on employer’s ESG commitments. KPMG. https://kpmg.com/uk/en/home/media/press-­releases/2023/01/ climate-­quitting-­younger-­workers-­voting-­esg.html#. Lawrance, E. L., Thompson, R., Newberry Le Vay, J., Page, L., & Jennings, N. (2022). The impact of climate change on mental health and emotional well-being: A narrative review of current evidence, and its implications. International Review of Psychiatry, 34(5), 443–498. https://doi. org/10.1080/09540261.2022.2128725 Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1990). On the meaning of Maslach’s three dimensions of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 743–747. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-­9010.75.6.743 Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 123–133. https://doi. org/10.1037/0021-­9010.81.2.123 Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Rosenthal, S., Kotcher, J., Lee, S., Verner, M., Ballew, M., Carman, J., Myers, T., Goldberg, M., Badullovich, N., & Marlon, J. (2023). Climate change in the American mind: Beliefs & attitudes, Spring 2023. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/ climate-­change-­in-­the-­american-­mind-­beliefs-­attitudes-­spring-­2023/. LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-­9010.87.1.52

References

195

Li, M., Wang, Z., You, X., & Gao, J. (2015). Value congruence and teachers’ work engagement: The mediating role of autonomous and controlled motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 80, 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.021 Liu, J., Varghese, B.  M., Hansen, A., Xiang, J., Zhang, Y., Dear, K., Gourley, M., Driscoll, T., Morgan, G., Capon, A., & Bi, P. (2021). Is there an association between hot weather and poor mental health outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environment International, 153, 106533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106533 Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4(4), 309–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-­5073(69)90013-­0 Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Rand McNally. Lowe, G. S. (2010). Creating healthy organizations: How vibrant workplaces inspire employees to achieve sustainable success. University of Toronto Press. Lowe, S. R., Wang, C., Ma, Y., & Chen, K. (2021). Particulate matter pollution and risk of outpatient visits for psychological diseases in Nanjing, China. Environmental Research, 193, 110601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110601 Lu, J.  G. (2020). Air pollution: A systematic review of its psychological, economic, and social effects. Current Opinion in Psychology, 32, 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. copsyc.2019.06.024 Luthar, S.  S., Lyman, E.  L., & Crossman, E.  J. (2014). Resilience and positive psychology. In J. Schulenberg, M. E. Patrick, J. Maslowsky, J. L. Maggs, M. Lewis, & K. D. Rudolph (Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychopathology. Springer. Macy, J., & Brown, M. Y. (1998). Coming back to life: Practices to reconnect our lives, our world. New Society Publishers. Maslach, C. (1973, August). Detached concern in health and social service professions. In Proceedings of the 81st Annual meetings of the American Psychological Association, Montreal, QC, Canada (pp. 27–31). Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). MBI: Maslach burnout inventory. Palo Alto, CA, 1(2), 49–78. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1984). Patterns of burnout among a national sample of public contact workers. Journal of Health and Human Resources Administration, 189–212. Maslach, C., & Schaufeli, W.  B. (1993). Historical and conceptual development of burnout. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 1–16). Taylor & Francis. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397–422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397 Maudgalya, T., Wallace, S., Daraiseh, N., & Salem, S. (2006). Workplace stress factors and ‘burnout’ among information technology professionals: A systematic review. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 7(3), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220500090638 McFarlin, D. B., Coster, E. A., Rice, R. W., & Cooper, A. T. (1995). Facet importance and job satisfaction: Another look at the range-of-affect hypothesis. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16(4), 489–502. McKillop, M., Pittluck, R., Links, J.M., Latshaw, M.  W., Watson, C.  R., & Sell, T.  K. (2020). Climate change & health: Assessing state preparedness. https://www.tfah.org/report-­details/ climate-­change-­health-­assessing-­state-­preparedness/ Menasce Horowitz, J., & Parker, K. (2023, March 30). How Americans view their jobs. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-­trends/2023/03/30/ how-­americans-­view-­their-­jobs/ Mesmer-Magnus, J., Glew, D.  J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2012). A meta-analysis of positive humor in the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(2), 155–190. https://doi. org/10.1108/02683941211199554 Mintz, B. (2021). Neoliberalism and the crisis in higher education: The cost of ideology. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 80(1), 79–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/ ajes.12370

