Sustainable Human Resource Management: Transforming Organizations, Societies and Environment [1st ed.] 9789811556555, 9789811556562

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xi
From Sustainability to Sustainable HRM—An Evolutionary Perspective (Sita Vanka, Swati Singh, Madasu Bhaskara Rao)....Pages 1-8
Characteristics of Sustainable HRM System and Practices for Implementing Corporate Sustainability (Sugumar Mariappanadar)....Pages 9-35
Sustainable Human Resource Management: Making Human Resources More Responsible (Ekta Sarma, Madasu Bhaskara Rao)....Pages 37-55
Incorporating Psychological Contract into the Sustainable HRM Model (Pattanee Susomrith)....Pages 57-69
A Grounded Research Approach to Sustainable Leadership Practices and Competencies (Agna Fernandez, Francis David Kullu, Ramesh Shankar)....Pages 71-86
Sustainable HRM for Sustainable Careers of Women Professionals (Swati Singh, Sita Vanka)....Pages 87-108
Organizational Culture Dimensions as Drivers of Employee Engagement for Business Sustainability: Towards a Conceptual Framework (Shefali Nandan, Jyoti)....Pages 109-132
Employer Branding and Employee-Emotional Bonding—The CSR Way to Sustainable HRM (Sunil Budhiraja, Satbir Yadav)....Pages 133-149
Impact of Sustainable Leadership on Organizational Transformation (Madhurima Basu, Kumkum Mukherjee)....Pages 151-167
Culture, Climate and Sustainability in Organizations (Vinitha Nair, Veena Vohra)....Pages 169-181
Sustainable HRM Practices - A Drive Towards Sustainability (The case of NLCIL) (R. K. Mishra, Shulagna Sarkar)....Pages 183-196
Effectiveness of an Emotional Intelligence Course in Enhancing and Sustaining the Emotional Competencies of MBA Students (R. Deepa, K. Arulrajan)....Pages 197-212
Perceived Sustainability of Seasonal Employees on Destination and Work—A Study in the Tourism Industry (Rhulia Nukhu, Sapna Singh)....Pages 213-225
Sustainable Human Resource Management in the Hospitality Industry: Evidence from Rajasthan (Shaheema Hameed, Girish Nair, Nidhi Choudhary)....Pages 227-245
Employee Engagement—A Driving Force for Sustaining Employees (B. Aiswarya, G. Ramasundaram)....Pages 247-257
Examining the Role of HR Practice and Employee Engagement on Employee’s Loyalty—The Sustainability Dimensions of Textile Industry in Bangladesh (Salahuddin Ahmed, Sapna Singh)....Pages 259-272
Emotional Intelligence and Its Importance in Sustainable Development of Human Resources: A Conceptual Model (Christabel Odame, Mrinalini Pandey, Pramod Pathak)....Pages 273-287
The Green Road to Environmental Performance: A Study of Private Banking Sector in Colombo District, Sri Lanka (P. N. Sandaruwan, U. K. Thalgaspitiya, W. N. Hettiarachchi)....Pages 289-305
Sustainability and Sustainable HRM—Some Aspects (Sita Vanka, Swati Singh, Madasu Bhaskara Rao)....Pages 307-313
Correction to: The Green Road to Environmental Performance: A Study of Private Banking Sector in Colombo District, Sri Lanka (P. N. Sandaruwan, U. K. Thalgaspitiya, W. N. Hettiarachchi)....Pages C1-C1

Citation preview

Sita Vanka Madasu Bhaskara Rao Swati Singh Mallika Rao Pulaparthi   Editors

Sustainable Human Resource Management Transforming Organizations, Societies and Environment

Sustainable Human Resource Management

Sita Vanka Madasu Bhaskara Rao Swati Singh Mallika Rao Pulaparthi •

•

•

Editors

Sustainable Human Resource Management Transforming Organizations, Societies and Environment

123

Editors Sita Vanka School of Management Studies University of Hyderabad Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Madasu Bhaskara Rao ICFAI Business School ICFAI Foundation for Higher Education Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Swati Singh School of Management Studies University of Hyderabad Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Mallika Rao Pulaparthi KL Business School Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India

ISBN 978-981-15-5655-5 ISBN 978-981-15-5656-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5656-2

(eBook)

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved 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 Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Preface

Traditional organizations were primarily driven by profit motive with the basic objective of wealth maximization. The economic expansion was often equated with the success of the organization. These organizations operated in the local/regional market with limited players. The last three decades have witnessed a paradigm shift in the way organizations conducted their operations. Many factors contributed to it, with Competition and performance culture among others, forcing organizations to look beyond the traditional way of conducting their operations to sustain themselves. Thus, sustainability was brought into the center-stage of organizational survival, renewal, growth and success. Worldwide policies and regulations, coupled with national priorities, brought about a shift in the organizational scenario and the way they operated across the globe, so much so that they revisited their existing strategies and attempted long term strategic planning to sustain their businesses. Sustainability as a concept was used predominantly in ecology meaning to endure. Applying the concept to business, it refers to sustainability in the endurance of processes and systems. As organizations progressed, they were convinced that profits alone would not sustain an organization and hence, the people and planet have been added to the profit criterion through the Triple Bottom Line approach. Contemporary organizations acknowledge that sustainable development encompasses the environment, economic and societal issues and this was adopted as the primary goal of every organization across the globe. The social dimension in TBL approach received a further impetus with the mandated corporate social responsibility of organizations in 2001. Organizations were forced to not only work to impact the society through fair trade practices, labor practices, human rights, employee safety and other social issues which impacted the stakeholders, but also required to report through the sustainability reporting initiatives. Thus, sustainability reporting, although voluntary in many countries, was adopted for the many advantages perceived by organizations in terms of brand image, stakeholder engagement, shareholder satisfaction etc. Thus, people dimension was dominated by CSR and society activities like greening. Studies on CSR revealed that organizations focused more on ecological and societal dimensions, sidelining human sustainability, thus, requiring scholars and practitioners alike to focus on the HR v

vi

Preface

front. Termed as Sustainable HRM, this approach is still evolving with its dilemmas, dualities and paradoxes, which, according to Ehnert, still exist in the theory and practice of sustainable HRM. Sustainable HRM is based the premise that human beings are ‘consumed’ and not ‘reproduced’. This is all the more critical for organizations in the contemporary era where competent and skilled resources are scarce and there are consequent implications on health due to work, when there is long term exploitations of resources involved. Increased competition and performance culture are forcing organizations to provide a good work-life for the employees while sustaining their businesses, with the result that scholars and practitioners are now seeking possible solutions to the problem. Against this background, this book primarily aims at a compendium of scholarly articles and literature for professionals, scholars and researchers on issues relating to sustainable HRM. More specifically, it includes the views of the experts from a multi-stakeholder perspective viz., policymakers, managers and academics on sustainable HRM, showcasing the research output in terms of models, perspectives and frameworks, along with organizational initiatives and experiments conducted by managers in the field. The theme is contemporary and includes issues, perspectives, approaches, research studies/frameworks and emerging patterns relating to sustainable HRM in a lucid way. The book provides an excellent opportunity for all those interested in updating their knowledge on the concept, processes, issues, and emerging paradigms on the theme from a multidimensional and cross-country perspective. We place on record a deep sense of gratitude to a number of people, who have directly or indirectly helped in the completion of this volume. We acknowledge the contribution of scores of people in our respective institutions—University of Hyderabad, India and IBS-Hyderabad, India, along with the authors of the scholarly papers who have contributed their research/perspectives on the subject. More particularly the help, effort, time and assistance of our research group, with specific mention of Rajendra Mahanandia, for their support is wholeheartedly acknowledged. The enduring support of our families has always enthused us to turn our dreams into reality. We will be failing in our duty if we do not acknowledge the support of Ms. Nupoor Singh and her team of professional editors for their cooperation and excellent editing in the completion of this volume. Hyderabad, India Hyderabad, India Hyderabad, India Guntur, India

Dr. Sita Vanka Dr. Madasu Bhaskara Rao Ms. Swati Singh Ms. Mallika Rao Pulaparthi

Contents

1

2

3

4

5

6

From Sustainability to Sustainable HRM—An Evolutionary Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sita Vanka, Swati Singh, and Madasu Bhaskara Rao

1

Characteristics of Sustainable HRM System and Practices for Implementing Corporate Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sugumar Mariappanadar

9

Sustainable Human Resource Management: Making Human Resources More Responsible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ekta Sarma and Madasu Bhaskara Rao

37

Incorporating Psychological Contract into the Sustainable HRM Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pattanee Susomrith

57

A Grounded Research Approach to Sustainable Leadership Practices and Competencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agna Fernandez, Francis David Kullu, and Ramesh Shankar

71

Sustainable HRM for Sustainable Careers of Women Professionals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Swati Singh and Sita Vanka

87

7

Organizational Culture Dimensions as Drivers of Employee Engagement for Business Sustainability: Towards a Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Shefali Nandan and Jyoti

8

Employer Branding and Employee-Emotional Bonding—The CSR Way to Sustainable HRM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Sunil Budhiraja and Satbir Yadav

vii

viii

9

Contents

Impact of Sustainable Leadership on Organizational Transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Madhurima Basu and Kumkum Mukherjee

10 Culture, Climate and Sustainability in Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Vinitha Nair and Veena Vohra 11 Sustainable HRM Practices - A Drive Towards Sustainability (The case of NLCIL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 R. K. Mishra and Shulagna Sarkar 12 Effectiveness of an Emotional Intelligence Course in Enhancing and Sustaining the Emotional Competencies of MBA Students . . . . 197 R. Deepa and K. Arulrajan 13 Perceived Sustainability of Seasonal Employees on Destination and Work—A Study in the Tourism Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 Rhulia Nukhu and Sapna Singh 14 Sustainable Human Resource Management in the Hospitality Industry: Evidence from Rajasthan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 Shaheema Hameed, Girish Nair, and Nidhi Choudhary 15 Employee Engagement—A Driving Force for Sustaining Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 B. Aiswarya and G. Ramasundaram 16 Examining the Role of HR Practice and Employee Engagement on Employee’s Loyalty—The Sustainability Dimensions of Textile Industry in Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 Salahuddin Ahmed and Sapna Singh 17 Emotional Intelligence and Its Importance in Sustainable Development of Human Resources: A Conceptual Model . . . . . . . . 273 Christabel Odame, Mrinalini Pandey, and Pramod Pathak 18 The Green Road to Environmental Performance: A Study of Private Banking Sector in Colombo District, Sri Lanka . . . . . . . 289 P. N. Sandaruwan, U. K. Thalgaspitiya, and W. N. Hettiarachchi 19 Sustainability and Sustainable HRM—Some Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . 307 Sita Vanka, Swati Singh, and Madasu Bhaskara Rao

Editors and Contributors

About the Editors Dr. Sita Vanka is Professor and former Dean of the School of Management Studies, University of Hyderabad, India. She is a teacher, trainer, researcher and consultant in the area of HRM, women’s studies and entrepreneurship. She serves on the board of two listed companies in Hyderabad. She has guided doctoral research, organized various workshops/conferences and published books/papers in HRM and sustainable HRM. She has received several awards for her research work. Further, she is a reviewer and has co-edited a special issue of Human Resource Management Review on sustainable HRM (Vol. 30(3), September 2020) and a special issue of Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. Dr. Madasu Bhaskara Rao is Associate Professor at the Department of HRM & OB at ICFAI Business School, part of the ICFAI Foundation for Higher Education, Hyderabad, India. He is the Coordinator of the ICFAI Staff College and SWAYAM Program at the University. Prior to this, he held leadership positions at K.L. University, the ICFAI National College and the corporate world He has authored books and has published in national/ international journals. He has organized several MDPs for Senior executives. Further, he is a Senior Editor of the Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, and has co-edited special issue of Human Resource Management Review on sustainable HRM (Vol. 30(3), September 2020) and a special issue of Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. Swati Singh is Senior Research Fellow at the School of Management Studies, University of Hyderabad, India, and is pursuing her PhD on Sustainable Careers for Women Professionals in the IT Sector. She is a recipient of a Junior Research Fellowship from the University Grants Commission, India. She has reviewed and published papers in reputed journals and won 2 best paper awards in conferences.

ix

x

Editors and Contributors

She is actively engaged in sustainability and sustainable development issues as a partner and volunteer in the Beyond Organic program by Deccan Development Society, Hyderabad. Mallika Rao Pulaparthi is currently pursuing her PhD in HRM from the K.L. University, Vijayawada. She has published papers in reputed journals, has authored books and is co-editing a special issue for both Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education and Employee Relations. Her research focuses on human resource management and healthcare management.

Contributors Salahuddin Ahmed School of Management Studies, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India B. Aiswarya Loyola Institute of Business Administration, Chennai, India K. Arulrajan PSG Institute of Management, Coimbatore, India Madhurima Basu Indian Institute of Social Welfare & Business Management (Affiliated to the University of Calcutta), Kolkata, West Bengal, India Sunil Budhiraja SCMS, Nagpur, Symbiosis International (Deemed) University, Pune, Maharashtra, India Nidhi Choudhary Researcher, Faculty of Management Studies, Department of Commerce and Management, Banasthali Vidyapith, Vanasthali, Rajasthan, India R. Deepa PSG Institute of Management, Coimbatore, India Agna Fernandez Loyola Institute of Business Administration, Chennai, India Shaheema Hameed Faculty of Management Studies, Department of Commerce and Management, Banasthali Vidyapith, Vanasthali, Rajasthan, India W. N. Hettiarachchi Faculty, Department of HRM, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka Jyoti University of Allahabad, Prayagraj, India Francis David Kullu Loyola Institute of Business Administration, Chennai, India Sugumar Mariappanadar Peter Faber Business School, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia R. K. Mishra Institute of Public Enterprise, Hyderabad, India Kumkum Mukherjee Indian Institute of Social Welfare & Business Management (Affiliated to the University of Calcutta), Kolkata, West Bengal, India

Editors and Contributors

xi

Girish Nair Stenden University of Applied Sciences, Doha, Qatar Vinitha Nair School of Business Management, NMIMS, Mumbai, India Shefali Nandan University of Allahabad, Prayagraj, India Rhulia Nukhu School of Management Studies, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India Christabel Odame School of Management Studies, IIT-ISM, Dhanbad, India Mrinalini Pandey School of Management Studies, IIT-ISM, Dhanbad, India Pramod Pathak School of Management Studies, IIT-ISM, Dhanbad, India G. Ramasundaram PSG Institute of Management Studies, Coimbatore, India Madasu Bhaskara Rao ICFAI Business School, IFHE, ICFAI Foundation for Higher Education, Hyderabad, Telangana, India P. N. Sandaruwan Faculty, Department Jayewardenepura, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka

of

HRM,

University

of

Sri

Shulagna Sarkar Institute of Public Enterprise, Hyderabad, India Ekta Sarma Ahmedabad University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India Ramesh Shankar Former CHRO Siemens & Chief Joy Officer, Hrishti, Mumbai, India Sapna Singh School of Management Studies, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India Swati Singh School of Management Studies, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India Pattanee Susomrith School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia U. K. Thalgaspitiya Faculty, Department of HRM, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka Sita Vanka School of Management Studies, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India Veena Vohra School of Business Management, NMIMS, Mumbai, India Satbir Yadav Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab, India

Chapter 1

From Sustainability to Sustainable HRM—An Evolutionary Perspective Sita Vanka, Swati Singh, and Madasu Bhaskara Rao

Abstract Profound changes in climate on account of the destruction of nature along with its consequences on the health/well-being/unemployment leading to social and economic problems across the globe posed a serious challenge to both the organizations at the microlevel and the nations at the macrolevel. Effective management of people by motivating them inculcates the performance culture which brought in a renewed role for HRM for business sustainability and success. One of the responses was seen in sustainable HRM making the human element at the centre stage of HRM activity. Linking sustainability to HRM also provided information on the related issues of the Green HRM, socially responsible HRM, ethical HRM, etc., thus categorizing the different strands of research into the first wave, second wave and third wave. This paper attempts to trace sustainable HRM from an evolutionary perspective, by analysing the literature and presenting it in a descriptive format. Keywords Sustainability · Sustainable HRM · Evolution · Approaches

Introduction For long, humans have been consumers of various resources without replenishing them. The continuance and the availability of resources, both natural and human, for sustainable living were not given due importance until recently. Only when serious threats were experienced due to unsustainable practices, the policymakers, scholars and practitioners have started focusing on sustainable practices. Sustainability is considered an emerging discipline providing graduates insights into most aspects of the human world from business to technology to environment and the social sciences. Sustainability is a broad and a multi-disciplinary domain. The employability for students/graduates requires core skills that would help them S. Vanka (B) · S. Singh School of Management Studies, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India e-mail: [email protected] M. B. Rao ICFAI Business School, IFHE, Hyderabad, Telangana, India © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. Vanka et al. (eds.), Sustainable Human Resource Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5656-2_1

1

2

S. Vanka et al.

to work in a modern complex setting, which presupposes skills to drastically reduce emissions/discover/develop the technologies of the future for effective management. Sustainability draws heavily from social sciences and hard sciences as well. Sustainability skills and environmental awareness are a priority in many corporate jobs/startups complying with legislation globally. It is here that studies and practices assume significance for skill building and conceptualization on the subject. The definition of “sustainability” as the study of how natural systems function, remain diverse and produces everything it needs for the ecology to remain in balance is acknowledged. It also acknowledges that human civilization uses resources to sustain the modern way of life. There are countless examples throughout human history where a civilization has damaged its own environment and seriously affected its own survival chances. According to Jared Diamond, an American geographer, historian and anthropologist, who argued that some countries developed more rapidly than others and were able to expand because of their geography. The essence of his theory focused on the area of environmental history and the insights than can be gained from large scale, long-term comparisons of how human societies around the globe affect and are affected by their environments. He identified factors like climate change, hostile neighbours, collapse of trading partners and environmental problems as contributing to the collapse of societies. In summary, he attributed the collapse of societies to their response to these four factors. Thus, environmental sustainability was long before discussed by scholars (Diamond 2005). Sustainability also takes into account how we might live in harmony with the natural world around us, protecting it from damage and destruction. In 2005, the World Summit on Social Development identified three core areas that contributed to the philosophy and social science of sustainable development. These “pillars” in many national standards and certification schemes form the backbone of tackling the issues/core areas that the world now faces. The Brundtland Commission (1987) described it as a “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. The three pillars are economic development, social development and environmental protection. The economic development is a critical issue, with a high degree of disagreement because of the political ideology on economic growth. It has implication for businesses, jobs and employability. It also includes giving the people what they want without compromising their quality of life, all the same reducing the financial burden for the government. Social development, on the other hand, refers to the many facets—access to education, health, nutrition, safety for the future of humanity in the context of technological development. Environmental protection refers to protecting the environment at home/business to protect from potential damage that technology brings in the path of development. Profound changes in the climate and destruction of nature, income inequality, discrimination, poverty, corruption, low levels of education, health/well-being and unemployment, etc., pose a serious challenge to the society and economies across the world. Global policy focused on the environmental hazards and its consequences on the planet and restricting the discourse on the sustainability to the label planet although Elkington proposed the ‘triple bottom line’—the planet, people and profits—as the three elements of sustainability, long back in 1994.

