Photo by Robert J. Pennington, courtesy RhizomeImages.com

Originally published in The Huffington Post, September 13, 2011

What if your thought leadership got you very little recognition today but contributed to an incredibly significant cultural shift that made a positive difference for generations to come? It is an interesting question at a time when business leadership should be poised to jumpstart the sustainability movement, but could a preference for “show” keep the desperately needed “shift” from happening?

A Businessrespect.net article about Upward Spiral, the Howard Schultz/Starbucks effort to stand against partisan divisions in Congress, explores this topic. The writer makes the point that the well-intentioned, Schultz-spearheaded campaign may be too quickly looking like a campaign for Schultz himself, and that could make the greater cause less successful.

To quote the article:

Entirely pragmatically — quiet influence is far more powerful. It means that once people have been influenced, ways can be found for them to rationalise the shift to their supporters by claiming authorship of their new position. It means that things can change, because the authors of change don’t feel they have to get the credit.

Therein lies the lesson: no matter how worthwhile the cause, businesses must be careful about the way the message is crafted and communicated, and be clear on whether their intention is a true perspective shift or a quick show in the public eye. Especially for the sustainable business evolution, the goal is for innovative thinking to be taken seriously and to inspire and empower others to continue working together for the change.

The legacy of Ray C. Anderson, founder of Interface Inc., presents a good example of the shift approach. Only recently passed away, this “radical industrialist” and sustainability pioneer first changed his own ways and then inspired other business leaders and large corporations to do the same. Though Anderson did get media recognition and gain a name for his crucial role in the business sustainability cause later in his own process, that attention was the result of the many steps he took and the steady influence he wielded all along the way.

What does this mean for sustainability thought leadership overall? Can slow, steady and relatively under-the-radar steps toward perspective shift win the race, or do we need Twitter-worthy cover stories and press conferences held by big-name business leaders to reach mass sustainability influence? At this moment in time, I believe we need to focus on the shift over the show.

Patagonia’s founder, Yvon Chouinard, is another example of someone who, like Anderson, has made a huge difference in the broader sustainable business shift. Though his name is very familiar within the climbing/outdoor industry and to those closely watching the development of the sustainable economy, Chouinard’s less recognized work in helping develop cooperative business exchanges will likely matter more in the long run. Take the Organic Exchange as one example. Now called the Textile Exchange, Patagonia and Chouinard helped found this group in 2001, and its membership today includes big-name brands and retailers, as well as supply chain companies, reflecting a quiet shift of the entire organic cotton industry toward more sustainable manufacturing processes.

Additionally, I’ve recently learned of some other exciting, industry-shifting work being done in a slow, steady and under-the-radar way. Consider either the Sustainable Endowment Institute or the Green Sports Alliance, and you will be amazed by the thought leadership and “greening” strides that have been made in just the past five years. In the case of these particular nonprofits, the participating individuals are not getting the glory of media coverage and fame, but they are instead collaborating and forming innovative partnerships for the longer-term goals of sustainability in their fields. With the help of organizations like these, college campuses and sports stadium operations are now focusing on more sustainably constructed buildings, more energy-efficient facilities and grander recycling goals. When one campus can claim a better Green Report Card grade, another steps up. When one baseball team cites 80-percent recycling rates in their MLB Green Track report , the competitive spirit drives other teams to follow.

Ray Anderson took the quiet “shift” approach to sustainable business change, and Yvon Chouinard and these two organizations are now doing the same. Their work has the potential to influence masses of people and make history, if not today’s news. So what if the individuals within any of these new, sustainability-focused collaborations don’t get the credit? The point is that their collective contributions will have an impact beyond what any 15 seconds of fame could ever offer.

What if a sustainability-minded person is in the in-group, and a less convinced citizen/consumer is in the out-group? (Think fanatic bike commuter versus long-time car commuter.) It can seem that ne’er the twain shall meet. What could they possibly have in common?

***

So begins my latest HuffingtonPost piece on what may seem a geeky/academic topic (“social categorization”), but could help us better communicate sustainability messages if we paid attention.

Each of us knows what it’s like to be in the “in-group” at times and in the “out-group” at others (think grade school dodge ball, for starters), and we know which feels better.  Making sustainability less polarizing and more unifying (even if we, as communications experts, have to hide the action’s or message’s connection with sustainability or “green-ness”) is the ultimate challenge.