196

10  This Is Hard

Mitchell, M., Leachman, M., & Saenz, M. (2019, October 24). State higher education funding cuts have pushed costs to students, worsened inequality. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-­budget-­and-­tax/ state-­higher-­education-­funding-­cuts-­have-­pushed-­costs-­to-­students Mock, M., Omann, I., & Panno, A. (2019). “Something inside me has been set in motion”: Exploring the psychological well-being of people engaged in sustainability initiatives. Ecological Economics, 160, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.02.002 Morris, M. A. (2003). A meta-analytic investigation of vocational interest-based job fit, and its relationship to job satisfaction, performance, and turnover [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Houston. . (2021). Industry scores higher than academia for job satisfaction. Nature, Nature, 600, 8. https:// doi.org/10.1038/d41586-­021-­03567-­3 Nelson, S.-M., Ira, G., & Merenlender, A. M. (2022). Adult climate change education advances learning, self-efficacy, and agency for community-scale stewardship. Sustainability, 14(3), 1804. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031804 Nila, K., Holt, D. V., Ditzen, B., & Aguilar-Raab, C. (2016). Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) enhances distress tolerance and resilience through changes in mindfulness. Mental Health & Prevention, 4(1), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhp.2016.01.001 Noelke, C., McGovern, M., Corsi, D.  J., Jimenez, M.  P., Stern, A., Wing, I.  S., & Berkman, L. (2016). Increasing ambient temperature reduces emotional well-being. Environmental Research, 151, 124–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2016.06.045 O’Leary, B., & June, A.  W. (2023, May 31). These were higher ed’s biggest financial losses from the pandemic. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/ these-­were-­higher-­eds-­biggest-­financial-­losses-­from-­the-­pandemic Ojala, M., Cunsolo, A., Ogunbode, C. A., & Middleton, J. (2021). Anxiety, worry, and grief in a time of environmental and climate crisis: A narrative review. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 46, 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-­environ-­012220-­022716 Overpeck, J.  T., & Udall, B. (2020). Climate change and the aridification of North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(22), 11856–11858. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.2006323117 Paul, K. I., Scholl, H., Moser, K., Zechmann, A., & Batinic, B. (2023). Employment status, psychological needs, and mental health: Meta-analytic findings concerning the latent deprivation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1017358. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1017358 Pettit, E. (2021, February 25). Faculty members are suffering burnout. These strategies could help. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/ faculty-­members-­are-­suffering-­burnout-­so-­some-­colleges-­have-­used-­these-­strategies-­to-­help Pihkala, P. (2018). Eco-anxiety, tragedy, and hope: Psychological and spiritual dimensions of climate change. Zygon, 53(2), 545–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12407 Pihkala, P. (2020a). Anxiety and the ecological crisis: An analysis of eco-anxiety and climate anxiety. Sustainability, 12(19), 7836. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197836 Pihkala, P. (2020b). Eco-anxiety and environmental education. Sustainability, 12(23), 10149. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310149 Princeton Review. (2022, October 25). The Princeton Review guide to green colleges: 2023 edition press release. https://www.princetonreview.com/press/green-­guide/press-­release-­2023 Rice, R.  W., Gentile, D.  A., & McFarlin, D.  B. (1991). Facet importance and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-­9010.76.1.31 Ro, C. (2022, March 1). How climate change is re-shaping the way Gen Z works. BBC. https:// www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220225-­how-­climate-­change-­is-­re-­shaping-­the-­way-­gen-­z-­ works?utm_source=pocket-­newtab Robertson, I. T., Cooper, C. L., Sarkar, M., & Curran, T. (2015). Resilience training in the workplace from 2003 to 2014: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(3), 533–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12120