1 From Sustainability to Sustainable HRM—An Evolutionary …

3

Businesses drive the economy and significantly contribute to sustainability through interaction among organizations, individuals, communities and governments. Business sustainability is the capability of a corporation to last in time in terms of financial performance while efficiently managing environmental and social assets. Businesses have to fulfil their responsibility to the society by willingly using their resources for broad social needs and not simply for private interests of persons and firms. Business sustainability demands that earth’s capacity to produce vital renewable resources is maintained, restored and improved. Social good is a deliberate and purposeful action intended to benefit society. Businesses have to commit to social good by contributing to sustainable development working with society at large, to improve the quality of life.

Triple Bottom Line Competition and performance culture forced even traditional organizations to recognize that profits alone cannot make them sustainable, rather focus on the ecological and social spheres of the organization along with the economic concerns, need attention. Thus, organizations started to emphasize people, planet and profits. People refer to the practices and policies relating to the employees like working environment, safety and security of employees, etc., in the organizations. Planet refers to the environmental practices creating little or no harm to the environment, while profit relates to the economic value and wealth creation of the organization. Organizations have recognized the importance of these three factors for sustainable development. Elkington (1994) refers this approach of balancing the three as Triple bottom line (TBL), often referred to as synonymous with sustainability. Organizations recognized the need to sustain their businesses in the long term and were forced to focus on people and planet. This being the challenge, measures to account for these two have become the focal point of organizational attention. While profits can be measured in terms of the growth in profits, calculating the environmental and societal performance of the organization became a daunting task (Slaper and Hall 2010). Organizations would be willing to invest time and money provided they are assured of commensurate return. Contemporary organizations have no choice other than to report and respond to the mandatory environmental and social impact in the changed environment. The significance of appropriate measures in all the three spheres thus becomes important (Savitz and Weber 2006). TBL is an accounting framework to measure sustainability. It is considered revolutionary as it extended beyond profits to include environmental and societal performance. This framework is index-based, where each of the dimensions denoted by the variables gets determined by the stakeholders. The flexibility with which the organizational needs are met forms the important feature of this framework. Many of the MNCs have implemented the TBL for measuring the sustainability in their respective organizations (Dyllick and Hockerts 2002; Slaper and Hall 2010). According to the KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2017,

4

S. Vanka et al.

Fig. 1.1 Triple bottom line. Source Elkington (1994)

93% of the world’s largest 250 companies embraced reporting on TBL representing a significant increase of 35% in 1999 when KPMG first measured this metric (Retrieved from https://www.assets.kpmg.com/content//dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2017/10/ kpmg/-survey-of). Each of the dimension is decisive, and this has been the defining feature of this framework (Fig. 1.1).

Global Sustainability Reporting Initiatives The increasing customer awareness demands organizations to report its sustainable activities. Governments, stock exchanges, markets, stakeholders, investors, shareholders and society have forced organizations to be more accountable and transparent (GRI 2014). On the other hand, organizations have shown willingness to voluntarily disclose the economic, ecological and social performance (Wagner 2010). Such transparency in reporting the sustainability information helps the organization to build their brand image and accountability to the general public (KPMG 2013). Although reporting is a channel to engage the stakeholders, there is no single measure that quantifies sustainability. The MNCs have accepted the TBL framework, but an authoritative and a comprehensive approach to measurement assumes significance. The Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI) was introduced by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in the year 1997, to develop reporting guidelines for the TBL which included social, economic and environmental performance, so as to establish sustainability reporting on par with financial reporting. The GRI guidelines are the

1 From Sustainability to Sustainable HRM—An Evolutionary …

5

most popular worldwide. According to the KPMG Report (2015), 74% of the world’s 250 companies by revenue used the GRI guidelines. The DJSI is another framework which some companies use to report their information on sustainability. There are country-specific measures. The Business Responsibility Reporting (BRR) in India is one such example which provides nine principles on which the companies disclose their information on sustainability (SEBI 2012).

Sustainable HRM Research on HRM has developed in the last three decades, the key drivers being performance culture and the renewed role of HRM (Guest 2011). Empirical research has provided enough evidence on the role of HRM positively influencing performance (Huselid 1995), which later on was linked to the strategy and business success (Boxall 1996). However, organizations have been facing challenges of a different order relating to employee motivation, stress and the consequent health issues, worklife balance, etc. The response of HRM to such challenges was seen more in the nature of a renewed role in the organizations (Ulrich 1999). One of the responses was seen in strategic HRM, the inadequacy of which leads to the linking of sustainability to HRM. Sustainable HRM, as it is termed, made the human element as the corner stone of the HRM activity (Ehnert 2009). Linking sustainability to HRM provides information on related issues like green HRM (Muller-Carmem et al. 2010), socially responsible HRM (Shen and Jiuhua Zhu 2011; Diaz-Carrion et al. 2019) and also ethical HRM (Greenwood 2013) delineating the characteristics of sustainable HRM (Stankeviˇci¯ut˙e and Savaneviˇcien˙e 2018) depending on the focus of the study (Stankeviciute and Savaneviciene 2013). Although the field of sustainable HRM is at a nascent stage, different strands of research have emerged and were categorized into first, second and third waves of research by Kramar (2014). A more systematic conceptualization of sustainable HRM could be cited in recent work (Ehnert 2009; Ehnert et al. 2016; Mariappanadar 2003, 2005, 2012, 2014; Kramar 2014; De Prins et al. 2015; Guerci et al. 2013). Extending the work of Wright and McMahan (1992) on strategic HRM framework, it was Ehnert (2009) who provided the initial understanding of the concept. It was argued that the implication of sustainability in HRM practices raises certain dilemmas and tensions, in view of the organizational demands of making the employees available 24*7, thus affecting the work-life balance. It all the more gets complicated with the interrelationships between HRM systems and business environment, thus effecting the human resources in the long term. Sustainable HRM helps organizations to develop and regenerate its human resources with the same speed with which they are consumed. The relevance of HRM impact in terms of externalities for different stakeholders within and outside the organization is thus well-established. Ehnert (2009) contributed critical inputs to apply the paradox theory as an approach to sustainable HRM. Ehnert (2014) identified three paradoxes of sustainable HRM which organizations face. They are the tensions which emerge through the use of human resources efficiently and maintaining their capabilities, the paradox that arises

6

S. Vanka et al.

between economic rationality and relational rationality and the problems the organizations face because of the long-term and short-term effects. Taking this further, Mariappanadar’s work focused on negative externality and stakeholder harm theory. According to this theory, organizations harm the employees by extracting maximum skills, abilities and motivation and in the process preventing them from achieving positive work related to the well-being outcome (Mariappanadar 2014). He went a step further by arguing that not only the employees but their families and the larger society as a whole are put to risk. Thus, sustainable HRM is a solution suggested to reduce the harm through a synthesis effect of the organizations focusing on profit and suggest remedial solutions to reduce the health harm of work.

Approaches The prime motive of organizations is profit maximization, and this forms the basis for the shareholder approach. Organizations that do not make profits would end up in survival problems and may also lose their existence, the long-term survival and growth, thus is determined by profits (Friedman 2007). Human resources are employed to grow the business and consequently the profits. Since the shareholders invest money and effort to grow the business, it becomes the responsibility of the employees to safeguard the interests of the shareholders. The shareholder approach does not believe in serving the society other than making profits. In a way, this approach of organizations might harm the society in view of the sheer self-interest of the shareholders or even the ethical conduct that they may follow for profit maximization, which can be substantiated with examples from Enron, Satyam Computer Services, etc. The stakeholder approach, on the contrary, argues for organizational responsibilities towards its stakeholders—employees, customers, suppliers, trade partners, the community at large (Freeman 1999). Used mostly in the corporate social responsibility literature, this approach highlights that organizations can sustain in the long run only if the organization maintains a relationship with its stakeholders. Guerci et al. (2013) supplemented these efforts and argued for the organization’s duty to take care of its stakeholders. The challenge of resource crunch (including the people) and rationality force organizations to prioritize them, thus resulting in certain indices and metrics. Whatever may be the priority for other factors for organizational’s success, employees have always been the key stakeholder right from the beginning, yet the potential of the HR department in integrating all the stakeholders is not fully recognized (Ulrich 1998). It is only of late that Kramar (2014) took it forward to highlight the significant role of a manager to go beyond Strategic Human Resource Management and ensure sustainable work systems. Thus, all these perspectives confirmed the fact that sustainable HRM has evolved as an approach extending the strategic HRM perspective (Kramar 2014), thus enlarging the scope, role and activities of HRM and its outcomes. In conclusion, sustainability was viewed as an environmental issue until the twentieth century. The millennium summit of the United Nations in the year 2000 provided a paradigm shift through the announcement of the millennium development goals,

1 From Sustainability to Sustainable HRM—An Evolutionary …

7

which later on were converted to sustainable development goals (SDGs). These goals provided an impetus not only for international cooperation but also provided a direction for the nations to achieve sustainable growth. These developments witnessed a growth in the concept of sustainability and sustainable development goals across the world, including businesses. One of the mandates of sustainability was to move beyond profit maximization and environmental concerns to ensure sustainability in the business operations. The sustainable development goals were framed for the welfare of the human beings (people), both in the short term and the long term. Similarly, it is the people who must ensure a balance between consumption and production and in the achievement of these goals for their acceptance and application in the business context. The triple bottom line approach was thus introduced with a balanced focus on the triple bottom line—people, planet and profits. As businesses continued to grow, practices in the management of people also underwent profound changes till it came to a situation where businesses experienced negative outcomes of HRM in terms of increasing stress levels and motivation challenges resulting in health harm of work. Studies focusing on the people aspect of business sustainability argued for a sustainable HRM approach. Thus, sustainability linked to the HRM function through the sustainable HRM approach is evolving both at the conceptual and its application in business.

References Agarwal, N. (2018). Measuring business responsibility disclosures of Indian companies: A datadriven approach to influence action. Business and Human Rights Journal, 3(1), 123–129. Boxall, P. (1996). The strategic HRM debate and the resource-based view of the firm. Human Resource Management Journal, 6(3), 59–75. Brundtland, G. (Ed.). (1987). Report of the world commission on environment and development: Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. De Prins, P., De Vos, A., Van Beirendonck, L., & Segers, J. (2015). Sustainable HRM for sustainable careers: Introducing the ‘Respect Openness Continuity (ROC)’ model. In Handbook of research on sustainable careers. Edward Elgar Publishing. Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse: How societies choose to fail or survive. London: Penguin Books. Diaz-Carrion, R., López-Fernández, M., & Romero-Fernandez, P. M. (2019). Evidence of different models of socially responsible HRM in Europe. Business Ethics: A European Review, 28(1), 1–18. Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus Strategy Environ, 11(2), 130–141. Ehnert, I. (2009). Sustainable human resource management: A conceptual and exploratory analysis from a paradox perspective. Heidelberg: Physica-verlag. Ehnert, I. (2014). Paradox as a lens for theorizing sustainable HRM. In Sustainability and human resource management (pp. 247–271). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Ehnert, I., Parsa, S., Roper, I., Wagner, M., & Muller-Camen, M. (2016). Reporting on sustainability and HRM: A comparative study of sustainability reporting practices by the world’s largest companies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(1), 88–108. Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90–100.

8

S. Vanka et al.

Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environmental Quality Management, 8(1), 37–51. Freeman, R. E. (1999). Divergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 233–236. Friedman, M. (2007). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. In Corporate ethics and corporate governance (pp. 173–178). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Greenwood, M. (2013). Ethical analyses of HRM: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(2), 355–366. GRI. (2014). About GRI. Retrieved from https://www.globalreporting.org/information/about-gri/ Pages/default.aspx. Guerci, M., Shani, A. B., & Solari, L. (2013). A stakeholder perspective for sustainable HRM. Sustainability and Human Resource Management: Developing Sustainable Business Organizations, 205. Guest, D. E. (2011). Human resource management and performance: Still searching for some answers. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2010.00164.x. Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635–672. KPMG. (2013). The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2013. Amsterdam: KPMG International Cooperatives. KPMG. KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2015. KPMG International. Kramar, R. (2014). Beyond strategic human resource management: Is sustainable human resource management the next approach? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(8), 1069–1089. Mariappanadar, S. (2003). Sustainable human resource management: The sustainable and unsustainable dilemmas of downsizing. International Journal of Social Economics, 30(8), 906–923. Mariappanadar, S. (2005). An emic approach to understand culturally indigenous and alien human resource management practices in global companies. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 13(2), 31–48. Mariappanadar, S. (2012). The harm indicators of negative externality of efficiency focused organisational practices. International Journal of Social Economics, 39, 209–220. Mariappanadar, S. (2014). Stakeholder harm index: A framework to review work intensification from the critical HRM perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 24(4), 313–329. Muller-Carmem, M., Jackson, S., Jabbour, C. J., & Renwick, D. (2010). Green human resource management. Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, 24(1), 95–96. Savitz, A., & Weber, W. (2006). The triple bottom line: How today’s best-run companies are achieving economic, social and environmental success. USA: Jossey-Bass. SEBI. (2012). (Alternative Investment funds) Regulations, 2012. New Delhi. Shen, J., & Jiuhua Zhu, C. (2011). Effects of socially responsible human resource management on employee organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(15), 3020–3035. Slaper, T., & Hall, T. (2010). The triple bottom line: What is it and how does work? Indiana Business Research Center, Indiana University Kelley School of Business. Stankeviciute, Z., & Savaneviciene, A. (2013). Sustainability as a concept for human resource management. Economics and Management, 18(4), 837–846. Stankeviˇci¯ut˙e, Ž., & Savaneviˇcien˙e, A. (2018). Designing sustainable HRM: The core characteristics of emerging field. Sustainability, 10(12), 4798. Ulrich, D. (1998). A new mandate for human resources. Harvard Business Review, 76, 124–135. Ulrich, D. (Ed.). (1999). Strategisches human resource management. Hanser. Wagner, M. (2010). Corporate social performance and innovation with high social benefits: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(4), 581–594. Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management. Journal of Management, 18(2), 295–320.