I could go on and on.  But, for now, I’ll leave it in the words of my latest contribution to HuffingtonPost. It might get you thinking a bit.

Here’s an excerpt:

When we realize our cultural impulse is dead wrong, and that gender differences may in fact be more a matter of socialization, we win. According to Kimmel, “Biology provides the raw materials, whereas society and history provide the context, the instruction manual, that we follow to construct our identities.” With regard to sustainability, take note of that word “context.” It will be from an ability to see the text, or linear perspective, as well as the context, or more holistic view, that leaders as people and as organizations will advance and thrive.

***

2011 could be a VERY good year…

One thing that is pretty human, in fact, is the way people may be doing some fairly “green” things, but simply not have realized or called it that. For example, a lot of people learned bag or container re-using behavior NOT from twenty-first century green consumer trends, but from their frugal grandmothers. My question is: if people realize how what they are doing already actually fits a sustainability definition (no matter how small the step) could they then be inspired to increase their interest and engagement with sustainability overall? Would knowing there was a” green” fiber in their body help people want to use/grow it?

I wrote about this in my latest HuffingtonPost piece. Here’s an excerpt:

Eco-consciousness is rapidly becoming the new normal. It turns out that a lot of responsible parents and corporations are to some degree “doing” sustainability without realizing it. Smart thinking and responsible decision-making just happen to cast a warm green glow.

If you’ve seen this play out in your own life or in your company’s sustainability pursuits, I’d love to hear about it.

My latest HuffingtonPost piece reflects the coalescing of my consulting and master’s program work toward a new research focus.  How can we take what we know about how women think to both develop better sustainable organizations and to better serve consumers supporting those organizations?  As always, my intention is not to say that women are the greatest and the only gender to combine systems thinking with empathy.  Rather, the fact that women are good at a kind of thinking so important in sustainable business is a clue to the bigger picture.  If your organization is reviewing and developing its sustainability efforts, this clue should help you source those best suited for your team: systems thinkers that embrace and reflect an empathic perspective on life.

An excerpt from my piece:

Women have generations of practice using and developing their empathic skills. When you combine that with solid business smarts, you get a sustainability powerhouse. It’s probably safe to say that without empathy, no business leader — male or female — would come to believe in the “triple bottom line” or the “people, planet and profit” mission. It’s the empathy extra that brings people and planet anywhere near the profit.

For those of you working in or with already well-functioning sustainability efforts, let me know if the empathic systems thinker is well represented, and how/where you’ve put that sort of mind to work.

My latest HuffingtonPost piece considers extreme business culture pendulum swings and where things might soon settle – the sweet spot.  That’s where women and men, and traditional and sustainable businesses, get beyond extreme differences toward a more collaborative and productive place.

Here’s an excerpt:

Sustainability has a bad rap with some, for being overly emotional and other-focused. But instead, in a more sustainability-focused business, efficiency, quality and innovation are still “king.”  There’s just unimaginable added value to boot. In other words, sustainable business is not necessarily something new, it’s just the highest standard.

My recent experience at Sustainable Brands 2010 (SB2010) reflected the settling to center pendulum effect.  That event had the likes of Ford and Coca Cola sharing their sustainability-oriented developments.  Let’s remember that a few years ago that would have sounded like a dream.  To be clear, no one is saying that the big, traditional brands are fully into their likely very long sustainable journeys. However, these beginnings do reflect the pendulum heading toward center.  Alternatively, the many smaller, less “known” companies at SB2010, like H2O (boxed water) and Nature’s Path, are also doing amazing good by making sustainable steps more accessible to consumers. Such brands are by no means out in some sort of green la-la land (i.e. at an extreme pendulum swing).  Rather, they’ve figured out how to do business with the big boys, and are even teaching them a few things along the way.

Back to Rosin’s article, and one of her points: “A white-collar economy values raw intellectual horsepower, which men and women have in equal amounts. It also requires communication skills and social intelligence, areas in which women, according to many studies, have a slight edge.” Similarly, I’d argue that both conventional and sustainable businesses have the core business part down, but the sustainable enterprises likely have an edge in understanding, and serving, the social side.  That’s the “people and planet” part.