References

197

Sabagh, Z., Hall, N.  C., & Saroyan, A. (2018). Antecedents, correlates and consequences of faculty burnout. Educational Research, 60(2), 131–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188 1.2018.1461573 Scaramutti, C., Salas-Wright, C., Vos, S., & Schwartz, S. (2019). The mental health impact of Hurricane Maria on Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico and Florida. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 13(1), 24–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2018.151 Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). Maslach burnout inventory— General survey. In C.  Maslach, S.  E. Jackson, & M.  P. Leiter (Eds.), The Maslach burnout inventory-test manual (3rd ed., pp. 22–26). Psychologists Press. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326 Schneider, C.  R., Zaval, L., & Markowitz, E.  M. (2021). Positive emotions and climate change. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 114–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cobeha.2021.04.009 Schwartz, S. E. O., Benoit, L., Clayton, S., Parnes, M. F., Swenson, L., & Lowe, S. R. (2022). Climate change anxiety and mental health: Environmental activism as buffer. Current Psychology, 42(20), 16708–16721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-­022-­02735-­6 Shuda, Q., Bougoulias, M.  E., & Kass, R. (2020). Effect of nature exposure on perceived and physiologic stress: A systematic review. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 53, 102514. Stanley, S.  K., Hogg, T.  L., Leviston, Z., & Walker, I. (2021). From anger to action: Differential impacts of eco-anxiety, eco-depression, and eco-anger on climate action and well-being. The Journal of Climate Change and Health, 1, 100003. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.joclim.2021.100003. https://www.investmentweek.co.uk/news/4064123/ climate-­quitting-­people-­rejected-­job-­employers-­weak-­esg-­credentials Tokarz, A., & Malinowska, D. (2019). From psychological theoretical assumptions to new research perspectives in sustainability and sustainable development: Motivation in the workplace. Sustainability, 11(8), 2222. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082222 Uppalapati, S., Ballew, M., Campbell, E., Kotcher, J., Rosenthal, S., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E. (2023, July 25). The prevalence of climate change psychological distress among American adults. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. https://climatecommunication.yale. edu/publications/climate-­change-­psychological-­distress-­prevalence/ Vanhove, A. J., Herian, M. N., Perez, A. L., Harms, P. D., & Lester, P. B. (2016). Can resilience be developed at work? A meta-analytic review of resilience-building programme effectiveness. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(2), 278–307. https://doi. org/10.1111/joop.12123 Venhoeven, L. A., Bolderdijk, J. W., & Steg, L. (2020). Why going green feels good. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 71, 101492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101492 Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person–organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 473–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-­8791(02)00036-­2 Vestergren, S., Drury, J., & Chiriac, E. H. (2017). The biographical consequences of protest and activism: A systematic review and a new typology. Social Movement Studies, 16(2), 203–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2016.1252665 Weber, E. U., & Constantino, S. M. (2023). All hearts and minds on deck: Hope motivates climate action by linking the present and the future. Emotion Review, 15(4), 293–297. https://doi. org/10.1177/17540739231195534 Weber, A.  M., & Trojan, J. (2018). The restorative value of the urban environment: A systematic review of the existing literature. Environmental Health Insights. https://doi. org/10.1177/1178630218812805 Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 173–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1053-­4822(02)00045-­1

198

10  This Is Hard

Yao, W., Chen, F., Wang, S., & Zhang, X. (2021). Impact of exposure to natural and built environments on positive and negative affect: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 758457. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.758457 Zawadzki, S. J., Steg, L., & Bouman, T. (2020). Meta-analytic evidence for a robust and positive association between individuals’ pro-environmental behaviors and their subjective wellbeing. Environmental Research Letters, 15(12), 123007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-­9326/abc4ae

Index

A Abilities, 45 Absenteeism, 184 Academic affairs, 164 Academic associations, 61 Academic deans, 39 Academic disciplines, 40 Academic freedom, 86, 138 Accountability, 171 Accountants, 39 Accreditation bodies, 173 Activism insider activists, 190 Adaptability, 188 See also Resilience Ad hoc groups, 164 ADKAR model, see AMO model Administrative assistants, 39, 86, 142 Administrative decisions, 173 Administrators, 55, 85 Admissions, 40 Advanced degrees, 62 Affinity groups, 61, 78 Air quality, 182 Alignment, 56, 139, 140 Ambiguity, 105 AMO model, 167 Annual awards banquet, 169 Applicant recruitment, 56–61 Assessment, 171 annual progress reports, 171 assess progress, 171 university-wide measurement, 171

Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), 1, 24, 87, 140, 167 AASHE Sustainability Tracking and Rating System (AASHE STARS), 18, 140, 162, 163 Athletics, 120, 164 Attention, 89 Attitude-behavior gap, 81 Attitudes, 41, 81, 136 attitude training, 81 positive attitudes, 78, 103 prosocial attitudes, 65 proenvironmental attitudes, 65 Attracting employees, 56 Attraction-selection-attrition model (ASA), 56 Audience, 89 Auditing, 64 Authentic leadership, 145–146 ethical, 145 positivity, 145 transparency, 145 Autonomy, 38, 128, 138, 164, 184 Autopilot, see Habits Awards, 37, 60, 62, 86, 107, 115, 117, 168, 169 See also Contingencies Awareness, 42, 137 awareness training, 80 B Barriers, 103, 137, 164 See also Constraints; Control

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. L. Amel et al., Fostering Sustainability in Higher Education, Psychology and Our Planet, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50555-3

199

200 BARS, see Behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) Behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS), 48 Biases, 47 Bicycle commuting, 78 Branding tools, 64 Budgets, 172 Burnout, 184–188 depersonalization, 185 diminished feelings of accomplishment, 185 emotional exhaustion, 185 C Campus, 59 Campus newsfeed, 167 Campus operations, 39 Candidate selection, 61–68 Capital plans, 165 Career Services, 142 career counselors, 86 Certifications, see Credentials Champions, 39, 80 Chancellor, 105 Chef, 172 Chemical use, 64 Choice architecture, 106 Choice fatigue, 190 Class projects, 169 Coaching, 188 Coalitions, 142 Codify, see Policy Cognitive dissonance, 17 Cognitive processing, 83 Cognitive psychology, 88 Cognitive resources, 90, 183, 186 conscious control, 107 deep processing, 89 deliberate choices, 103–104 deliberate thinking, 102 effortful processing, 89, 106 intentions, 41 long-term decision-making, 137 processing capacity, 107 thinking, 183 Cohesion, 170 Cohort models, 78 cohort, 79 Collaboration, 137 Collective action, 191 College-aged students, see Young adults Commitments, 90