Chapter 2

Characteristics of Sustainable HRM System and Practices for Implementing Corporate Sustainability Sugumar Mariappanadar

Abstract The current mutual benefit-focused HRM practices have a limited role in enhancing organization–stakeholder relationships to achieve organizational financial performance and human/social and environmental outcomes of corporate sustainability business strategy. Hence, sustainable HRM evolved as a discipline to facilitate a new understanding of organization–stakeholder relationships. Although there are many definitions available in the sustainable HRM literature, currently there is no established set of characteristics for sustainable HRM practices. The characteristics of sustainable HRM practices are important to operationalize an organization’s corporate sustainability business strategy using HR as a core business competency. In this article, distinct pro-financial, social/human and ecocentric characteristics are proposed for each of the identified HRM practices for sustainable HRM system to facilitate employee behaviours to achieve corporate sustainability outcomes. Furthermore, the synthesis effects of bundles of HRM practices in the sustainable HRM system to enhance integrated outcomes of corporate sustainability are explored. An attempt was also made to theoretically explain the difference in characteristics of HRM practices between the control, commitment (strategic) and sustainable HRM systems to feature the distinct characteristics of sustainable HRM practices. Finally, practical and empirical implications are provided. Keywords Sustainable HRM · Sustainable HRM effectiveness · Corporate sustainability · Prosocial HRM · Ecocentric HR

Introduction Today, stakeholders’ expectations of prosocial and pro-environmental organizational behaviour have become an important disruption to the dominant strategic HRM practices to improve profitability. Prosocial organizational behaviour refers to the positive social acts implemented by organizations in their business activities S. Mariappanadar (B) Peter Faber Business School, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. Vanka et al. (eds.), Sustainable Human Resource Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5656-2_2

9

10

S. Mariappanadar

to produce and maintain the well-being and integrity of key internal stakeholders such as employees (Hahn 2015). Furthermore, pro-environmental organizational behaviour reflects maintaining and preserving the health of the ecological system while attempting to utilize natural resources for economic activities. It includes an organization’s comprehensive responsiveness to external stakeholders (i.e. for our children and the society as a whole) as part of environmental management. Hence, it is useful to develop HRM practices with prosocial and environmental characteristics to satisfy stakeholders’ expectations of corporate sustainability outcomes. Corporate sustainability is a management approach used by organizations in integrating and achieving the three pillars (i.e. economic/financial performance, and human/social and environmental outcomes) of sustainable development (UN Global Compact 2014). In this context, sustainable human resource management has started to emerge as a new discipline within the field of human resource management (HRM) to aid organizations to achieve corporate sustainability as a business strategy. In the literature, varied definitions of sustainable HRM attempt to address individual outcomes of corporate sustainability. For example, sustainable work systems (Docherty et al. 2002), HR regeneration (Ehnert 2009) and unsustainable impacts of high-performance work practices (Mariappanadar 2003) address the human/social outcome of corporate sustainability. Green HRM (Jackson et al. 2011; Jabbour et al. 2010) focuses on the environmental outcomes of corporate sustainability. Hence, a comprehensive definition for sustainable HRM is proposed to engage human resources (HR) to synthesize and simultaneously achieve all three categories of corporate sustainable outcomes. Sustainable HRM is designed to provide a sustainability-oriented vision of HRM systems, policies and practices to synthesize and achieve the competing and inconsistent financial, environmental and human/social well-being outcomes of corporate business strategy. The synthesis effects of sustainable HRM are based on the paradox perspective of management decision-making (Miron-Spektor et al. 2018). That is, the synthesis effects of sustainable HRM highlight the role of HRM practices to promote employee behaviours to handle management decisions by dynamically integrating and reconciling the tension/paradox created by the diverse outcomes of corporate sustainability. A review of sustainable HRM definitions by Kramar (2014) indicated that the definitions by themselves are inadequate to implement sustainable HRM practices to achieve corporate sustainability because the definitions fail to explain the characteristics of sustainable HRM practices. The characteristics of HRM practices are about the underlying organizational motives which shape employee behaviours and attitudes at work to achieve such organizational goals as corporate sustainability (Arthur 1994; Nishii et al. 2008). The characteristics for sustainable HRM practices are useful to re-frame the current HRM practices to operationalize an organization’s corporate sustainability business strategy, failing which the novelties of sustainable HRM would become just one more unusable trend in the HRM jargon. Hence, the aim of the article is to theoretically develop sustainability characteristics for individual HRM practices to be used in an internally consistent bundle of HRM practices to

2 Characteristics of Sustainable HRM System and Practices …

11

achieve the synthesis effect of financial, human/social and environmental corporate sustainability outcomes. Initially, a teleological perspective (Bacharach 1989) was used in theory building to identify the distinct characteristics of HRM practices proposed in the bundle of sustainable HRM practices that facilitate employee behaviour and attitude to achieve individual outcomes of corporate sustainability. Subsequently, theoretical connectivity (Bacharach 1989) was used to logically connect the diverse literature, such as high-performance work practices (HPWPs), sustainable HRM and environmental management, to explain the synthesis effects of bundle of sustainable HRM practices to enhance integrated outcomes of corporate sustainability. Finally, to explain how the proposed characteristics of sustainable HRM practices extend the current traditional control-based and commitment-based strategic HRM practices, a comparison of characteristic of control-, commitment- and sustainability-based HRM practices that are relevant to accomplish corporate sustainability outcomes is explored. The paper makes multiple contributions to the sustainable HRM literature. First, practitioners and researchers will be able to develop knowledge about pro-financial, human/social and environmental characteristics of relevant individual practices in bundles of sustainable HRM practices which can be used to operationalize corporate sustainability business strategy. Second, in a global context, the proposed set of characteristics for sustainable HRM practices will enable practitioners and researchers to make cross-cultural comparisons to reveal the uniqueness and generalizability of these characteristics for implementing corporate sustainability. Finally, this also lays the foundation for future research to explore the relationships between, and the synthesis effects of, bundles of practices in the sustainable HRM system to achieve integrated outcomes of corporate sustainability.

Background Strategic HRM practices highlight the mutual benefits for organizations and employees. Hence, in the HRM literature, there are a well-developed set of characteristics of high-performance work practices (i.e. strategic HRM practices) that enhance employee engagement, job satisfaction and empowerment and which subsequently achieve organizational performance (Guest 1997; Van de Voorde et al. 2012). However, early sustainable HRM definitions in the literature indicate the unsustainable impacts of high-performance work practices on employees such as reduced HR conservation (Mariappanadar 2003; Kramar 2014), reduced HR regeneration (Ehnert 2009) and increased harm of work (Mariappanadar 2012, 2014b). The harm of work from the sustainable HRM perspective is about the restrictions imposed on employees by high-performance work practices that are designed to achieve organizational financial performance. Furthermore, it was indicated that the harm of work is linked to obscured, reduced or lost psychological, social and work-related health well-being outcomes for employees as internal stakeholders (Mariappanadar 2014a).

12

S. Mariappanadar

Daily and Huang (2001), Fernández et al. (2003), Jackson et al. (2011) and Jabbour et al. (2010) from the green HRM literature have indicated the importance of HRM to the environmental management system (EMS) for achieving the environmental outcomes of corporate sustainability. The ecological footprint perspective for EMS (Wackernagel and Rees 1997) acknowledges both the role of natural capital in maintaining the health of an ecosystem to support planetary life and the risks associated with its (irreversible) loss due to human economic activities. Furthermore, they indicated that effective implementation of an advanced EMS to reduce the ecological footprint by an organization is based on HRM practices with ecological values (Fernández et al. 2003). Finally, the synthesis effect definition of sustainable HRM proposes that organizations while improving financial performance have a corporate social responsibility to simultaneously reduce the harm of work imposed on employees and their families (Mariappanadar 2014b; Ehnert et al. 2015). The synthesis effect definition of sustainable HRM highlights a type of simultaneous effect of HRM practices, but it is different from the simultaneous effect of mutual benefit perspective of strategic HRM and the critical HRM perspective (see Mariappanadar 2014a). The simultaneous effects of the mutual benefit perspective (e.g. Van de Voorde et al. 2012) and the critical HRM perspective (e.g. Godard 2001) treat organizational benefits (improved organizational financial performance) and benefit/negative effects on employees as ‘separate’ domains. Furthermore, the simultaneous effects of these two perspectives focus only on the effects of the domain of employee benefit/negative effects on organizational performance and not the simultaneous effects of improved organizational benefits and reduced negative effects of work on employees. However, the simultaneous effects of the synthesis effects of sustainable HRM are based on the synthesis paradox where organizations can maximize their profits using HRM practices. However, organizations also have corporate social responsibility to simultaneously reduce the harm of work imposed on employees and the ecological system because these three polarities (outcomes) are not mutually exclusive but are rather mutually reinforcing. Hence, an attempt is made in this paper to theoretically propose characteristics of sustainable HRM practices which extend strategic HRM characteristics to achieve corporate sustainability outcomes.

Characteristics of Sustainable HRM Practices HRM practices are about the specific methods and procedures that the organization adopts to implement the organization’s values and policies to achieve business goals (Posthuma et al. 2013). Furthermore, it was also revealed in the literature that it is important to develop appropriate characteristics of HRM practices to operationalize business strategies to achieve competitive advantage (Madden et al. 2012). The characteristics of HRM practices are about the underlying organizational motives perceived by employees who shape their behaviour and attitudes at work

2 Characteristics of Sustainable HRM System and Practices …

13

towards achieving organizational goals (Nishii et al. 2008). Hence, the characteristics of sustainable HRM practices are defined as employees’ perceived organizational sustainability characteristics for the bundle of HRM practices needed to facilitate employees’ behaviour and attitudes to achieve improved integrated corporate sustainability outcomes. Arthur (1994) suggested that different approaches of HRM (i.e. control- and commitment-based strategic HRM) distinctively shape employee behaviours and attitudes at work. Hence, in developing the characteristics for sustainable HRM practices, an evolutionary process of theory building is used (Weick 1989). In the evolutionary process of theory building, certain alternative characteristics, such as pro-financial, human/social and environmental characteristics, are logically chosen to enable organizations to achieve corporate sustainability outcomes compared to that of the existing traditional control- and commitment-based (strategic) HRM practices. Table 2.1 is used in this section to indicate the evolutionary process of characteristics of HRM practices. Table 2.1 shows characteristics of individual HRM practices that are bundled together based on organizational expectations of employee sustainability behaviours and attitudes at work for accomplishing individual integrated outcomes of corporate sustainability. Columns 1 and 2 of Table 2.1 include characteristics of the control- and commitment-based HRM practices, respectively. Column 3 is used to propose a new set of characteristics for sustainable HRM practices. The differences in the captured characteristics of HRM practices in Table 2.1 are used to highlight the ‘strategic’ focus of sustainable HRM which extends beyond the pro-organizational focus of commitment-based HRM practices. The proposed structure is used in the following sections to explain the sustainability characteristics of HRM practices that are relevant for accomplishing corporate sustainability outcomes of improved organizational financial performance, reduced negative side effects of work and reduced organizational ecological footprint. First, the reasons for selecting individual HRM practices to be included in a bundle to accomplish corporate sustainability outcomes are explained. Second, in explaining the sustainability characteristics for the chosen HRM practices, initially the current control- and commitment-based characteristics of those chosen HRM practices in a bundle are described. Subsequently, sustainability characteristics are proposed for the chosen individual HRM practices to extend the characteristics of control- and commitment-based HRM practices so as to facilitate certain sustainability behaviours and attitudes among employees to achieve corporate sustainability outcomes. Finally, the effect of an internally consistent bundle of HRM practices for the synthesis effect of sustainable HRM to achieve integrated corporate sustainability outcomes is explored.

HRM Practices for Organizational Financial Performance Van De Voorde et al. (2012) in their review provided evidence that HRM practices have contributed to the mutual benefits for organizations by improved organizational

Organizational citizenship-based decision-making to achieve organizational productivity outcomes (Shih et al. 2013)

Employee participation in decision-making is low due to high work standardization (Chiva 2014)

Work structure for empowered decision-making

Utilitarian instrumentalism (Mariappanadar 2003; Järlström et al. 2016) and developmental humanism (Storey 1995) are the characteristics of employee competencies (KSA) that are aligned with mutual benefits for an organization and employee interests Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for achieving organizational Performance-oriented competitive advantage (Rynes et al. 2004)

Job-specific technical skills for organizational performance (Mossholder et al. 2011)

Employee compensation and reward Instrumental extrinsic motivation practice for motivation based on measurable performance output criteria (Heinsman et al. 2008)

Employee selection and training on employee competencies (knowledge, skills and abilities–KSA)

(continued)

Sustainability-empowered decision-making characteristics of work structure practices will benefit an organization, its employees and the health of the ecosystem related to the organization

Intrinsic and extrinsic, and altruistic characteristics of employee compensation and reward practices for employee motivation will facilitate to achieve key stakeholders’ expectations along with improved organizational financial performance with social consciousness (Mariappanadar 2019)

Employee competencies with additional social consciousness characteristics of selection and training will align interests of employees, organization and stakeholder compassion (Pandey and Gupta 2008) to achieve improved organizational financial performance with social consciousness

Characteristics of control-based HRM Characteristics of commitment-based Characteristics of sustainable HRM system HRM system system

Sustainable HRM practices for improved organizational financial performance with social consciousness

HRM practices/system to facilitate employee sustainability behaviour

Table 2.1 Characteristics of control, commitment and sustainable HRM practices, and of HRM system

14 S. Mariappanadar

High work–family facilitation and low work–family conflict are characteristics from the individual employee psychological level for work–family balance (Grzywacz and Butler 2005) Employee assistance programme (Berridge et al. 1997) for ‘worker’ wellness to facilitate employees to cope with work-related stress and improve organizational outcomes

Work intensification on work–family Work activities are not considered to balance infringe on the family (Walton 1999)

Employee assistance to manage negative side effects of work

Employee grievances are allowed to voice on relatively small range of work issues, and the health issue is not one of those (Walton 1999)

High-performance work practices increased work overload, and tasks demand to high level of negative side effects on employee health and well-being (Godard 2001; Guest 2017)

Work intensification on occupational Focused on improving working health conditions for employee welfare (Andrewartha 1998)

(continued)

Sustainable corporate assistance programme–achieving ‘workplace’ wellness along with worker wellness (Mariappanadar 2019)

Low social harm of work is the organizational-level leading indicator characteristics for work–family balance

Health harm of work is used as characteristics of leading indicators to prevent or delay the onset of occupational illnesses and workplace wellness characteristics for occupational health and social well-being practices for achieving and maintaining low levels of the health and the social harms of work imposed on employees

Characteristics of control-based HRM Characteristics of commitment-based Characteristics of sustainable HRM system HRM system system

Sustainable HRM practices for reduced negative side effects of work on employees

HRM practices/system to facilitate employee sustainability behaviour

Table 2.1 (continued)

2 Characteristics of Sustainable HRM System and Practices … 15

Employee competencies (not related to green competencies) for complying with environmental laws and regulations (Daily and Huang 2001)

Human capital associated with HRM Control-based HRM system for system employees with human capital that is low in strategic value and uniqueness (Hauff et al. 2014)

Sustainable HRM system for integrated outcomes of corporate sustainability

Employee selection on green competencies (natural and acquired competencies)

Strategic HRM system for human capital associated with very valuable and unique to gain competitive advantage (Hauff et al. 2014)

Acquired green competencies through previous experiences instead of natural characteristics (i.e. personality, etc.) improve meeting EMS targets for competitive advantage of an organization (Subramanian et al. 2016)

Sustainable HRM system with the synthesis effect characteristic focuses on selecting and training employees with competencies to make decision choices to achieve integrated corporate sustainability outcomes

Ecocentric characteristics of individual- and organizational-level green competency-based employee selection and training practices will facilitate green behaviours for EMS to maintain and preserve the health of ecosystem by reducing ecological footprint

Characteristics of control-based HRM Characteristics of commitment-based Characteristics of sustainable HRM system HRM system system

Sustainable HRM practices for reduced organizational ecology footprint

HRM practices/system to facilitate employee sustainability behaviour

Table 2.1 (continued)

16 S. Mariappanadar

2 Characteristics of Sustainable HRM System and Practices …

17

performance through enhanced employee motivation and participation. Furthermore, HRM practices for HPWPs are deemed to increase employees’ knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA), and also empower employees in decision-making for enhancing organizational benefits (Huselid 1995). Hence, there is evidence in the literature to suggest that employee competencies, motivation and participation have positive impacts on organizational performance. It is useful now to identify from the literature those HRM practices that facilitate employee behaviours such as employee competencies (KSA), motivation and participation to enhance organizational financial performance. Employee recruitment, selection and training are found to be related to enhancing employee competencies (KSA) and achieving organizational goals (Gavino et al. 2012). It is also revealed that HRM practices regarding employee compensation and rewards contribute to employee motivation (e.g. Appelbaum et al. 2000). Job or work structure as an HRM practice promotes employee empowerment in organizational decision-making (Delaney and Huselid 1996). Hence, employee recruitment and selection, employee training, compensation and rewards, and work structure for decision-making are the relevant individual HRM practices chosen to be included in the bundle of sustainable HRM practices (Table 2.1) to propose characteristics for sustainable HRM practices to improve organizational financial performance. Strategic HRM theorists believe that internally consistent bundles of HRM practices based on configuration theory will enhance organizational performance through employee work behaviours (Bowen and Ostroff 2004). Furthermore, Boxall (1998) indicted that characteristics of individual HRM practices in a bundle of practices must align with HRM strategies to achieve business strategies. A recent meta-analysis revealed that the bundles of HRM practices have a significantly stronger relationship with organizational performance compared to individual practices (Tzabbar et al. 2017). The characteristics of each of those chosen HRM practices in the bundle are discussed next based on the recent literature.