I shared my thoughts on President Obama’s comments first in a VPR commentary (you can read or listen), and then posted the text on HuffingtonPost.  Here’s a clip:

Whether we like to admit it or not, as the privileged citizens many of us are, we choose where we live and how our on- and off-line social communities are built.  It’s easy to think that racism, age-ism or sexism doesn’t have much to do with our own lives. But not engaging with the idea of the other can lead to long-term misunderstandings and crossed human connections.

Consider the systemic premise of sustainability.  All things are interconnected systems.  All decisions affect other decisions.  What you do today actually does affect the lives of people you will never know generations from now.  Oh, yeah…

Operating only in our small personal and business worlds hinders a truly holistic perspective and stunts our own growth as productive citizens.  My own professional challenge is a good example.  I study and interpret how consumers engage with sustainability.  What draws them in, how will they stay interested in sustainability?

***

You can’ t really begin to understand why people engage with sustainability unless you first understand where they are coming from – left or right, blue state or red, privileged or disadvantaged background, to name a few possibilities. This is certainly true of marketing, in general, but with sustainability the stakes are that much higher.  To get to a more holistically functioning world and economy, we’ve got to think and act more holistically ourselves. Seeing through a new lens can help.

A lot of people don’t relate to or put up with patriarchy in their daily lives.  Many consumers/citizens are also trying to live personal lives and work for companies that focus a bit more on sustainability.  So, what are brands doing about it?

My latest HuffingtonPost contribution compares the findings in a new Catalyst report on how to engage men with gender initiatives to what I see as a difficulty in engaging conventional business thinkers with sustainability.  In the piece, I cover a few of the points of myth/reality in both of those cases.

Here’s my conclusion:

The point is not to polarize the conventional and sustainable business mindsets away from one another. That gets us nowhere. Instead, the point is for all of today’s business thinkers to innovate as they always have, but to do so within exciting new parameters that serve planet, people and profits.

Just like the marketing to women advice I often give: shut up about it, but do it! If the term “sustainability” makes business decision-makers uncomfortable, don’t mention it. Just embrace the inevitable, commit to integrating sustainable development in to your business, and join today’s wise and innovative business pioneers.

Think of it as being akin to the great conversations that often come from the bigger fights in personal relationships.  There’s got to be a major blow-out between the two parties before they’ll admit an issue needs to be hashed out.  And, voila, the bubble bursts on false assumptions and it isn’t that hard to talk…

If it takes a fight to get men and women talking about the discomfort of gender issues – let’s go there (leaving it to “feminists” defeats the point). Imagine the consumer awareness and marketing insights that would bubble up based on such honesty? No brand would ever “get pink,” because women and men working together behind the scenes could call one another on their gender issues and work through to more effective, transparent marketing, for one.  I’ve got rose-colored glasses of hope for this idea.

Anyway -

My latest HuffingtonPost piece addresses this.  Here’s a quote:

…Men, indeed, have the potential of charisma, the potential to exude optimism, and the potential to be able to encourage others or be interested in mentorship programs. Our organizations and corporations may just need more gender nuance training.

But, whatever you do, don’t call such a training workshop: “Teaching men how to think like women.” Argh! Rather, skip the outrage-inducing language and tell it like it is. How about a title like: “Leveraging Your Right-Brain Leadership Skills “(as per Daniel Pink’s perspective in A Whole New Mind), for example? That’s a straightforward, non-confrontational way to categorize the types of skills today’s leaders really need — no gender (and thus, less outrage) about it.

The truth is that when we focus on the qualities or characteristics of good leaders or speakers, we will get men and women on the same page. Along the way, we will find a broader diversity in gender (and race, creed, religion, too) to share with and learn from.

That’s what my latest HuffingtonPost contribution is about.  Here’s a snippet:

Continuing to strive for a balance of men and women “at the table” or in each industry’s work force, seems like a pseudo pursuit. While achieving a 50/50 gender balance in organization or workforce situations is a worthy and seemingly straightforward goal, can we really force that issue? So far, trying to force it has not gotten us far enough, fast enough. Instead, take a closer look and you’ll see that gender disparity may well be the issue sounding the alarm, but effectively re-adjusting a workforce or organizational power balance will be more than a gender question.

Gender disparity may be what is sounding the alarm (and making us, wisely, look at these issues more closely), but we’ve got to go beyond gender to find the answers.