Index Communication, 36 Communication specialist, 64 Communities of color, 183 Community engagement, 171 Competence, 150, 166, 189 Competitions, 171 Campus Race to Zero Waste, 171 EcoChallenge, 171 Compliance, 39, 106 Conservation, 41 Conservation biology, 40 Constraints, 37, 104 Control, 103, 104 Consultants, 55 Contingencies, 105–107, 109, 122 antecedents, 105 cues, 105 defaults, 105 information, 105 infrastructure, 105 modeling, 105, 137 prompts, 105, 106 consequences, 18, 86, 115 costs, 38 external rewards, 101 punishers, 105, 115 reinforcers, 36, 115 rewards, 105 Continuing education, 87 Coordinating bodies, 137 Coordinating personnel, 138 Coping mechanisms, 190 coping behaviors, 38 coping skills, 190 Core competencies, 41–44, 46, 48 sustainability competency, 35 Corporate social responsibility, 3 Counterproductive work behaviors, 65, 186 Course designations, 86 COVID-19 pandemic, 7 Creativity, 18, 79, 144, 190 See also Innovation Credentials, 62 Environmental, Social, and Governance certification, 62 GBCI WELL, 62 Inclusive Workplace Culture Specialty Credential, 62 Integrated Pest Management, 62 Life Cycle Assessment Certified Professional, 62 PassivHaus Institute Certification, 62 US Green Building Council LEED, 62 Critical thinking, 144

Index Cultural artifacts, 16, 20–21, 24 commitments, 24 traditions, 20 narratives, 20 Culturally relevant language, 142 Curriculum, 20, 85, 87, 139, 166, 172 course integration, 78 core curriculum requirements, 141 degree programs, 173 environmental justice across the curriculum, 78 first-year experiences, 141 general education requirements, 172 living-learning communities, 141 Cynicism, 143, 164 D Department chair, 79, 85 Demographic cliff, 7 Departments, 171 Desertification, 182 Development Center, 87 Development personnel, 39 Development plan, 85 Deviance, see Counterproductive work behaviors Difficulty, see Constraints Diffusion of innovation, 141, 164 diffusion of innovation theory, 169 early adopters, 19, 169 innovator, 168 late adopters, 172 mainstream, 170 opinion leaders, 169 Digital natives, 141 Dining halls, 120 Dining services, 47 Disasters, 181 drought, 182 flooding, 181 heatwaves, 181 storms, 181 wildfires, 181 Disciplinary silos, 137 Discovery, 101 Discrimination, 67 Disease, 181 Distress, 38 Diversity, equity, and inclusion diverse perspectives, 78, 147 diversity, 56

201 E Eco anxieties, 183, 190 climate anxiety, 183 ecological grief, 183 solastalgia, 183 Ecological leadership, 145, 147 adaptation, 147 ecological principles, 147 feedback, 147 interdependence, 147 social networks, 147 Ecological principles, 43, 44 circularity, 44 diversity supports resilience, 44 limits to regeneration, 43 system interdependence, 43 upstream vs. downstream solutions, 44 See also Sustainability literacy Ecology, 43 Efficacy, 85, 102, 185, 189 Elderly, 183 Emotions, 38, 89, 107, 136, 186 anger, 183 emotional labor, 65 fear, 183 grief, 183 guilt, 183 helplessness, 183 hope, 190 negative emotions, 182 positive emotions, 182 pride, 59 worry, 183 Empathy, 119, 146, 188 Employee attitudes, 23 attraction, 23 organizational attachment, 18 organizational commitment, 23 organizational identification, 23 Employment, 141 Empowerment, 80, 124, 125, 145 Encouragement, 145 Endowments, 86 Energy-saving, 61 Energy use, 85 Engineers, 39 Environmental, social, and governance (ESG), 3 EPIC-N, 171 Executive leaders, 63 Exhibits, 167 Experimentation, 37, 167