Characteristics of Sustainable Employee Selection and Training for Employee Competencies The main characteristic of control-based employee selection practices for employee competencies is specific to job skills, in particular technical skills, for organizational performance (Table 2.1). Furthermore, the defining characteristic of employee training in the control-based HRM system is on-the-job training and it is mostly reactive in approach (i.e. used to solve a specific problem after it has happened) (Mossholder et al. 2011). Utilitarian instrumentalism and developmental humanism are the characteristics of employee selection and training practices in the commitmentbased strategic HRM practices for employee competencies of knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA) to improve organizational financial performance. That is, the utilitarian instrumentalism characteristics of employee selection practice (Mariappanadar 2003; Järlström et al. 2016) emphasize the quantitative and calculative alignment between employee competencies (KSA) and the business strategy for selecting

18

S. Mariappanadar

employees to improve organizational financial performances. Furthermore, developmental humanism (Storey 1995) stresses the significance of the employee development of competencies (KSA) to yield better organizational financial performances. These characteristics of employee selection and training practices for employee competencies (KSA) are reported to achieve mutual benefits for organizations as well as for employees (e.g. Van De Voorde et al. 2012). The importance of competencies in talent management for organizational success was studied in the Indian IT context. The results proved the role of competencies as leading to organizational and individual benefits, thus highlighting the need for developing/implementing competence-based approach for effective human resource management (Kumari and Sita 2009). To extend the current HRM characteristics by utilizing sustainability characteristics, it is proposed that employee selection and training practices for employee competencies (KSA) which focus on organizational financial performance must be enriched with a high level of social consciousness. Social consciousness (Pandey and Gupta 2008) as an organizational value aims to facilitate social wealth through HRM practices. The social ethics literature indicated that the generation of social wealth of organizations is largely dependent upon HRM policies and practices that are based on corporate social responsibility. Social wealth is about the partnership an organization establishes with different stakeholders and defines success in terms of the satisfaction of those different stakeholders. Hence, the social consciousness characteristics of sustainable employee selection and training practices will assist organizations to identify and develop employees with the competency of compassion towards key stakeholders. Compassion as an employee competency highlights that an employee/manager as ‘an agent’ of the organization sees the world as a possibility entrusted into his/her hands, as we all are entrusted with the responsibility of caring for stakeholders (i.e. employees and environment). The employee competency of compassion is considered effective in forming relationships with social entities to benefit organizations as well as to consider the satisfaction of stakeholders in organizational decision-making. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that employees with compassion in management decisionmaking achieve economic gain even in a hypercompetitive market (see Kulshrestha 2007). Hence, employee recruitment and selection practices with social consciousness characteristics will be able to identify prospective employees having this compassion for stakeholders. Subsequently, new employees must be trained to use compassion in management decision-making to achieve mutual interests of the market requirements for organizations as well as the social needs of the stakeholders. Hence, the social consciousness characteristics of sustainable employee selection practice should be able to select employees with employee competencies of KSA for stakeholder compassion. Knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA) for stakeholder compassion are suggested as additional behaviours to the employee’s competencies profile aligned to the existing organizational financial performance focus. In summary, organizations with corporate sustainability business strategy must develop and implement employee selection and training practices with the characteristics of utilitarian instrumentalism, developmental humanism and stakeholder compassion

2 Characteristics of Sustainable HRM System and Practices …

19

to facilitate employee competencies of KSA to enhance organizational financial performance.

Characteristics of Sustainable Employee Compensation and Rewards for Employee Motivation The characteristic of control-based HRM practice on employee motivation is about maximizing individual employee performance through hierarchical control (Table 2.1). This characteristic is highlighted in the control-based HRM system because of the hedonistic character of human behaviour which implies that employees will avoid work if they can and that an authoritarian management style is required to maximize employee performance (Heinsman et al. 2008). Hence, the characteristic of compensation and reward practices for employee motivation in the control-based HRM system is based on extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation of HRM practices is about the distribution of employee compensation and rewards dependent on the achievement of measurable performance output criteria. The commitment-based strategic HRM practices use employee-centred intrinsic and extrinsic motivators as characteristics to shape employee motivation (Arthur 1994). Furthermore, organizations entice employees with intrinsic and extrinsic motivators to contribute more effort for high performance by using a bundle of HRM practices that facilitate rewards and recognitions (Rynes et al. 2004). It is proposed that the characteristics for sustainable employee compensation and reward practices must combine facilitating employee-centred motivators with stakeholder altruism. Altruistic motivation (Dovidio et al. 1990) focuses on increasing the welfare of employees along with stakeholders (i.e. spouse/partner, children, caring for parents, disability, supply chain and environment). Furthermore, the source of altruistic motivation is not based on an employee’s ego or the tasks that he/she is involved in but rather the motivation is drawn from acting to improve the stakeholders’ welfare (employee well-being and ecological health of the planet). Hence, to implement corporate sustainability, intrinsic, extrinsic and stakeholder altruisms are the proposed characteristics of sustainable employee compensation and reward practices to facilitate employee motivation to enhance organizational financial performance with social consciousness.

Characteristics of Sustainable Work Structure for Empowered Decision-Making Job or work structure facilitates employee empowerment in decision-making which increases organizational performance (Delaney and Huselid 1996). The term employee empowerment in this paper is taken from an organizational structure perspective which emphasizes HRM practices that facilitate moving decision-making authority down the organizational hierarchy and providing employees the opportunity and ability to influence organizational outcomes (Spreitzer 1995). Employee

20

S. Mariappanadar

empowerment in an organizational context is based on the concept of ‘power experienced’. There are three main dimensions of power experienced that facilitate employee empowerment (Menon 2001): power as perceived control; power as perceived competence; and power as being energized towards achieving valued organizational goals. In the control-based HRM system, there is very limited scope for employee participation in decision-making due to its high work standardization (Chiva 2014). However, HPWPs (a type of commitment-based strategic HRM) are intended to increase employee empowerment for employee participation in organizational citizenship-based decision-making with the purpose of improving organizational performance and productivity (Shih et al. 2013). The characteristics of sustainability-empowered decision-making of work structure are guided by the works on empowerment of decision-making by Van Lange (1999) and Fernández et al. (2003). They have suggested that empowered decisionmaking should include alignment (cooperation) or maximization of outcomes for stakeholders, and equality (i.e. minimization of absolute differences between organizational, employee and environmental outcomes of stakeholders). Hence, the sustainability-empowered decision-making characteristics of work structure are defined as the power experienced by employee involvement in facilitating employee actions to benefit the organization and its employees and to preserve the health of ecosystem based on pro-financial, human/social and environmental characteristics. It is proposed that sustainability-empowered decision-making includes pro-financial, human/social and environmental characteristics to benefit all key stakeholders. For example, a garment factory fire tragedy (2012) in Bangladesh killed more than 100 employees where garments were being produced for a large chain of departmental stores in the USA and Australia. Subsequently, due to consumer boycotts to improve working conditions of supply chain employees, most of the departmental stores accepted an increase in the purchase price of garments sourced from those factories in Bangladesh to improve the working conditions for their employees. It is important in this example that employees managing the supply chain contract for the major departmental stores should have been empowered in the first place to decide about improving the working conditions of the supply chain employees based on prosocial characteristics. However, employees managing supply chain contracts focused on improving supply chain efficiency to increase profitability which was not adequate for sustainability outcomes. It is important that these employees must have been empowered to make decisions in improving the working conditions before the fire accident happened. This would have saved the negative social reputation and the significant drop in share market price for those companies and also the lives of supply chain employees. Hence, organizational work structure with empowered pro-financial, human/social and environmental decision-making characteristics will simultaneously benefit an organization and its employees and preserve the ecosystem (i.e. corporate sustainability outcomes).

2 Characteristics of Sustainable HRM System and Practices …

21

HRM Practices for Reduced Negative Side Effects of Work on Employees Godard (2001) and Ramsay et al. (2000) have provided evidence that strategic HRM practices are used to improve organizational performance while imposing the simultaneously negative side effects of work on employees’ well-being. For example, in the last two decades work intensification as HPWPs has benefited organizations by increased productivity and profitability, but recent studies have indicated a diminished quality of the working life of employees (e.g. Stanton et al. 2014) and productivity has reached a point of diminishing return from longer working hours (Brown 2012). However, work intensification is ‘the new work’ paradigm of the twenty-first century in which employees perceive that work is challenging and rewarding and provide a strong occupational identity for improved happiness. Hence, work intensification as a practice is here to stay and it will continue to have negative impact on employees and their families. Work intensification is chosen as a practice for proposing sustainability characteristics to reduce the negative side effects of work on employees. Furthermore, employee assistance practice is also chosen to highlight the type of organizational support with sustainability characteristics to help employees to manage the negative effects of work.

Sustainability Characteristics for Work Intensification The focus of the control-based HRM system is on developing systematic formal procedures and improving working conditions for employee welfare (Andrewartha 1998) (see Table 2.1). In the commitment-based HRM literature, Godard (2001) and Ramsay et al. (2000) have provided evidence that work intensification used to improve organizational performance imposes simultaneous negative side effects of work on employees’ well-being. However, organizations have made limited attempts to reduce the simultaneous negative side effects of work on employees. In the control-based HRM system, it is believed that work activities are not considered to infringe on the family (Walton 1999) because in this type of system the boundary of work is limited to work location. Furthermore, in the commitmentbased HRM system the characteristics of work intensification in impacting work– family balance are explained using work–family conflict and work–family facilitation. Next, the sustainability characteristics of work intensification on employee health and work–family balance are explained. It might be ideal but not realistic to advocate for organizations to avoid imposing negative side effects of work on employees as indicated in the commitment-based HRM literature. This is because modern organizations operate with a system of values and beliefs that privilege profitability which will eventually impose some forms of unavoidable externality or unintended side effects of work on employees (Starkey and Crane 2003). Sustainable HRM evolved to identify and reduce the unsustainable

22

S. Mariappanadar

impacts of work on employee well-being while simultaneously improving organizational financial performance. Hence, low levels of health harm of work and low levels of social harm of work are proposed as characteristics of work intensification practices from the sustainable HRM literature which can be used as work-related leading indicators to prevent or delay the onset of occupational illnesses and work–family issues, respectively. The health harm of work is about an employee’s perception of the restrictions imposed by work practices on achieving positive health (Mariappanadar 2016). The social harm of work is the perceived severity of restrictions imposed by work practices on the family domain of employees (Mariappanadar 2014a). These obscured or reduced well-being outcomes caused by the health and the social harms of work imposed by work practices are negative side effects of work on employees because these lead to ‘welfare loss’ for employees (Mariappanadar 2013; Mishra et al. 2014). That is, the negative externality or the social costs of welfare loss for employees due to the harm of work practices cannot be avoided by organizations while attempting to maximize profits in a free market. The health and the social harms of work practices not only produce a welfare loss for employees due to the restrictions imposed by work practices for positive health but also for reduced social well-being outcomes (e.g. Akerstedt et al. 2002). Furthermore, the health and social harms of work practices also have negative impacts on organizational productivity/performance. Studies have found that the negative impacts of work lead to work-related illnesses (e.g. sleep disturbances and insomnia) which subsequently have work-related health consequences such as lost productivity due to absenteeism (Godet-Cayre et al. 2006) and presenteeism (Dewa et al. 2004). The WHO (1948) defined health as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. This definition of health focuses on prevention or leading indicators of health and well-being along with illnesses. An attempt is made in this article to use the health and the social harms of work as leading indicators for work-related illnesses and social well-being, respectively, in alignment with the WHO definition of health. For example, there is evidence that socially and physically reinvigorating lifestyle activities will improve positive health and social well-being outcomes for individual employees (Seeman 1989). Hence, the health harm of work practices was developed with this aspect of positive health and it is considered as leading indicators for occupational health and well-being (Mariappanadar 2016). Similarly, the social harm of work is used as leading indicators for the social well-being for employees. Leading indicators can provide effective early warnings, by enabling risks or risk increases to be detected and mitigated, before negative health and social wellbeing consequences occur (Sinelnikov et al. 2015). Hence, measuring the health and the social harms of work as part of sustainability characteristics of occupational health and well-being practices will facilitate organizations to identify and monitor leading indicators for the negative side effects of work imposed on employees. Once the health harm and the social harm of work are identified, then it is useful for organizations to reduce the health and the social harms of work imposed on employees to low levels.

2 Characteristics of Sustainable HRM System and Practices …

23

Sustainable HRM highlights that organizations have an ethics of care responsibility towards stakeholders (Van Marrewijk 2003) to identify and manage the health and the social harms of work while organizations attempt to improve financial performance. Hence, a low level of health and social harms of work practices are proposed as normative quality criteria for sustainability characteristic work intensification practices. The normative qualities of low levels of health and social harms of work are explored as the sustainability characteristics of HRM practices because, as discussed earlier, these simultaneous side effects are unavoidable when organizations focus on profitability. However, these simultaneous side effects of work must be controlled and managed as part of implementing a corporate sustainability business strategy. Organizations have care responsibilities to maintain the impacts of the health and the social harms of work on employee at low levels, and hence it is proposed as sustainability characteristics for work intensification practices.

Sustainability Characteristics for Employee Assistance In the control-based HRM system, employees had limited opportunities to voice their occupational health issue because of minimal or no job security (Walton 1999). However, in the commitment-based HRM system employee assistance programme (EAP) is used as a management tool to improve workplace performance and productivity and also to respond to critical incidents for employees such as stress management and personal problems experienced by the employees or members of their families (Arthur 2000; Kirk and Brown 2003). Furthermore, EAP primarily focuses on interventions to help individual employees to cope with the harm of work. For example, an evaluation study of EAP performance (Berridge et al. 1997) found that seventy-three per cent of the employees reported that the counselling provided by EAP enabled them to cope with the problem of stress caused by work practices but that the problem (i.e. work practices) at the organizational level remained unresolved or unchanged. Hence, the sustainable corporate assistance programme highlights the importance of achieving ‘workplace wellness along with worker wellness’ based on interventions that take into consideration the organization–individual interface (Mariappanadar 2019). Workplace wellness characteristics of occupational health and social well-being practices highlight the organization–individual interface which will enhance organizational capabilities to minimize the health and the social harms of work imposed on employees. Furthermore, workplace wellness characteristics will help organizations to recast their organizational identity based on the evidence of duty of care for employees as an internal stakeholder (Jurkiewicz and Giacalone 2004). For example, the leading indicator measure of the health and the social harms of work can reveal the organizational-level risk factors for occupational health and well-being practices. Subsequently, workplace wellness can facilitate organizational change interventions using prosocial job design and job demand to minimize the harm of work on

24

S. Mariappanadar

employees to manage the organizational-level risks imposed on employees. Therefore, prosocial-based job design is proposed to promote workplace wellness using the relational job design framework suggested by Grant (2007). Grant (2007) suggested that the current task-based job design allows managers to focus on the organization’s interest by overlooking the negative side effects on employees. For example, in the sustainable HRM literature, there is evidence that work intensification caused by job design (time demand and workload) is linked to the health harm of work (Mariappanadar 2016) and the social harm of work (Mariappanadar and Aust 2018). The relational job design framework suggested by Grant explains the organizational system-level architecture for managers to make a prosocial difference in having potential positive impacts on subordinates when employees in their supervision were identified with organizational-level risks such as the health and the social harms of work practices. The prosocial difference behaviour of managers highlights positive organizational support for employees to produce and maintain positive health and social well-being. Thus, the framework indicates that job architecture should provide managers with opportunities and relational contacts with subordinates to consider redesigning their current jobs with prosocial characteristics (Hahn 2015). The prosocial characteristics of job design will promote and maintain employee health and social well-being at low levels to enhance workplace wellness. In summary, work intensification cannot be avoided in the hypercompetitive environment. However, the sustainability characteristics of work intensification are to measure and monitor the health and the social harms of work so that it can be contained to low levels of harm. Hence, organizations can use the health and the social harms of work as work-related indicators to prevent or delay the onset of occupational health and work–family balance issues due to work intensification. Further, corporate sustainability business strategy must implement workplace wellness characteristics of occupational health and social well-being practices to facilitate managers to use a prosocial approach in the job redesign of their subordinates to reduce the health and the social harms of work on employees to only low levels.

HRM Practices for Reducing Ecology Footprint of Business by EMS The environment management system (EMS) literature indicates that economic activities by organizations are the main source for environmental degradation from the anthropocentrism perspective, and hence organizations have ethical and moral responsibilities to address environmental issues (see Renwick et al. 2013). Anthropocentrism is ‘the belief that there is a clear and morally relevant dividing line between humankind and the rest of the nature, that humankind is the only principal source of value or meaning in the world’ (Eckersley 1992; p. 51). However, the ecocentric perspective stresses that organizations have moral obligations to maintain, preserve and/or restore the health of the ecosystem (i.e. a circular exchange

2 Characteristics of Sustainable HRM System and Practices …

25

of materials between living and non-living parts of a natural unit) in environmental management. In this section, initially HRM practices that are relevant to EMS are identified from the green HRM literature. Subsequently, ecocentric characteristics are proposed for those identified HRM practices to enhance employees’ environmental behaviour at work to reduce organizational ecology footprint as part of the environmental outcome of corporate sustainability. Although using an advanced EMS for reducing their ecological footprint by organizations has become an industry norm at present, the review by Fernández et al. (2003) has underlined the importance of using employee involvement and participation in EMS. Hence, an attempt is made to identify relevant HRM practices that have the potential to facilitate involvement and participation of employees in EMS. A recent review of HRM practice involvement in EMS (Renwick et al. 2016) revealed the role of varied HRM functions in environmental sustainability. Furthermore, Jabbour et al. (2010) revealed in their empirical research that employee selection and training are the relevant HRM practices that facilitate employee involvement and participation in EMS. Subramanian et al. (2016) revealed in their study that employee selection and training practices of organizations are related to organizations meeting environmental performance targets. Thus, to achieve an environmental outcome of corporate strategy, an organization must develop and implement an internally consistent bundle of employee selection and training practices with sustainability characteristics to reduce organizational ecology footprint.

Characteristics of Selection and Training for Ecocentric EMS Green competencies (Subramanian et al. 2016) infer employee ecological knowledge, skills and other socio-economic behaviour which are used to act rightly and responsibly towards the overall well-being of an immediate environment. Green competencies include natural (i.e. personality dimensions) and acquired (i.e. knowledge and skills) competencies. The control-based HRM practices on employee selection and training for reducing an organizational ecological footprint (Table 2.1) focused on employee competencies that are not related to green competencies. However, employee competencies, such as knowledge, skills and abilities on EMS that are used by organizations in selection and in training of employees, need to comply with environmental laws and regulations (Daily and Huang 2001). These selection and training practices for EMS reflect the anthropocentric perspective of humankind which believes it has the moral right to dominate the environment (Eckersley 1992). In the commitment-based HRM literature, Subramanian et al. (2016) have suggested that organizations aspiring to do well in the environmental outcome of corporate sustainability should give more importance to the acquired green competencies through previous experiences instead of the natural characteristics (i.e. personality, etc.). Furthermore, they also indicated that employee training on green knowledge will benefit organizations to achieve targets for the environmental outcome of corporate sustainability (see Table 2.1). An attempt is made in this article to extend

26

S. Mariappanadar

green competencies for employee selection and training with characteristics from the ecocentric perspective to facilitate employee behaviours to reduce organizational ecological footprint. In the ecocentric approach, nature is the core and all biophysical systems, including humans, which are integrated parts of nature (Bansal and Roth 2000). Hence, the ecocentric perspective of HRM highlights that organizations have moral obligations to engage employees to maintain, preserve and/or restore the health of an ecosystem (i.e. a circular exchange of materials between living and nonliving parts of a natural unit) in environmental management. Ecocentric characteristics for green competencies are considered holistic because the competencies include individual employee-level behaviour (Purser et al. 1995) and also the need to understand multi-level organizational interactional impacts on EMS to reduce organizational ecological footprint. The individual-level ecocentric green competencies include knowledge and skills to care and concerns for environment, utilization and conservation of environmental resources, and environmental altruism. Furthermore, ecocentric organizational-level green competencies include the knowledge and skills of employees to understand multi-level organizational interactions with key external stakeholders, political–economic entities and sociocultural entities for EMS to reduce an organization’s ecological footprint. Table 2.1 shows that the ecocentric characteristics of sustainable employee selection and training will facilitate organizations to conduct employment testing and train employees for ecocentric green competencies. The ecocentric green competencies include environmental altruism, conservation, and maintaining and preserving the health of the ecosystem which are relevant for implementing ecocentric EMS. For example, in the manufacturing industry it is useful to conduct employment testing and training on emission reduction and waste management in preserving the health of the ecosystem (Fernández et al. 2003). Furthermore, it is also useful for organizations in manufacturing to select and train employees to understand the complex multi-level organizational interactions such as key stakeholders’ expectations (i.e. supply chain emission reduction, the weak environmental regulations in developing economies, etc.) that facilitate and/or act as barriers for employee green behaviour. Hence, organizations using EMS to achieve environmental outcomes of corporate sustainability should select and train employees with the ecocentric green individuallevel competency characteristics of environmental altruism, conservation, and maintaining and preserving the health of the ecosystem which will facilitate employee green behaviours to reduce organizational ecological footprint.

2 Characteristics of Sustainable HRM System and Practices …

27

Sustainable HRM System for Integrated Outcomes of Corporate Sustainability In the earlier sections to achieve the first aim of this article, the characteristics of individual HRM practices for internally consistent bundles of practices for sustainable HRM system were discussed. In this section, an attempt is made to achieve the second aim of the article, that is, to synthesize bundles of HRM practices with sustainability characteristics of the sustainable HRM system to achieve integrated outcomes of corporate sustainability. In the commitment-based HRM literature, it is indicated that the HRM systems vary depending on internal and external contexts which includes business strategy (Jackson et al. 2014). The context dependency of HRM system also highlights varied components or sub-systems that are relevant for achieving different business strategies. Hence, the synthesis characteristics of sustainable HRM system are proposed to achieve integrated outcomes of corporate sustainability business strategy using the hierarchical architecture (Posthuma et al. 2013). The sustainable HRM system architecture highlights the synthesis effects of bundles of internally consistent HRM practices of the sustainable HRM subsystems (finance, employee/social and ecological) for achieving integrated outcomes of corporate sustainability business strategy. Chuang et al. (2016) suggested that well-designed HRM systems will facilitate individual attitudes and behaviours through bundles of HRM practices to achieve organizational outcomes. The choice of an HRM system to align with business strategy is contingent upon the contextual factors which include the strategic value of human capital (employee knowledge, skills and experience) associated with employee behaviour (Lepak and Snell 2002). Hence, it is relevant to identify HRM practices that can be used to develop characteristics of the sustainable HRM system. Young growing organizations in an organization’s life cycle or organizations attempting to introduce changes to the existing system normally focus on employee selection and training practices to facilitate employee behaviours that align to business strategy. However, matured organizations are concerned with implementing internal labour markets for the choice of HRM systems (Jackson and Schuler 1995). As sustainable HRM is an emerging field, most organizations attempting to incorporate sustainable HRM system will be making changes to their existing HRM system. Hence, employee selection and training are the relevant practices to identify and train employees with competencies (employee knowledge, skills and experience) to implement the synthesis effect characteristics of the sustainable HRM system to achieve integrated outcomes of corporate sustainability.

Characteristics of Sustainable HRM System The synthesis effect characteristics of the sustainable HRM system deal with the tension in business–stakeholder relationships so that both a business and its key

28

S. Mariappanadar

stakeholders’ expectations are simultaneously managed while implementing corporate sustainability business strategies. The objective of the synthesis effects of sustainable HRM system is to use HR to achieve improved organizational financial performance while simultaneously reducing the negative side effects of work on employees and the reduced organizational ecological footprint. The synthesis effect characteristics of the sustainable HRM system highlight that these competing polarities of financial, employee/family and ecological outcomes of corporate sustainability are not mutually exclusive but are rather mutually reinforcing. However, many practitioners may believe that by implementing a sustainable HRM system based on the synthesis effects, an organization will increase the managing costs of externalities imposed by an organization on employees (i.e. unintended negative side effects) and reduce the ecological footprint. Therefore, it will make organizations less financially competitive in the market. A meta-analysis by Margolis et al. (2009) found that the discretionary corporate social performances of managing the costs of the negative side effects imposed on employees by organizational practices improved stakeholders’ positive reputation and also increased financial performance. Furthermore, Mariappanadar and Kramar (2014) have reported evidence based on CRANET data for the synthesis effect of HPWPs. HPWP used by organizations to enhance positive organizational performance also reduced the harm of work on employees when the relationship was facilitated by employee benefits and trade union influence on organizations. That is, these internally consistent bundles of practices of sustainable HRM system can improve organizational performance and simultaneously reduce the harm of work imposed on employees/families to reveal the synthesis or congruence effect of the sustainable HRM system. Furthermore, a review of the environmental literature (Salzmann et al. 2005) revealed a sound economic rationale for the business case for managing environmental issues at an organization’s level. It is evident that the contradictory corporate sustainability outcomes can be blended together using the synthesis effect characteristics of the sustainable HRM system to achieve integrated outcomes of corporate sustainability. Hauff et al. (2014) indicated that the characteristics of HRM systems for the control- and the commitment-based systems are different based on the human capital (employee knowledge, skills and experience) associated with employees. Table 2.1 shows that the human capital characteristics associated with employees of the controlbased HRM system are low in strategic value and uniqueness for organizations. However, if human capital is unique and very valuable for an organization then the organization should choose the characteristics of a commitment-oriented or strategic HRM system. Hence, it is proposed that organizations must attempt to extend the current strategic HRM system with the synthesis effect characteristics of the sustainable HRM system to achieve corporate sustainability. For example, during employee selection there is merit in assessing employees for competencies that include the ability to synthesize, integrate and abstract at a high level. A central aspect of this HRM system competency is to seek employee’s ability in making decision choices for achieving the varied corporate sustainability outcomes not as an ‘either/or’ choice of

2 Characteristics of Sustainable HRM System and Practices …

29

those outcomes. Hence, employee sustainability competencies, training and development should be used to gain knowledge and capabilities to manage sustainable HRM system in synthesizing the seemingly contradictory financial, employee/family and ecological outcomes of corporate sustainability.

Conclusion Most managers in the twenty-first century have accepted corporate sustainability business strategy as a precondition for doing business (Dyllick and Hockerts 2002). HRM practices from the resource-based perspective highlight the importance of using appropriate sustainability characteristics to engage employees to achieve corporate sustainability business strategy. The article sought to theoretically conceptualize the characteristics of HRM practices identified for internally consistent bundles of practices of the sustainable HRM system. The sustainable HRM system is developed to achieve integrated outcomes of corporate sustainability. The sustainable HRM system includes three bundles of HRM practices. These bundles include practices to reduce negative side effects of work at the employee level. Furthermore, the other two bundles of practices focus on improved organizational financial performance and environmental management performances. Organizations aiming to achieve corporate sustainability business strategy must develop and implement sustainability characteristics to each of the individual HRM practices that are theoretically identified in the bundles of sustainable HRM system. The HRM practices identified in the three bundles of practices for the sustainable HRM system include employee selection, training, compensation, reward and work structure, occupational health and social well-being practices. The pro-financial, social/human and environmental sustainability characteristics are proposed for these identified HRM practices in the bundles of sustainable HRM system (see Table 2.1). Finally, to enable organizations with corporate sustainability business strategy to overcome the challenges in achieving integrated outcomes of corporate sustainability (Epstein 2018), the synthesis effect characteristics are proposed for the sustainable HRM system. That is, organizations focusing on corporate sustainability business strategy must develop and implement a sustainable HRM system with the characteristics of synthesis effects by selecting and training employees with competencies to dynamically reconcile and/or balance the contradictions of simultaneously achieving the three contradictory but complementary outcomes.

Research and Practical Implications The proposed propositions in the paper provide avenues and direction for future research. Furthermore, future research should explore the possibility of empirically establishing a measure based on the proposed characteristics for sustainable

30

S. Mariappanadar

HRM. One possible approach for a validity study is to conduct a qualitative study of the characteristics of HR policies and practices among the top 200 corporations which are listed in the Morgan and Stanley Capital International (MSCI)–Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) index which tracks environmental, social/human and economic (ESG) performance of corporations (Liao et al. 2018). As empirical research in sustainable HRM is in the early stages, it is useful to conduct qualitative research based on content analysis of CSR reports, case analysis and/or interviews of managers/employees from corporations listed in the MSCI–SRI index to identify the characteristics of HRM policies and practices that are relevant to sustainable HRM system. A measure for the characteristics of sustainable HRM practices will add value to the current sustainable HRM literature by facilitating subsequent future research on testing the relationship between sustainable HRM practices on environmental management (see Jabbour et al. 2010), reduced health harm of work (Mariappanadar 2016), employee mental well-being (Bech et al. 2003), family wellbeing (Lavee et al. 1987), better corporate financial performance, employee turnover and increased productivity (see Huselid 1995). Second, the hierarchical architecture of sustainable HRM system with bundles of internally consistent practices is aligned to achieving integrated outcomes of corporate sustainability based on the synthesis effect perspective of sustainable HRM. The integrationist perspective (Kalmi and Kauhanen 2008) explains that internally consistent bundles of practices have mutually supportive properties and organizations gain by integrating these practices to achieve simultaneously the three financial, human/social and environmental outcomes. Third, it will be useful for future research to study the synthesis effects of the three bundles of practices of sustainable HRM system. Capturing the varied impacts of the characteristics of bundles of sustainable HRM practices on the triple-bottom outcomes of corporate sustainability based on the synthesis effect perspective of sustainable HRM system is considered complex. However, Edwards (1995) devised an organizational research technique to fully capture the effects of multiple independent variables on the congruence or synthesis effect between multiple dependent variables. Hence, future research can attempt to test the synthesis effects of the characteristics of bundles of practices of sustainable HRM system on integrated outcomes of corporate sustainability using Edwards’ research technique. Fourth, different nations (like China, India, Japan, South Korea, etc.) in the contemporary world have evolved very different work attitudes and types of organization (Mariappanadar 2005). In national cultures based on work values founded in Hinduism, Confucianism and Islamic beliefs, there is evidence for work organizations providing for ‘social good’ (Micklethwaith and Wooldridge 2003). The concept of ‘social good’ is much broader than the concern for the rights of stakeholders in their dealings with representatives of an organization. Hence, pro-organizational finance, and environmental and social/human responsibilities are the characteristics of sustainable HRM which are congruent with national cultures of developing economies in the Asian region predominantly with Hinduism, Confucianism and Islamic beliefs.

2 Characteristics of Sustainable HRM System and Practices …

31

Universal and culturally divergent practices are the two important aspects of globalizing HRM which were identified by Bae and Rowley’s (2001) framework on the transfer of HRM practices by multinational enterprises (MNEs) to host country subsidiaries. MNEs to transfer and implement effectively sustainable HRM in their subsidiaries in the Asian region, it is important for MNEs to analyse the congruence between some of the characteristics of sustainable HRM and national culture of the host country. Hence, using Bae and Rowley’s framework, future research should explore cross-cultural studies of MNEs to find the characteristics of practices that are universal and those characteristics which are divergent among practices in the bundles of sustainable HRM system. Finally, future cross-cultural research should also explore the characteristics that have to be simultaneously realized to achieve integrated outcomes of corporate sustainability by MNEs operating in multiple geographical locations. Finally, highlighting practical implications, the characteristics of practices in internally consistent bundles of sustainable HRM system will guide management and HRM professionals to the establishment of HRM policies and practices with sustainability characteristics for implementing a corporate sustainability business strategy. The provided comparison of characteristics of strategic and sustainable HRM practices provides insight to management and HRM professionals to first defamiliarize the current dominant strategic HRM practices, which is incompatible for implementing diverse outcomes of corporate sustainability business strategy. Subsequently, strategic HRM practices can be renewed with the prosocial and ecocentric environmental characteristics of sustainable HRM practices that are compatible to effectively manage the tension and use the synthesis effects to achieve the integrated outcomes of corporate sustainability.

References Akerstedt, T., Knutsson, A., Westerholm, P., Theorell, T., Alfredsson, L., & Kecklund, G. (2002). Sleep disturbances, work stress and work hours: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 53, 741–748. Andrewartha, G. (1998). The future role of human resource management. Australian Human Resource Management, 2, 1–16. Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. (2000). Manufacturing advantage: Why high performance work systems pay off . NY: Cornell University Press. Arthur, A. (2000). Employee assistance programmes: The emperor’s new clothes of stress management? British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 28(4), 549–559. Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 670–687. Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 496–515. Bae, J., & Rowley, C. (2001). The impact of globalization on HRM: The case of South Korea. Journal of World Business, 36(4), 402–428. Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–736.

32

S. Mariappanadar

Bech, P., Olsen, L. R., Kjoller, M., & Rasmussen, N. K. (2003). Measuring well-being rather than the absence of distress symptoms: A comparison of the SF-36 mental health subscale and the WHO-five well-being scale. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 12(2), 85–91. Berridge, J., Cooper, C., & Highley-Marchington, C. (1997). Employee assistance programmes and workplace counselling. Hoboken: Wiley. Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM–firm performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 203–221. Boxall, P. (1998). Achieving competitive advantage through human resource strategy: Towards a theory of industry dynamics. Human Resource Management Review, 8(3), 265–288. Brown, M. (2012). Responses to work intensification: Does generation matter? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(17), 3578–3595. Chiva, R. (2014). The common welfare human resource management system: A new proposal based on high consciousness. Personnel Review, 43(6), 937–956. Chuang, C. H., Jackson, S. E., & Jiang, Y. (2016). Can knowledge-intensive teamwork be managed? Examining the roles of HRM systems, leadership, and tacit knowledge. Journal of Management, 42(2), 524–554. Daily, B. F., & Huang, S. C. (2001). Achieving sustainability through attention to human resource factors in environmental management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(12), 1539–1552. Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 949–969. Dewa, C., Lesage, A., Goering, P., & Caveen, M. (2004). Nature and prevalence of mental illness in the workplace. Healthcare Papers, 5(2), 12–25. Docherty, P., Forslin, J., & Shani, A. B. (2002). Creating sustainable work systems: Emerging perspectives and practice. London: Psychology Press. Dovidio, J. F., Allen, J. L., & Schroeder, D. A. (1990). Specificity of empathy-induced helping: Evidence for altruistic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 249–260. Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141. Eckersley, R. (1992). Environmentalism and political theory. Albany: State University of New York Press. Edwards, J. R. (1995). Alternatives to difference scores as dependent variables in the study of congruence in organizational research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64(3), 307–324. Ehnert, I. (2009). Sustainable human resource management: A conceptual and exploratory analysis from a paradox perspective. London: Springer. Ehnert, I., Parsa, S., Roper, I., Wagner, M., & Muller-Camen, M. (2015). Reporting on sustainability and HRM: A comparative study of sustainability reporting practices by the world’s largest companies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(1), 88–108. Epstein, M. J. (2018). Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental and economic impacts. London: Routledge. Fernández, E., Junquera, B., & Ordiz, M. (2003). Organizational culture and human resources in the environmental issue: A review of the literature. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(4), 634–656. Gavino, M. C., Wayne, S. J., & Erdogan, B. (2012). Discretionary and transactional human resource practices and employee outcomes: The role of perceived organizational support. Human Resource Management, 51(5), 665–686. Godard, J. (2001). High performance and the transformation of work? The implications of alternative work practices for the experience and outcomes of work. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54(4), 776–805.