202 Expertise, 36, 79, 169 Expert power, 143 External locus of control, 87 Extracurricular activities, 141 Extra-role behaviors, 23, 36, 38–40, 145, 146, 186, 187 F Facility managers, 84 Faculty, 38 Fairness, see Justice Farmers, 182 Feedback, 47, 79, 88, 90, 106, 107, 115, 119–123, 125, 127, 128, 147, 150, 164, 166 boomerang effect, 122 comparative feedback, 122 competition, 122 gamification, 122 real-time feedback, 122 social approval, 122 social comparison, 122, 123 Feelings, 107 coercion, 107 concern, 183 inadequacy, 183 manipulation, 107 overwhelm, 190 trust, 116 uncertainty, 78, 185 vulnerability, 116 See also Emotions Financial affairs, 139 Financial opportunity, 142 Flying, 103 Food service, 77, 84, 164 Forestry, 40 Formal leaders, see Legitimate leaders Formal rules, 17–19 Fossil fuel divestment, 141 Framing, 89 Freedom, 187 Fulfilling work, see Meaningful work Fun, 89 Funding, 138 Fundraising, 164 Future time perspective (FTP), 61, 66 consideration of future consequences scale, 66 G Gap analysis, 162, 164 Generative leadership, 146 collaboration, 146

Index novel solutions, 146 wicked problems, 146 Goal commitment, 144 Goals, 90 Goal setting, 36, 46, 47, 89, 100, 108, 120, 128, 167 ambiguous, 128 attainable, 120 difficult, 128 goal setting theory, 120 measurable, 120 relevant, 120, 128 specific, 120 superordinate goal, 25 time-bound, 120, 128 Governance, 172 faculty governance, 161 shared governance, 173 Graduate programs, 61 Grants, 170 Grass roots, 139, 172 Gray water, 103 "Great resignation", 58 Green economy, 86 Greenhouse gas emissions, 64 Green-washing, 60 Grounds, 171 Groundskeeping, 40 Group cohesiveness, 100 H Habits, 90, 91, 107–109, 116, 169 automatic, 90 cognitive connection, 108 habit disruption, 108 discontinuities, 108 repeated association, 107 Heuristics, 44 Higher education institutions (HEIs), 1, 6–8, 15, 16, 18, 20–26, 35, 36, 38–41, 44–48, 55, 57–62, 77, 79, 80, 85–87, 89, 99–105, 108, 115–122, 124–127, 135–143, 146–150, 161–174, 184, 185, 188–191 High-impact behaviors, 47 Hiring, 39 See also Selection Human Resources Management (HRM), 8, 24, 26, 45–48, 55, 61, 62, 64, 68, 77, 79, 85, 164, 172, 173 HRM professionals, 85 Humor, 188

Index I Identity, 38, 78, 164, 166 Ideology, 187 Illness, 181 Imitation, 105 Incentives, 6, 17, 80, 87, 101, 105–107, 115–118, 128, 138, 165, 167, 173 awards, 107 bonuses, 107 financial, 115 gift certificates, 107 money, 107 paid time off, 107 pay, 107 plaques, 107 praise, 107 recognition, 107 reprimand, 116 rewards, 115 social recognition, 107 Inconvenience, see Constraints Indigenous peoples, 182 indigenous communities, 183 indigenous cultural practices, 183 indigenous practices, 83 Individual differences, 57, 61 Individual-oriented behavior, 40 private-sphere, 5 personal choices, 5 Industrial/organizational psychology, 5 Influence, 138, 164 Information, 37, 138 Infrastructure, 171 Ingredient sourcing, 86 Injury, 181 Innovation, 36, 78, 137, 144 See also Creativity In-role behaviors, 23, 39–41, 186, 187 Inspiration, 142 Institutional change, 141, 169 See also Organizational change Institutionalize, 79, 172–173 Integrated Pest Management, 68 Interdisciplinarity, 84, 137 Interests, 45, 68 Internal locus of control (ILOC), 61, 67 environmental, 67 International education, 47 Internships, 141 Investments, 40 investment personnel, 86 Invitations, 168 IT purchasing director, 61 IT specialists, 39

203 J Job ads, 61 Job analysis, see Work analysis Job Characteristics Model (JCM), 123, 124 autonomy, 123 feedback, 123, 124 job characteristics, 124 job enrichment, 123 significance, 190 skill variety, 123 task identity, 123, 128 task significance, 123, 128, 144 Job crafting, 7, 108, 125, 142, 146, 167, 170 Job descriptions, 39, 45, 165 Job design, see Job Characteristics Model (JCM) Job performance, 125 See also Work performance Job profile, 38 Job-relevant attributes, 61 Job responsibilities, 121 See also Job descriptions Jobs, 137 academic deans, 39 accountants, 39 administrative assistants, 39, 86, 142 admissions, 39 campus jobs, 169 career counselors, 86 chancellor, 105 chef, 172 communication specialists, 64 consultants, 55 coordinating personnel, 138 development personnel, 39 engineers, 39 facility managers, 84 faculty, 6, 7, 38, 40, 85, 124, 142, 187 financial affairs, 139 food service, 77, 88, 124, 164 formal leaders, 139, 140 groundskeeping, 40 investments/investment managers, 39 IT purchasing director, 61 IT specialists, 39 Lab managers, 63 landscape architects, 39 managers, 39, 86 marketing, 39 mechanics, 39 office administrator, 64 physical plant technicians, 39 professors, 38 program directors, 55, 142