2 Characteristics of Sustainable HRM System and Practices …

33

Godet-Cayre, V., Pelletier-Fleury, N., Le Vaillant, M., Dinet, J., Massuel, M., & Leger, D. (2006). Insomnia and absenteeism at work. Who pays the cost? Sleep-New York Then Westchester, 29(2), 179–184. Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 393–417. Grzywacz, J. G., & Butler, A. B. (2005). The impact of job characteristics on work-to-family facilitation: Testing a theory and distinguishing a construct. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(2), 97–109. Guest, D. E. (1997). Human resource management and performance: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 263–276. Guest, D. E. (2017). Human resource management and employee well-being: Towards a new analytic framework. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(1), 22–38. Hahn, T. (2015). Reciprocal stakeholder behavior: A motive-based approach to the implementation of normative stakeholder demands. Business and Society, 54(1), 9–51. Hauff, S., Alewell, D., & Hansen, N. K. (2014). HRM systems between control and commitment: Occurrence, characteristics and effects on HRM outcomes and firm performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 24(4), 424–441. Heinsman, H., de Hoogh, A. H., Koopman, P. L., & van Muijen, J. J. (2008). Commitment, control, and the use of competency management. Personnel Review, 37(6), 609–628. Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635–672. Jabbour, C. J. C., Santos, F. C. A., & Nagano, M. S. (2010). Contributions of HRM throughout the stages of environmental management: Methodological triangulation applied to companies in Brazil. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(7), 1049–1089. Jackson, S. E., Renwick, D. W. S., Jabbour, C. J. C., & Muller-Camen, M. (2011). State-of- the-art and future directions for green human resource management: Introduction to the special issue. Zeitschrift für Personalforschung/German Journal of Research in Human Resource Management, 99–116. Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1995). Understanding human resource management in the context of organizations and their environments. Annual Review of Psychology, 46(1), 237–264. Jackson, S. E., Schuler, R. S., & Jiang, K. (2014). An aspirational framework for strategic human resource management. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 1–56. Järlström, M., Saru, E., & Vanhala, S. (2016). Sustainable human resource management with salience of stakeholders: A top management perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–22. http:// doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3310-8. Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Giacalone, R. A. (2004). A values framework for measuring the impact of workplace spirituality on organizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(2), 129–142. Kalmi, P., & Kauhanen, A. (2008). Workplace innovations and employee outcomes: Evidence from Finland. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 47(3), 430–459. Kirk, A., & Brown, D. F. (2003). Employee assistance programs: A review of the management of stress and wellbeing through workplace counselling and consulting. Australian Psychologist, 38(2), 138–143. Kramar, R. (2014). Beyond strategic human resource management: Is sustainable human resource management the next approach? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(8), 1069–1089. Kulshrestha, P. (2007). Economics, ethics and business ethics: A critique of interrelationships. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 3(1), 33–41. Kumari, P. A., & Sita, V. (2009). Competency management as a tool of managing talent— An empirical analysis in indian organizations. Creating Wealth Through Strategic HR and Entrepreneurship, 149. Lavee, Y, McCubbin, H. I., & Olson, D. H. (1987). The effect of stressful life events and transitions on family functioning and well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 857–873.

34

S. Mariappanadar

Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (2002). Examining the human resource architecture: The relationships among human capital, employment, and human resource configurations. Journal of Management, 28(4), 517–543. Liao, L., Lin, T. P., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Corporate board and corporate social responsibility assurance: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(1), 211–225. Madden, L. T., Duchon, D., Madden, T. M., & Plowman, D. A. (2012). Emergent organizational capacity for compassion. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 689–708. Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A., & Walsh, J. P. (2009). Does it pay to be good … and does it matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Working Paper, Harvard University. Mariappanadar, S. (2003). Sustainable human resource management: The sustainable and unsustainable dilemmas of downsizing. International Journal of Social Economics, 30(8), 906–923. Mariappanadar, S. (2005). An emic approach to understand culturally indigenous and alien human resource management practices in global companies. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 13(2), 31–48. Mariappanadar, S. (2012). The harm indicators of negative externality of efficiency focused organizational practices. International Journal of Social Economics, 39(3), 209–220. Mariappanadar, S. (2013). A conceptual framework for cost measures of harm of HRM practices. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 5(2), 15–39. Mariappanadar, S. (2014a). Stakeholder harm index: A framework to review work intensification from the critical HRM perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 24(4), 313–329. Mariappanadar, S. (2014b). Sustainable HRM: A counter to minimize the externality of downsizing. In I. Ehnert, W. Harr, & K. J. Zink (Eds.), Sustainability and human resource management (pp. 181–203). Germany: Springer. Mariappanadar, S. (2016). Health harm of work from the sustainable HRM perspective: Scale development and validation. International Journal of Manpower, 37(6), 924–944. Mariappanadar, S. (2019). Sustainable human resource management: Strategies, practices and challenges. London: Macmillan Publisher. Mariappanadar, S., & Aust, I. (2018). The dark side of overwork: An empirical evidence of social harm of work from a sustainable HRM perspective. International Studies of Management & Organization, 47(4), 372–387. Mariappanadar, S., & Kramar, R. (2014). Sustainable HRM: The synthesis effect of high performance work systems on organisational performance and employee harm. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 6(3), 206–224. Menon, S. (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative psychological approach. Applied Psychology, 50(1), 153–180. Micklethwaith, J., & Wooldridge, A. (2003). The company: A short history of a revolutionary idea. New York: Modern Library Chronicles. Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61, 26–45. Mishra, R. K., Sarkar, S., & Kiranmai, J. (2014). Green HRM: Innovative approach in Indian public enterprises. World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 11(1), 26–42. Mossholder, K. W., Richardson, H. A., & Settoon, R. P. (2011). Human resource systems and helping in organizations: A relational perspective. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 33–52. Nishii, L., Lepak, D. P., & Schneider, B. (2008). Employee attributions of the “why” of HR practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 61(3), 503–545. Pandey, A., & Gupta, R. K. (2008). A perspective of collective consciousness of business organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(4), 889–898. Posthuma, R. A., Campion, M. C., Masimova, M., & Campion, M. A. (2013). A high performance work practices taxonomy: Integrating the literature and directing future research. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1184–1220.

2 Characteristics of Sustainable HRM System and Practices …

35

Purser, R. E., Park, C., & Montuori, A. (1995). Limits to anthropocentrism: Toward an ecocentric organization paradigm? Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 1053–1089. Ramsay, H., Scholarios, D., & Harley, B. (2000). Employees and high performance work systems: Testing inside the black box. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38, 501–531. 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. Renwick, D. W., Jabbour, C. J., 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. Rynes, S. L., Gerhart, B., & Minette, K. A. (2004). The importance of pay in employee motivation: Discrepancies between what people say and what they do. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 381–394. Salzmann, O., Ionescu-Somers, A., & Steger, U. (2005). The business case for corporate sustainability: Literature review and research options. European Management Journal, 23(1), 27–36. Seeman, J. (1989). Toward a model of positive health. American Psychologist, 44(8), 1099–1109. Shih, H., Chiang, Y., & Hsu, C. (2013). High performance work system and HCN performance. Journal of Business Research, 66(4), 540–546. Sinelnikov, S., Inouye, J., & Kerper, S. (2015). Using leading indicators to measure occupational health and safety performance. Safety Science, 72, 240–248. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465. Stanton, P., Gough, R., Ballardie, R., Bartram, T., Bamber, G. J., & Sohal, A. (2014). Implementing lean management/six sigma in hospitals: Beyond empowerment or work intensification? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(21), 2926–2940. Starkey, K., & Crane, A. (2003). Toward green narrative: Management and the evolutionary epic. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 220–237. Storey, J. (1995), Human resource management—A critical text (pp. 33–36 and 167–180). London: Routledge. 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. Tzabbar, D., Tzafrir, S., & Baruch, Y. (2017). A bridge over troubled water: Replication, integration and extension of the relationship between HRM practices and organizational performance using moderating meta-analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 27, 134–148. UN Global Compact. (2014). Overview of the UN Global Compact. http://nbis.org/nbisresources/ sustainable_development_equity/un_global_compact.pdf. Accessed on September 22, 2015. Van De Voorde, K., Paauwe, J., & Van Veldhoven, M. (2012). Employee well-being and the HRM— Organizational performance relationship: A review of quantitative studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(4), 391–407. Van Lange, P. (1999). The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 337–349. Van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2), 95–105. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. E. (1997). Perceptual and structural barriers to investing in natural capital: Economics from an ecological footprint perspective. Ecological Economics, 20(1), 3–24. Walton, R. E. (1999). From control to commitment in the workplace. In M. Poole (Ed.), Human resource management: Critical perspectives on business and management (pp. 15–29). Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516–531. World Health Organization. (1948). World Health Organization constitution. In Basic documents. Geneva: Author.

Chapter 3

Sustainable Human Resource Management: Making Human Resources More Responsible Ekta Sarma and Madasu Bhaskara Rao

Abstract The extant literature focuses on business or corporate level strategy of the organization and its architecture to match HRM with organizational strategies, creating HR strategy and HR systems. But the need to respond to the sustainability of organizations needs a paradigm shift in all aspects of HRM at all levels, both inside and outside. Thus, the debate is on human resources playing a critical role in addressing the sustainability concerns. This paper is a response to the demands of sustainability of organizations, society and environment, of which the role of human resources is of paramount importance. Keywords Sustainability · HRM · Stakeholders · Society · Employees

Introduction Sustainability increasingly influences an organization’s competence to build edge over the competitors (DuBois and DuBois 2012). The competing demands on employees, organizations, society and environment have resulted in several paradoxes. Employees are facing challenges between individual and team accomplishment performance and progression, and professional and personal life. Organizations are fixing pressures between internal and external environment. Societies are grappling with increasing demand for resources from organizations and scarcity of resources, particularly talented people. Environment is threatened by the excessive use of resources, resource depletion and the need for resources regeneration. The strategies for sustainable development involve the changes in the intangible aspects of the organization like the culture, attitude of employee towards organization and work and employee work behaviour (DuBois and DuBois 2012).

E. Sarma Ahmedabad University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India M. B. Rao (B) ICFAI Business School, ICFAI Foundation for Higher Education, Hyderabad, Telangana, India e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. Vanka et al. (eds.), Sustainable Human Resource Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5656-2_3

37

38

E. Sarma and M. B. Rao

In this context, organizations need to respond to the sustainability aspects at all levels, more so by transformational HR practices as employees contribute both towards the internal (within organization) and external (family and community) environment (Mariappanadar 2012). The goal of HRM is to contribute towards corporate sustainability by developing the HR systems which fosters sustainability (Ehnert 2014; Kramar 2014; Cohen et al. 2012; Ehnert and Harry 2012; Wilkinson et al. 2001). Different researchers have conceptualized the link between HRM and sustainability, namely ‘sustainable work systems’ (Docherty et al. 2009), ‘HR sustainability’ (Gollan 2000; Wirtenberg et al. 2007), ‘sustainable management of HRs’ (Ehnert 2006, 2009, 2011), ‘sustainable leadership’ (Avery 2005; Avery and Bergsteiner 2010) and ‘sustainable HRM’ (Mariappanadar 2003, 2012). The importance of HR deliverables for organizational, social and environmental outcomes for sustainability is highlighted by many researchers. Human resource’s sustainability is also a concern due to increasing attrition and stress; decreasing loyalty and productivity (Gollan 2000; Sennett 1998; Dunphy and Griffiths 1998), which demands an all-inclusive approach, to people management (Wilkinson 2005). Ehnert (2009) interpreting the connection between sustainability and human resource management posits that responsibility, efficiency, innovation and substanceoriented understanding provide the link between the two. The researchers claim that the aspirations of the people should be nurtured (Gollan 2000; Zaugg et al. 2001; Wilkinson et al. 2001) in a way that they continue to make positive contribution not only at the workplace but also to the family and community (Mariappanadar 2012) to achieve the goal of sustainable HRM. Zaugg et al. (2001) posit that sustainable HRM can be achieved by increasing the employability, empowering employees by implementing participative management and ensuring work–life harmony. The role of HRM both as means and end for achieving strategic objectives is also emphasized (Huselid et al. 2005). The extant literature focuses on business strategy and architecture for matching HRM with organizational strategies, creating HR strategy and HR systems. But the need to respond to the sustainability of organizations needs researching aspects of HRM at all levels and both inside and outside. Thus, the debate is on human resources playing critical role in addressing the sustainability concerns. This paper is a response to the demands of sustainability of organizations, society and environment; of which the role of human resources is of paramount importance.

Literature Review Evolution of HRM Scientific Management or Taylorism marked a paradigm shift in the management thought and planted the seeds for unitarist approach of HRM much before HRM

3 Sustainable Human Resource Management: Making …

39

evolved into a discipline. Taylor wrote in the book ‘The Principles of Scientific Management’ that the two undisputable objectives of the management in future would be the maximum good of both the employer and employee (Taylor 1911). Such a thesis of scientific management boosted industrial efficiency and perhaps created harmony at the workplace in the immediate term. But soon it was realized that the unquestionable advantages of Taylor’s work did not lead towards human betterment (Caldari 2007). Later the evolution of industrial relations pertaining to the institutions happened in the beginning of the twentieth century. The experiments in the behavioural domain like Hawthorne experiment paved the path to the ‘Human relations era’ which is said to be pioneered by Elton Mayo. With the increasing mechanization of the industry, the ‘Management Science’ became the important domain but alongside the ‘human aspects’ evolved into disciplines of ‘organizational behaviour’, ‘employment aspects’, ‘HRD’ and ‘HRM’. Once organizations started focusing on strategy, HRM followed suit and evolved into the ‘strategic HRM’ which is focused on aligning HR philosophy, policies and practices to that of organizational goals. All along, the philosophy driving HRM has been one of productivity and organizational prosperity. During the late 1980s, the focus of HR shifted from employee relations and employee welfare to high performance. The traditional HRM is imbued with the unitarist approach of managing employment relations (Greenwood and Van Buren 2017; Van Buren et al. 2011; Jansens and Steyaert 2009) which believes that employers and employees are members of a group which has a common purpose, but the researchers condemned this view as it is considered that if this were the case there would have been no conflict between employers and employees and the institution of collective bargaining would have been non-existent. Hence, the employer and employee must be members of two different groups, which might have some common purpose but also the distinctive interest of their respective groups, which is a ‘pluralist’ approach. Due to the conflict between the two parties, the need of trade unions arose, supporting the ‘radical’ approach. Though the pluralist and radical approach got the support from the researchers, it became evident that despite different interests, there is need to converge these to attain organizational performance (Guest 1989). The dominant view that prevailed was the need to align HR systems with the strategy of the business, so that the organizational goals could be achieved and this leads to the evolution of strategic HRM (Liu et al. 2007). The strategic HRM is organizational goal-centric and is calculative of ‘return on investment’ of all the organizational practices. The focus of HRM shifted from ‘employee-centric’ to the ‘strategy-centric’ (Wright and Snell 1998). Paradoxically, overemphasis on profits led to work harm and eventually strained employee relations.

40

E. Sarma and M. B. Rao

Sustainability Sustainability is a balancing act. Bromley (2018) explains the need for sustainability as the ethical consideration for one generation to decide about the natural and environmental legacy that it would leave for the generations to come. Rimanoczy and Pearson (2010) defined the sustainable organization which contributes towards the achievement of economic, environmental as well as social goal. The objective of developing sustainability is to balance the resource utilization of the current and the future generation (UN 1987). Later, the Earth charter (2000) broadened the scope by introducing the concept of global society which respects nature, human rights, justice and peace. The economic, social and environment sustainability has become a key measure to develop sustainable organization (Basiago 1999; Kahn 1995). Organizations process the resources into the utility-based products but many a times leading to ecological degradation. Organizations need to contribute towards resource regeneration (Schrader 2011; Gray 2010; Spence and Gray Rob 2008; Ehnert 2006; Muller-Christ 2001; Shrivastava 1995; Costanza 1992; Stead and Stead 1992; Starik and Carroll 1991) and should have robust corporate disclosures policies and transparency (Cormier and Magnan 2007; Tregidga and Milne 2006; Wheeler and Elkington 2001; Gray and Bebbington 2000). Studies also suggest that organization should vouch for green practices and global postings (Kareiva 2015; Schrader 2011; Boudreau et al. 2008; Hart 1997; Shrivastava and Hart 1995). This helps in community development and environment conservation (Moczadlo et al. 2014; Volkert et al. 2014; Mariappanadar 2003, 2012; Orlitzky et al. 2003; Branco and Rodrigues 2006). Paradox of sustainability aspects has been raised by many researchers (Hahn et al. 2015; Maon et al. 2008; Bansal 2002; Gladwin et al. 1995). Hahn et al. (2015) argue that the managers confront conflicts while attending to sustainability issues and proposed two cognitive frames one a business case frame and another a paradoxical frame and comparing the two frames explains that the cognitive content and structure of the two frames affect the understanding of the sustainability aspects. Dyllick and Muff (2016) state that the sustainable organizations should progress towards developing the processes for the reduction of adverse effects and enhance the positive effects on the society and the environment. They should contribute towards finding solutions to the issues causing disruption in the social, ecological and economic sustainability. Although various approaches are developed to understand sustainability, yet neither the meaning of ‘sustainability’ nor the mechanism to make it a reality is clear (Nayak 2017; Baumgartner and Quass 2010). The balancing of the socioeconomic and environmental aspect of sustainability is not deliberated upon, and even if some discussions have happened, they are around macro-level, i.e. at national and international level, but there is no consideration for micro-level systems (Nayak 2017).