204 Jobs (cont.) provost, 61, 139 purchasing, 40, 78, 86 resident hall assistant, 40, 48, 87 residence life director, 36, 41 shuttle drivers, 40 supervisors, 37, 38, 40, 79, 86 supply chain manager, 39 sustainability executives, 140 chief sustainability officer, 39 sustainability directors, 39 sustainability personnel, 173 training and development specialists, 39 trustees, 139, 173 undergraduate research program manager, 61 volunteer coordinators, 87 See also Positions Job satisfaction, 23, 79, 116, 125, 186, 187 Jobseekers, 187 Justice, 164, 187 distributive justice, 116, 128 environmental inequities, 3 environmental justice, 16, 87 fair treatment, 57 interactional justice, 116, 166 recognition, 119 respectful communication, 119 transparency, 119 procedural justice, 116 social injustices, 2 systemic injustices, 42 K Knowledge, 41, 88 declarative, 88 procedural, 88 Knowledge, skills, abilities, and other human qualities (KSAOs), 45, 55, 56, 61, 64, 77, 80, 84–86 L Lab managers, 63 Landscape architects, 39 Leadership, 6, 15, 24, 38, 55, 77, 125, 127, 135, 165, 184 bottom-up, 139 champions, 86, 87, 142 change agents, 19, 35 ambassador programs, 19 eco-reps, 19 coordination, 138

Index direction, 139 future-oriented leadership, 143 influence, 35, 36 leadership training, 78, 80, 85 middle-out, 139 motivating groups, 135 relationship building, 147 relationships, 135 social influence, 135 top-down, 139 Leadership development, 141 Learning, 7, 16, 37, 42, 68, 78, 83–90, 128, 147, 150, 163, 167, 171, 190, 191 Learning communities, 87 Learning outcomes, 172 Legitimacy, 165 Legitimate leaders, 139, 142 Life-cycle analysis, 86 Linear systems, 44 See also Take-make-waste systems Line worker, 86 Local governments, 171 Local impact, 142 Long-term outcomes, 66 Loyalty, see Organizational commitment M Managers, 39, 86 See also Supervisors Marketing, 39 Master plans, 165 Meaningful work, 59, 123, 125, 140, 146 Mechanics, 39 Memory, 90 encoding, 89 remembering, 90 reminders, 90 retention, 90 retrieval, 90 Mental disorders, 183 See also Mental health issues Mental health, 183 daily life functioning, 183 mental disorders, 183 mental health issues, 181, 186 mental health outcomes, 182 mental health services, 183 Mental health issues anxiety, 181 depression, 181 insomnia, 181 mood disorders, 182 substance abuse, 181

Index Mental models, 84, 89 analogies, 89 metaphors, 84, 89 Mentoring, 79 Merit pay, 47, 105 Metaphors, 142 Micromanaging, 128, 139 Migrant workers, 183 Mindfulness, 188, 189 Misalignment, 38 Mission statement, 25 Modeling, 91, 143, 146, 167, 169 Moral identity, 57 Motivation, 7, 25, 38, 68, 81, 82, 91, 99, 101, 102, 108, 109, 115–128, 137, 165–168, 187 motivational strategies, 115 N Nature connection, 188 Need fulfillment, 57 Needs, 99–102 autonomy, 99 competence, 99 relatedness, 99 Needs assessments, 80 Networks, 24, 36, 168 New employees, 78, 79 Non-traditional students, 185 O Office administrator, 64 Office supplies, 104 Onboarding, 21, 77–80, 85 Onboarding personnel, 79 Opt out, 106 Organizational behavior, 8 Organizational change, 8, 24, 61, 125, 126, 151, 161–174 advisory groups, 164 boards, 164 department committees, 164 diverse stakeholders, 164–165 enterprise-wide efforts, 164 organization-wide, 164 strategic planning committees, 164 sustainability councils, 164 top-down change, 164 Organizational citizenship behaviors, 36, 65 altruism, 36, 116 civic virtue, 36