3 Sustainable Human Resource Management: Making …

41

Triple Bottom Line Elkington (1994) proposed the measurement of sustainability which not only accounted for economic but also environmental and social performance of the organization and termed it as ‘triple bottom line’. To support the TBL concept, Savitz (2006) and Slaper and Hall (2011) quip that TBL is an inclusive approach for sustainable development as it incorporates the measurement of impact not only on traditional stakeholders, i.e. shareholders and financial performance but also on the people and the environment. The TBL approach recommends corporates to measure all the bottom line results including economic, environmental and social separately and should have sustainable effect in all the three spheres. The stakeholders expect firm and their leaders to be forthcoming and fostering responsible behaviour, which could be achieved through transforming the culture of organization to be more responsible, following a TBL approach, exhibiting citizenship behaviour (Maak 2007; Pless 2007). The leaders need to address the needs of different stakeholders as Maak and Pless (2006) state that the ethical leader–stakeholder relationship with multiple stakeholders is the critical responsibility of a leader in the networked society.

Stakeholder Theory Freeman’s work (1984) has pointed out the need to dismantle the corporate’s orientation towards only one stakeholder, i.e. shareholder. Stakeholder theory has broadly two dimensions: instrumental or normative (Margolis and Walsh 2003; Berman et al. 1999; Donaldson and Preston 1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory (IST) considers stakeholders as ‘means’ to attain corporate objectives (Letza et al. 2004; Jones and Wicks 1999; Ogden and Watson 1999; Greenley and Foxall 1997; Bowen et al. 1995; Donaldson and Preston 1995; Jones 1995; McGuire et al. 1988), whereas normative stakeholder theory (NST) believes that the stakeholder interests are an ‘end’ and not the ‘means’ to achieve corporate performance (Zakhem and Palmer 2017; Agle et al. 1999; Donaldson and Dunfee 1994). Friedman (2006) propounded the stakeholder theory and emphasized that the organization must value and take care of the interest of all their stakeholders and not only shareholders. It further states that the organization is a conglomerate of its various stakeholders, and the organization should aim to address the well-being, requirements and thoughts of its stakeholders. This theory has been discussed by different researchers in variety of ways leading to confusion. Stakeholder theory discusses the type of organization (Brenner and Cochran 1991), managers thought on managing (Parmar et al. 2017; Brenner and Molander 1977), the board members thought on the interest of business constituents (Wang and Dewhirst 1992) and also about managing the organization (Parmar et al. 2017; Clarkson 1991; Kreiner and Bhambri 1991; Halal 1990).

42

E. Sarma and M. B. Rao

Sustainable HRM ‘Sustainable human resource management’ has been critically examined by the researchers and academicians to align with the UN agenda of SDG (De Prins et al. 2014; Ehnert and Harry 2012). Grounded in the Elkington’s triple bottom line theory and Freeman’s stakeholder’s theory, Ehnert and Wes (2012) proposed paradox theory; Mariappanadar (2003, 2013) discussed negative externality theory. Besides that Green HRM (Jackson et al. 2011), reduction of work harm theory (Mariappanadar 2014), synthesis effect of sustainable HRM (Mariappanadar and Kramar 2014) were propounded. These theories explore the restrictions of HRM practices to deal with the ‘sustainability’ issues. Different researchers have conceptualized the connect of HRM and sustainability through different terminologies, viz. sustainable work systems (Docherty et al. 2002), HR sustainability (Wirtenberg et al. 2007; Gollan 2000), sustainable management of employees (Ehnert 2006, 2009, 2011), sustainable leadership (Avery and Bergsteiner 2010; Avery 2005) and sustainable HRM (Mariappanadar 2003, 2012). The importance of HR deliverables for organizational, social and environmental outcomes for sustainability is highlighted by many researchers. Ehnert (2009) interpreting the relationship of sustainability and HRM posits that responsibility, efficiency, innovation and substance-oriented understanding provide the link between the two. Other researchers claim that for sustainable HRM the aspirations of the people should be nurtured and pampered (Wilkinson et al. 2001; Gollan 2000) in a way that they continue to make positive contribution not only at the workplace but also at the family and community (Mariappanadar 2012). Zaugg et al. (2001) posit that sustainable HRM can be achieved by increasing the employees’ employability; empowering employees by implementing participative management (De Prins et al. 2018) and ensuring work–life harmony (De Prins et al. 2014; De Lange and Koppens 2007). Kramar (2014) emphasized on minimizing the negative impact on the ecological aspects as well as human and societal aspects and has identified the role of CEO’s, managers and other employees in facilitating this. The role of HRM, both as means and ends, for achieving strategic objectives is also emphasized (Huselid et al. 2005). Since the equitable wages, good working conditions and rights for marginalized workers are critical to the sustainable HRM, it makes labour unions one of the important stakeholders (De Prins et al. 2018; Preuss 2008). De Lange and Koppens (2007) proposed R-O-C model to differentiate between sustainable HRM and mainstream HRM, where they focus on reverence for the internal stakeholder, i.e. employee, are open with outside-in perspective regarding environmental issues and encourage continuity with futuristic perspective. The strategic approach to HRM has neglected ‘human’ element of HRM (Guest and Woodrow 2012; Van Burren et al. 2011; Lengnick-Hall et al. 2009; Bolton and Houlihan 2007), and sustainable HRM is an effort to revive ‘people orientation’ in the organization (Donnelly and Proctor-Thomson 2011). The approach intends to devise

3 Sustainable Human Resource Management: Making …

43

the sustainable HRM practices and systems which focus not only on organization but also on multiple stakeholders including employee, their family and also community and consequentially leads to positive results reinstating sustainable processes (De Prins et al. 2018; Paauwe et al. 2013; Kira 2002). Proposition: Sustainable HRM is not a new concept but a new approach with the redefined motive. There is abundant literature to support that human resource function is involved in the practices which definitely impact different stakeholders like employees, society, economy and also the future of the planet. The only need is to realign these practices with the sustainability motive.

Rationale of Proposition The foremost goal of the firm is value creation for all its stakeholders (Post et al 2002; Harrison et al. 2010). The expectations and demands of different stakeholders are conflicting as shown in Table 3.1. Hence, the manager now needs to strike a balance between the conflicting expectations. The stakeholder approach could assist the sustainable growth as this could enable the organization to understand the environment outside the organization. The literature on ‘sustainable HRM’ focuses on ‘employee’ both as organizational resource/asset and as social being. The researchers emphasize on the sustainable HRM approach which modifies the “sole organization-centric” HR to the one which also accounts for the welfare and development of employee and their family (De Prins et al. 2018; Paauwe et al. 2013; Kira 2002). Table 3.2 maps the literature across three broad parameters—employee as an individual, employee as social being and the community. Based on the literature related to different dimensions of sustainability and interdependence between HRM and organization, society and environment, the matrix has been developed reflecting the current HR practices and the way they address the Table 3.1 Stakeholder expectations

Stakeholders

Expectations

Stockholders

Increase in shareholder value

Customers

New products and services

Employees

Remuneration increase, job opportunities, pro-employee policies

Suppliers

More opportunities for increase in revenue and growth

Society/Local community

Employment availability and more jobs and better quality of life

Source Authors

44

E. Sarma and M. B. Rao

Table 3.2 Mapping literature of sustainable HRM Concepts

Points to be considered for sustainability

Action

Outcome

Supporting literature

Employee as an • Employee individual development and mentoring • Employee wellness • Employee volunteerism

• Training • Leadership pipeline • Mentoring • Medical benefits • Meditation and yoga workshops

• Financial • Environmental • Employee efficiency and Productivity • Shareholder value

Miles and Snow (1984), Schuler and Jackson (1987), Huselid (1995), Lundy and Cowling (1996), Pfeffer (1998), Lengnick-Hall et al. (2009)

Employee as a social being

• Work–life harmony • Flexibility

• Flexi-work schedules • Flexitime • Compulsory leaves

• Employee efficiency and productivity • Employee Happiness

Gollan (2000), Wilkinson et al. (2001), Zaugg et al. (2001), Thom and Zaugg (2004)

Community

• Development of society

• Jobs to disabled • Jobs to transgender • Social service • Green HR

• Talent pool extension • Social and community Development

Ambec and Lanoie (2008), Delmas et al. (2013), Christmann (2000)

Source Authors

sustainability concerns of different ecosystems—organization/economic, society and environment (Table 3.3).

Economic The economic sustainability has been considered as the basis of development and growth, and it was assumed that impact of economic growth would help in the poverty reduction. The approach of sustainable development expanded the scope to the ecological, social as well as economic sustainability. The economic growth and consumption which support over all sustainable development are advocated (Kahn 1995 as described in Basiago 1999).

3 Sustainable Human Resource Management: Making …

45

Table 3.3 Sustainability concerns and HRM Ecosystem

Sustainability concerns

Desired actions

Expected outcomes

Supporting literature

Organization

• High-performance work systems (HPWS) • Employee wellness and welfare • Professional–family life harmony • Professional growth and personal harm • Individual vs. collective

• Innovative job design • Healthcare and welfare programs • Life harmony initiatives • Learning for growth • Leadership pipeline • Rewards and recognition • Mentoring

• Improved job performance • Job satisfaction • Individual satisfaction • Family satisfaction • Stakeholders satisfaction

Miles and Snow (1984), Schuler and Jackson (1987), Lundy and Cowling (1996), Lengnick-Hall et al. (2009), Huselid (1995), Pfeffer (1998)

Society

• Individual social responsibility • Corporate social responsibility • Talent pipeline • Reciprocity

• Talent initiatives • Sustainable practices • Co-creation • Economic prosperity

• Social engagement • Employee fulfilment • Employer reputation and branding • Contribution to dynamic capabilities

Gollan (2000), Wilkinson et al. (2001), Thom and Zaugg (2004), Zaugg et al. (2001), Eisenhardt and Martin (2000), Teece (2007)

Environment

• Effective and efficient use of resources • Resource regeneration • Corporate disclosures policies and transparency

• Sustainable • Community practices Development • Global posting • Environment conservation

Ambec and Lanoie (2008), Christmann (2000), Delmas et al. (2013)

Source Authors

Society The UN-2015 propositions about sustainability have triggered the thought of integrating CSR activities with the sustainable development. This requires individual social responsibility, corporate social responsibility, talent pipeline and reciprocity. The companies in order to achieve this need to follow innovative job design, talent initiatives (Giraud et al. 2013; Shrivastava et al. 2014), green practices and co-creation (Giraud et al. 2013; Lompo and Trani 2013; Diongue et al. 2011). This leads to social

46

E. Sarma and M. B. Rao

engagement, employee fulfilment, employer reputation and branding and contribution to dynamic capabilities (Giraud et al. 2013; L’Huillier and Renouard 2015; Lompo and Trani 2013; Diongue et al. 2011; Moczadlo et al. 2014; Volkert et al. 2014). Corporate social responsibility affects the sustainable human development (Anstätt and Volkert 2016; Scholmerich 2013; Schrader 2011; Kalfagianni 2014). Schrader (2011) posits that certain CSR activities impact the ‘base of the pyramid’ by improving health conditions and reducing malnourishment of the poor population, which in turn build their capabilities by improving their cognitive abilities and health capabilities. Shrivastava et al. (2014) posit that CSR activities of the organization towards the society change the wage, education and training standards of the local population. Giraud et al. (2013) through a case study of a company following CSR strategy of providing employment and vocational training as income and employment generation for the population around the sites of the organization lead to co-creation and cooperation. The CSR activities directed towards the stakeholders in their supply chain develop the capabilities of the population in the vicinity of the concerned stakeholders contributing to the community development (Moczadlo et al. 2014; Volkert et al. 2014). Environment: Corporates are providing utility-based products and services to the customer but by depleting the environmental resource. The company needs to contribute towards resource regeneration (Costanza 1992; Starik and Carroll 1991; Stead and Stead 1992; Shrivastava 1995; Schrader 2011; Muller-Christ 2001; Ehnert 2006) and should have robust corporate disclosures policies and transparency (Wheeler and Elkington 2001; Gray and Bebbington 2000; Tregidga and Milne 2006; Cormier and Magnan 2007; Spence and Gray 2008; Gray 2010). The corporates should vouch for green practices and global postings (Schrader 2011; Kareiva 2015; Hart 1997; Shrivastava and Hart 1995; Boudreau et al. 2008). This helps in community development and environment conservation (Orlitzky et al. 2003; Branco and Rodrigues 2006; Mariappanadar 2003, 2012; Moczadlo et al. 2014; Volkert et al. 2014).

Discussion It is evident that the HRM field has been evolving, adapting to the needs of the context and introducing different human resource philosophies primarily focusing on organizational performance. The welfare administration and personnel management concept evolved into HRM and later into strategic HRM. It is almost after three decades HRM is taking a leap forward with the current development of ‘sustainable HRM’ and the ‘unitaristic’ HR is evolving into ‘pluralistic’ or ‘radical’ approach (Fox 1966) (Table 3.4). Strategic HRM is criticized for its harmful effects, and search is on to identify HR policies that reduce negative impacts without compromising on productivity. Researchers also believe that the organizations are required to develop and sustain

3 Sustainable Human Resource Management: Making …

47

Table 3.4 HRM approach HRM approach

Belief of HRM approach

Unitarist

Economic or profit motive

Systems approach—radical and pluralist Employee as a stakeholder, so important to employee welfare and grievance redressal Strategic HRM

Linking HR systems and the organizational strategy to maximize shareholder value

Corporate social responsibility

Including CSR, so considering multiple stakeholders—society, employee, consumer, etc. But even CSR is linked to strategic means to achieve higher organizational performance

Sustainable HRM

Looking at the needs of the society and environment and develop sustainable mechanisms

Source Authors

their human and social resources. This philosophy based on pluralism is shaping up sustainable HRM. Since sustainable organizations care for society and environment, HRM has to follow the suit and develop outward focus while sharpening its inward focus. The green practices are propagated in the organizations to contribute towards the ‘environmental sustainability’, and this has opened up an avenue for ‘green HRM’. ‘Green HRM’ is the outside-in perspective (Dubois and Dubois 2012; Renwick et al. 2012; Jackson et al. 2011) which is an integration of environment management and HRM. The extant literature in environment management shows that the organizational culture with the values facilitating long-term sustainability where employee has ‘openness’ to share his/her suggestions to contribute towards ecological balance is critical for the environmental management (Renwick et al. 2012). The extant literature on sustainability is wide yet the theories are evolving (Cabezas and Faith 2002). Although Dunphy et al. (2003) state that the sustainable organization is one which has continuous support of its various stakeholders but the question arose about the core framework of sustainable organization, which was researched and the frameworks like the European Corporate Sustainability Framework (van Marrewijk 2003), the Lowell Centre’s Principles of Sustainable Production (Veleva and Ellenbecker 2001), the Sustainability Balanced Scorecard (Figge et al. 2002), the Corporate Sustainability Model (Epstein et al. 2009), the Sustainable Leadership Pyramid (Avery and Bergsteiner 2011) and the Cognitive Mapping Approach (Kiewiet and Vos 2007) were introduced. After the framework, the other curiosity is to know the drivers or motives of the organization for sustainability as it is a widespread thought in the organizations that sustainability is a costly affair (Whelan and Fink 2016) although the research has proven this perception of organizations to be incorrect. The researchers have emphasized that the informal systems like organizational culture, leadership and

48

E. Sarma and M. B. Rao

human capital are the key aspects which drive the organizations towards sustainability (CIPD 2012; Eccles et al. 2011; Epstein et al. 2010; Linnenluecke and Griffiths 2010). Hence, the ‘sustainability performance’ is the intrinsic motivation of the organization. The Corporate Sustainability Model also discusses the importance of leadership and organizational culture to motivate human capital to follow the ‘sustainability performance’ of the organization and suggests that once the informal system is well-established then only the strategy, structure and programs for fostering the ‘sustainable performance’ can be aligned (Epstein et al. 2009). The organizational culture would reinforce the sustainability culture by propagating the organizational norms and values which support the organizational goals (Eccles et al. 2011) and would facilitate strategic decision making (CIPD 2012). Top-down approach for organizational sustainability has been widely accepted as it is believed that at the organizational level, top leadership develops a vision for sustainable organization and hence considers sustainability for strategic execution and implementation by embedding the values and beliefs that foster sustainable performance (Stoughton and Ludema 2012; Mirvis and Manga 2010; Linnenluecke and Griffiths 2010). Many researchers have advocated the role of employee in achieving organizational sustainability (Saifulina and Penela 2016; Polman and Bhattacharya 2016; Wolf 2012; Epstein and Roy 2001). The employee engagement for the sustainable performance of the organization is essential as Polman and Bhattacharya (2016) quip that the development of the sustainable organization requires the involvement of all employees top-most to the bottom-most.

Conclusion Review of literature both of ‘sustainability’ and ‘HRM’ hints towards a prevailing confusion about the role of HRM in sustainable development. But the threads could be untangled with the close look at the current HR function and only realigning them with the sustainability motive. The ‘sustainable HRM’, thus, needs the reorientation of HRM in the organization, making them responsible towards both the internal as well as external stakeholders. The human resource of the organization is a key factor for the sustainability analysis, and it is evident from the reporting of the ‘employee relations’ aspect of sustainability, as an exclusive part of the ‘sustainability report’ by most of the organizations like Nucor, Arcellor-Mittal, Enbridge Inc. and Smithfield Foods to name a few. The employee of the organization is the main contributor towards the attainment of organizational, environmental as well as social sustainability objective, and hence, it becomes all the more important and critical to focus on the employee sustainability by devising a mechanism for their physical and psychological wellbeing and facilitating their development.