205 conscientiousness, 36 courtesy, 36 environmental organizational citizenship behaviors, 36 initiative, 36 loyalty, 36 self-development, 36 sportsmanship, 36 Organizational commitment, 58, 116 Organizational culture, 15–27, 39, 41, 58, 78, 85, 87, 116, 125, 136, 145, 146, 165 organizational subcultures, 22 traditions, 86 Organizational support, 38, 77, 123, 136, 137, 142 Orientation, see Onboarding Other-orientation, 57 Overcoming challenges, 144 Ozone, 183 P Packaging, 86 Particulate matter, 183 Passion, 145 Pay, 187 Peer educators, 87 Perceived organizational support, 18 Performance goals, 165 Performance management systems, 47, 85 performance appraisals, 47 performance evaluations, 79, 85 Perks, 166 Persistence, 101 Personal cost, 37 Personal growth, 189 Personality, 45 Big 5 personality model, 65 agreeableness, 65 conscientiousness, 65 extraversion, 65 introversion, 65 IPIP, 66 NEO-PI-R, 66 neuroticism, 65 openness, 65 HEXACO model, 66 HEXACO-PI-R, 66 Honesty-humility, 66 Personal sustainability projects, 87 Personnel selection candidates, 64 job applications, 62

206 Personnel selection (cont.) job interviews, 62 behavior-based interview questions, 62 behaviorally anchored responses, 63 situational interview questions, 62 standardized job interview, 62 structured interview questions, 62 unstructured interviews, 67 situational judgment tests, 64 work samples, 64 job talks, 64 See also Candidate selection Person–organization fit, 57, 65, 67–68, 186–188 Persons with disabilities, 183 PhDs, 62 Physical illness, 181, 186 Physical plant technicians, 39 Pilot programs, 170 Pilot testing, 170 Planetary boundaries, 2 Pledges, 91 Pluralistic ignorance, 169 Policy, 18, 35, 171 sustainable purchasing, 78 Pollutants, 183 Positions, 39, 139 See also Jobs; Roles Positive work environment, 59 Post-graduate programs, 150 Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), 181, 182 Power, 164 Practice, 90 President, 135 President’s cabinet, 173 Presidents’ councils, 139 Procurement, 164 Productivity, 79 Professional development, 55, 80, 87, 100 Professors, see Faculty Program directors, 55, 142 See also Directors Promotion, 47, 118 Prompts, 90, 171 Provost, 61 Psychological health, see Well-being Psychological reactance, 187 Publicity, 142 Purchasing, 40, 86 purchasing guides, 87 Purpose, 189 See also Meaningful work

Index Q Quitting, 185, 187 climate quitting, 187 R Rational persuasion, see Influence Readiness, 163, see Stages of change Realistic job preview, 60 Recognition, 86 Recruitment, 45, 148 Reference groups, 105 Referent power, 143 Relevance, 79, 89 Remote work, 58, 78 Research, 40, 141 Resident hall assistant, 40, 48, 87 Residential Life director, 36 Resilience, 4, 44, 82, 125, 147, 148, 187–191 resilience training, 188 emotional regulation, 188 impulse control, 188 mental rehearsal, 188 positive self-talk, 188 relaxation, 188 Resistance, 137, 138, 164 See also Psychological reactance Resources, 137, 138 Responsibilities, 39 Retention, 47, 56, 78, 79 Role models, 67, 140 Roles, 35, 39, 41 See also Jobs S Salary, 118 Scaling up, 171 Selection, 45, 85, 148 Selection measures, 61 Selection process, see Personnel selection Self-concept, 81, 89 See also Identity Self-confidence, 141 Self-determination theory (SDT), 101, 109, 123 amotivation, 101 autonomy, 120, 186 behavioral control, 103 belonging, 78, 190 competence, 145, 190 extrinsic motivation, 101

Index intrinsic motivation, 101, 102, 115, 120, 125, 144 need fulfillment, 101 Self-efficacy, 57, 145 Self-esteem, 186, 190 Self-regulation, 66, 108, 122 Servant leadership, 146 ethical, 146 humility, 146 Service opportunities, 7 Shared leadership, 147 collaboration, 147 collegiality, 147 expertise, 147 Short-term outcomes, 66 Shuttle drivers, 40 Siloed departments, 165 Situational factors, 105–108, see Contingencies Situational judgment, 62 Skills, 41 Social connections, 36, 189 See also Networks Social desirability, 66 Social networks, 78, 79, 141, 142, 168 See also Social connections Social norms, 19–20, 23, 91, 102–104, 164, 174, 191 descriptive norms, 19 dynamic norms, 123 injunctive norms, 19 Social skills, 62 Social support, 39, 101, 167, 184, 186, 188 Special events, 167 Sphere of influence, 141 Stages of change, 126 action, 127 provide resources and helpers, 127 post-action, 127 celebrate, 127 pre-action, 127 communicate opportunities, 127 pre-contemplation, 127 raise awareness, 127 pre-decision, 127 build excitement, 127 stage-matched interventions, 126 Stakeholders, 40 “State of the Institution” addresses, 168 Status quo, 68 Strategic planning, 137 strategic plans, 165 Stress, 78, 184

207 Student government, 141 Students, 136 Subject matter experts, 39 Subordinates, 86 Supervisors, 37, 79, 86 Supply chain, 86 supply chain manager, 39 Sustainability, 1, 15, 35, 55, 77, 100, 117, 135, 162, 184 environmental degradation, 183 healthy society, 2 interdependence, 2 long-term decision-making, 16 Sustainability competency, 148 Sustainability executives, 140 chief sustainability officers, 39 sustainability directors, 39 Sustainability literacy, 80–85 sustainability literacy training, 80, 82 commons dilemma game, 84 ecosystem biodiversity vs. monocultures case, 84 parable of downstream, 84 systems game, 84 The natural step, 84 Sustainability office, 24, 173 sustainability personnel, 173 Sustainability plans, 165 Sustainable behavior, 1, 7, 18, 20, 23, 25, 35–37, 48, 55, 61, 65, 67, 77, 80, 82, 85, 86, 91, 101–108, 115, 123, 126–128, 136, 137, 140, 141, 143, 145 high-cost behaviors, 102, 103, 116 in-role behaviors, 145 low-cost behaviors, 102, 105, 170 Sustainable culture, 22–23 Sustainable development, 3, 4, 63 Sustainable jobs fair, 142 SWOT analysis, see Gap analysis Systemic solutions, 140 Systems-oriented behavior, 41 Systems-scale change, 5 system change, 19 Systems thinking, 137 See also Ecological principles T Take-make-waste systems, 44 Talent management, 85 Tasks, 45 See also Responsibilities

208 Teaching, 40 Teams, 103 Temperatures, 183 heat, 182 Tenure, 38, 118 Theory of planned behavior, 103, 109 attitudes, 103 behavioral control, 18, 103, 125 intentions, 23, 81, 90, 103, 108 subjective norms, 103 Thought leaders, 85 Threat, 116 Time, 138 Toxic leadership, 145, 147–148 high performance culture, 148 lack of concern, 147 self-interest, 147 Traditional ecological knowledge, 43 Training and development, 39, 46, 77, 150, 167 development, 47, 85 training, 24, 37, 39, 85 active learning, 90 background knowledge, 89 case studies, 84 conferences, 86 course integration support, 87 creating campus programs, 87 integration grants, 86 learning communities, 86 physical activities, 90 pretraining surveys, 88 psychological principles, 88–91 reading groups, 86 training needs, 80 training objectives, 80 workshops, 86 Transformational leadership, 7, 61, 67, 139, 142–145, 148, 149 environmentally-specific transformational leadership, 145, 148 idealized influence, 143 individualized consideration, 145 inspirational motivation, 144 intellectual stimulation, 144 Transportation, 40 Trauma, 181 Trust, 143, 164

Index Trustees, 139, 173 Turnover, 38 U Undergraduate research program manager, 61 Unintended consequences, 43, 84 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs), 3, 4, 63, 173 V Validity, 66 Value congruence, 186, 187 Values, 2, 15, 16, 41, 55, 77, 89, 101, 119, 137, 142, 166 altruistic values, 55 biospheric values, 23, 55 self-transcendent values, 55 Vegetarianism, 81 Videoconferencing, 103 Visibility, 170 Vision, 120, 136, 165, 190 Vision statements, 25 Voice, 166 Voluntary job behaviors, 36 See also Extra-role behaviors Volunteer coordinators, 87 Volunteering, 141 W Waste, 64, 85, 181 food waste, 86 zero-waste, 78 Website, 59 Well-being, 125, 146, 181, 186 Wicked problems, 6, 146, 163 super-wicked problems, 6 Woke-washing, 60 Word-of-mouth, 169 Work analysis, 45 Work descriptions, see Job descriptions Work design, see Job Characteristics Model (JCM) Work engagement, 79, 101, 106, 125, 145, 186–188

Index absorption, 186 dedication, 186 vigor, 186 Work-family conflict, 184 See also Work-family spillover Work-family spillover, 184 See also Work-family conflict Work-life balance, 58 Workload, 184 Work performance, 42, 116, 184 in-role performance, 65 Workplace design, 108

209 Workshops, 167 Worldviews, 42–44, 149, 188 ecological worldview, 44, 148 Western industrialized worldview, 187 See also Ecological principles Y Young adults, 183 See also Young people Young people, 187, 191 See also Young adults