3 Sustainable Human Resource Management: Making …

49

References Agle, B., Mitchell, R., & Sonnenfeld, J. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance and CEO values.The Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507–525. Ambec, S., & Lanoie, P. (2008). When and why does it pay to be green. Academy of Management Perspective, 22, 45–62. Anstätt, K., & Volkert, J. (2016). Corporate social responsibility impacts on sustainable human development: Recent findings and consequences. Ekonomski Vjesnik, 29(1), 193–210. Avery, G. C. (2005). Leadership for sustainable futures: Achieving success in a competitive world. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Avery, G. C., & Bergsteiner, H. (2010). Honeybees and locusts: The business case for sustainable leadership, 36–37. Sydney: Allen &Unwin. Avery, G. C., & Bergsteiner, H. (2011). Sustainable leadership: Honeybees and locusts approaches. New York, NY: Routledge. Bansal, P. (2002). The corporate challenges of sustainable development. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 122–131. https://doi.org/10.5465/AME.2002.7173572. Basiago, A. D. (1999). Economic, social, and environmental sustainability in development theory and urban planning practice. Environmentalist,19(2), 145–161. Baumgärtner, S., & Quaas, M. (2010). What is sustainability economics? Ecological Economics, 69(3), 445–450. Bolton, S. C., & Houlihan, M. (eds.). (2007). Searching for the human in human resource management: Theory, practice and workplace contexts (1st ed.). Management, Work and Organizations. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Boudreau, M., Watson, R.T., & Chen, A. (2008). From green IT to green IS. Cutter Benchmark Review, 8(5), 5–11. Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and resource based perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9071-z. Brenner, S. N., & Cochran, P. (1991). A stakeholder theory of the firm: Implications forbusiness and society theory and research. Proceedings of the International Society for Business and Society, Sundance, Utah. Brenner, S. N., & Molander, E. A. (1977). Is the ethics of business changing? Harvard Business Review, 58(1), 54–65. Bromley. (2018). Sustainability news—London Borough of Bromley. Available at online http://www. bromley.gov.uk/news/200105/sustainability. Accessed 18 June 2018. Cabezas, H., & Faith, B. D. (2002). Towards a theory of sustainable systems. Fluid Phase Equilibria, 194–197, 3–14. Caldari, K. (2007). Alfred Marshall’s critical analysis of scientific management. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 14(1), 55–78, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/096725 60601168405 Christmann, P. (2000). Effects of “best practices” of environmental management on cost advantage: The role of complementary assets. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 663–680. CIPD. (2012). Managing for sustainable employee engagement Developing a behavioural framework. A Report. Clarkson, M. B. E. (1991). Defining, evaluating, and managing corporate social performance: A stakeholder management model. In J. E. Post (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy (pp. 331–358). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Cohen, E., Taylor, S., & Muller-Camen, M. (2012). HRM’s role in corporate social and environmental sustainability. SHRM Report. Cormier, D., & Magnan, M. (2007). The revised contribution of environmental reporting to investors’ valuation of a firm’s earnings: An international perspective. Ecological Economics, 62(3/4), 613–626. Costanza. R. (Ed.). (1992). Ecological economics. New York: Columbia University Press.

50

E. Sarma and M. B. Rao

De Lange, W., & Koppens, J. (2007). De duurzame arbeidsorganisatie. Amsterdam: WEKA uitgeverij. De Prins, P., Stuer, D., & Gielens, T. (2018). Revitalizing social dialogue in the workplace: The impact of a cooperative industrial relations climate and sustainable HR practices on reducing employee harm. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. De Prins, P., Van Beirendonck, L., De Vos, A., & Segers, J. (2014). Sustainable HRM: Bridging theory and practice through the ‘Respect Openness Continuity (ROC)’-model. Management Revue, 25(4), 263–284. Delmas, M. A., Etzion, D., & Nairn-Birch, N. (2013). Triangulating environmental performance: What do corporate social responsibility ratings really capture? Academy of Management Perspective, 27(3), 255–267. Docherty, P., Forslin, J., Shani, A. B., & Kira, M. (2002). Emerging work systems. In P. Docherty, J. Forslin, & A. B. Shani (Eds.), Creating sustainable work systems (pp. 3–14). London and New York: Routledge. Docherty, P., Kira, M., & Shani, A. (Eds.). (2009). Creating sustainable work systems. London: Routledge. Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1994). Toward a unified concept of business ethics: Integrative social contract theory. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 85–91. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91. Donnelly, N., & Proctor-Thomson, S. B. (2015). Disrupted work: Teleworking in the aftermath of a natural disaster. New Technology. Work and Employment, 30(1), 47–61. DuBois, C. L. Z., & DuBois, D. A. (2012). Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(4), 480–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01482.x. Dunphy, D., & Griffiths, A. (1998). The sustainable corporation: Organisational renewal in Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 37, 87–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/103841119903 700108. Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A., & Benn, S. (2003). Organizational change for corporate sustainability. London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. Dyllick, T., & Muff, K. (2016). Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business: Introducing a typology from business-as-usual to true business sustainability. Organization & Environment, 29(2), 156–174. Eccles, R. G., Edmondson, A. C., & Serafeim, G. (2011). A note on water. Harvard Business School. Note 412–050. Ehnert, I. (2006). Sustainability issues in human resource management: Linkages, theoretical approaches, and outlines for an emerging field. Paper prepared for 21st EIASM SHRM Workshop, Aston, Birmingham, March 28–29, 2006. Ehnert, I. (2009). Sustainable human resource management: A conceptual and exploratory analysis from a paradox perspective. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag. Ehnert, I. (2011). Sustainability and human resource management: A model and suggestions for future research. In A. Wilkinson & K. Townsend (Eds.), The future of employment relations (pp. 215–237). London: Palgrave. Ehnert, I. (2014). Paradox as a lens for theorizing sustainable HRM. Sustainability and Human Resource Management, 247–271. Ehnert, I., & Harry, W. (2012). Recent developments and future prospects on sustainable human resource management: Introduction to the special issue. Management Revue, 23(3), 221–238. Ehnert, I., & Wes, H. (2012). Recent developments and future prospects on sustainable human resource management. Management Revue. Socio-economic Studies, 23(3), 221–238. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121. Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-Win-Win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90–100.

3 Sustainable Human Resource Management: Making …

51

Epstein, M., & Roy, M. (2001). Sustainability in action: Identifying and measuring the key performance drivers. Long Range Planning, 34, 585–604. Epstein, M. J., Buhovac, A. R., & Yuthas, K. (2010). Implementing sustainability: The role of leadership and organisational culture. Strategic Finance, 91(10), 41–47. Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C, Jansorn, N. R., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2009). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2002). The sustainability balanced scorecard— Linking sustainability management to business strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11, 269–284. Fox, A. (1966). Managerial ideology and labour relations. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 4(1–3), 366–378. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pittman, Marshfield, MA. Friedman, A., Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Giraud, G., Renouard, C., L’Huillier, H., De La Martiniere, R., & Sutter, C. (2013). Relational capability. A multidimensional approach. ESSEC Working Paper, No. WP1306. Paris: ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School. Gladwin, T., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20, 874–907. Gollan, P. (2000). Human resources, capabilities and sustainability. Gray, R. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability… and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(1), 47–62. Gray, R. H., & Bebbington, J. (2000). Environmental accounting, managerialism and sustainability: Is the planet safe in the hands of business and accounting? Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management, 1, 1–44. Greenwood, M., & Van Burren III, H. J. (2017). Ideology in HRM scholarship: Interrogating the ideological performativity of ‘New Unitarism’. Journal of Business Ethics,142, 663–678. Guest, D. E. (1989). Human resource management: Its implications for industrial relations. In (ed.), J. Storey, New perspectives in human resource management. Routledge, London. Guest, D. E., & Woodrow, C. (2012). Exploring the boundaries of human resource managers’Responsibilities. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(1), 109–119. Hahn, T., & Aragón-Correa, J. A. (2015). Toward cognitive plurality on corporate sustainability in organizations: The role of organizational factors. Organization & Environment, 28(3), 255–263. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615604446. Halal, W. E. (1990). The new management: Business and social institutions in the information age. Business in the Contemporary World, 2(2), 41–54. Hart, S. L. (1997). Beyond greening: Strategies for sustainable world. Harvard business review. Available at online http://info.psu.edu.sa/psu/fnm/ymelhem/psu%20courses/business%20ethics/ ethics%20and%20green/Beyond%20greening-%20Strategies%20for%20a%20Sustainable% 20World[1].pdf. Accessed 18 June 2018. Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 58–74. https:// doi.org/10.1002/smj.801. Huselid, M. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635–672. Huselid, M. A., Becker, B. E., & Beatty, R. W. (2005). The workforce scorecard: Managing human capital to execute strategy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Jackson, S. E., Renwick, D., Jabbour, C. J. C., & Muller-Camen, M. (2011). State-of-the-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/10.1177/239700221102 500203.

52

E. Sarma and M. B. Rao

Jansens, M., & Steyaert, C. (2009). HRM and performance: A plea for reflexivity in HRM studies. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 143–155. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008. 00812.x. Jones, T. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. The Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437. Retrieved from June 4, 2020, http://www. jstor.org/stable/258852. Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24, 206–221. Kahn, M. (1995). Concepts, definitions, and key issues in Ž. Sustainable development: The outlook for the future. Proceedings of the 1995 International Sustainable Development Research Conference, Manchester, England, March 27–28, 1995, Keynote Paper, pp.2–13. Kalfagianni, A. (2014). Addressing the global sustainability challenge. The potential and pitfalls of private governance from the perspective of human capabilities. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(2), 307–320. Kareiva, P. (2015). The boom interview: A conservation scientist at home in a megacity. Boom: A Journal of California, 5(3), 32–41. Kiewiet, D. J., & Vos, J. F. J. (2007). Organisational sustainability: A case for formulating a tailor– made definition. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 9(1), 1–18. Kira, M. (2002). Moving from consuming to regenerative work. In P. Docherty, J. Forslin and A. B. (Rami) Shani (Eds,). Creating sustainable work systems: Emerging perspectives and practice (pp. 29–39). London: Routledge. Kramar, R. (2014). Beyond strategic human resource management: Is sustainable human resource management the next approach? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(8), 1069–1089. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.816863. Kreiner, P., & Bambri, A. (1991). Influence and information in organization-stakeholder relationships. In J. E. Post (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy, 12 (pp. 3–36). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Lengnick-Hall, M. L., Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Andrade, L. A., & Drake, B. (2009). Strategic human resource management: The evolution of the field. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 64–85. Linnenluecke, M. K., & Griffiths, A. (2010). Corporate sustainability and organizational culture. Journal of World Business, 45(4), 357–366. Liu, Y. (2007). The value of human resource management for organizational performance. Business Horizons, 50(6), 503–511. Lompo, K., & Trani, J.-F. (2013). Does corporate social responsibility contribute to human development in developing countries? Evidence from Nigeria. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 14(2), 241–265. Lundy, O., & Cowling, A. (1996). Strategic human resource management. London: Routledge. Maak, T. (2007). Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 329–343. Maak, T., & Pless, N. (2006). Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society–A Relational perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 99–115. Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2008). Designing and implementing corporate social responsibility: An integrative framework grounded in theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 71–89. Margolis, J., & Walsh, J. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268. Mariappanadar, S. (2003). Sustainable human resource strategy: The sustainable and unsustainable dilemmas of retrenchment. International Journal of Social Economics, 30(8), 906–923. Mariappanadar, S. (2012). Harm of efficiency oriented HRM practices on stakeholders: An ethical issue for sustainability. Society and Business Review, 7(2), 168–184. https://doi.org/10.1108/174 65681211237628.

3 Sustainable Human Resource Management: Making …

53

Mariappanadar, S. (2014). Stakeholder harm index: A framework to review work intensification from the critical HRM perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 24(4), 313–329. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2014.03.009. McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 854–872. Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1984). The network firm: A spherical structure built on a human investment philosophy. Organizational Dynamics, 23, 218–235. Mirvis, P., & Manga, J. (2010). Global challenges in responsible business, In Smith, N. C., Bhattacharya, C. B., Vogel, D. & Levine, D. I. (Eds.), Integrating corporate citizenship: Leading from the middle (pp. 78–106). C ambridgeCambridge University Press. Moczadlo, R., Strotmann, H., & Volkert, J. (2014). Corporate contributions to developing health capabilities. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 16(4), 549–566. Muller-Christ, G. (2001). NachhaltigesRessourcenmanagement: Einewirtschaftso¨kologischeFundierung. Marburg: Metropolis. Nayak, A. K. J. R. (2017). Optimal institutional architecture of farmer producer organizations for sustainable value creation for small and marginal farmers in India studies in business, economics. In ed. Gyanendra Mani et al., Financing Agriculture Value Chains in India. Springer Nature. Ogden, S., & Watson, R. (1999). Corporate performance and stakeholder management: Balancing shareholder and customer interests in the U.K. privatized water industry. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 526–538. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–411. Paauwe, J., Boon, C., Boselie, J. P. P. E. F., & den Hartog, D. (2013). In J. Paauwe, D. M. Guest, & P. M. Wright (Eds.), HRM & performance: Achievements & challenges (pp. 61–78). Chichester: Wiley. Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 403–445. Pfeffer, J. (1998). Seven practices of successful organizations. California Management Review, 40(2), 96–124. Pless, N. (2007). Understanding responsible leadership: Role identity and motivational drivers. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 437–456. Polman, P., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2016). Engaging employees to create a sustainable business. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 14(4), 34–39. Post, J. E., Preston, L., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the corporation: Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Preuss, H. (2010). The conceptualisation and measurement of mega sport event legacies. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12(3–4), 207–228. Renwick, D., Redman, T., & Maguire, S. (2012). Green human resource management: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), 1–14. Rimanoczy, I., & Pearson, T. (2010). Role of HR in the new world of sustainability. Industrial and Commercial Training, 42(1), 11–17. Saifulina, N., & Carballo-Penela, A. (2017). Promoting sustainable development at an organizational level: An analysis of the drivers of workplace environmentally friendly behaviour of employees. Sustainable Development, 25, 299–310. Savitz, A. (2006). The triple bottom line. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Scholmerich, M. J. (2013). On the impact of corporate social responsibility on poverty in Cambodia in the light of Sen’s capability approach. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 2(1), 1–33. Schrader, C. (2011). Beitrage multinationaler Unternehmen zur Nachhaltigen Entwicklung in Base of the Pyramid-Markten. Munchen und Mering: Rainer Hampp Verlag. Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Linking competitive strategies with human resource management practices. Academy of Management Executive, 1(3), 207–219. Sennett, R. (1998). The corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. New York, NY and London: W.W. Norton and Company.

54

E. Sarma and M. B. Rao

Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. The Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 936. Shrivastava, P., & Hart, S. (1995). Creating sustainable corporations. Business Strategy and the Environment, 4(3), 154–165. Shrivastava, S., Jones, R., Selvarajah, C., & Van Gramberg, B. (2014). Organisational justice. A Senian perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–18. Slaper, T. F., & Hall, T. J. (2011). The triple bottom line: What is it and how does it work? Indiana Business Review, 86(1). Spence, C., & Gray Rob, H. (2008). Social and environmental reporting and the business case. ACCA research report 98, London. Starik, M., & Carroll, A. B. (1991). In search of beneficence: Reflections on the connection between firm social and financial performance. In K. Paul (Ed.), Contemporary issues in business and society in the United States and abroad (pp. 79–108). New York: Edwin Mellen Press. Stead, W. E., & Stead, J. G. (1992). Management for a small planet. Newbury Park: Sage. Stoughton, A. M., & Ludema, J. (2012). The driving forces of sustainability. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25(4), 501–517. Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of management. Newyork: Harper and Brothers. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of sustainable enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. Thom, N., & Zaugg, R. J. (2004). Nachhaltiges und innovatives Personalmanagement: Spitzengruppenbefragung in europäischen Unternehmungen und Institutionen. In E. J. Schwarz (Ed.), Nachhaltiges Innovations management (pp.217–245). Wiesbaden: Gabler. Tregidga, H., & Milne, M. J. (2006). From sustainable management to sustainable development: A longitudinal analysis of a leading New Zealand environmental reporter. Business Strategy Environment, 15, 219–241. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.534. Van Buren III, H. J., Greenwood, M., & Sheehan, C. (2011). Strategic human resource management and the decline of employee focus. Human Resource Management Review, 21(3), 209–219. Van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 95–105. Veleva, V., & Ellenbecker, M. (2001). Indicators of sustainable production: Framework and methodology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 9, 519–549. Volkert, J., Strotmann, H., & Moczadlo, R. (2014). Sustainable human development: Corporate challenges and potentials. The case of Bayer CropScience’s cotton seed production in rural Karnataka (India). UFZ Discussion Papers No. 5/2014—GeNECA 11. Leipzig: Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research GmbH. Wang, J., & Dewhirst, H. D. (1992). Boards of directors and stakeholder orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 115–123. Wheeler, D., & Elkington, J. (2001). The end of the corporate environmental report? Or the advent of cybernetic sustainability reporting and communication. Business Strategy and the Environment, 10, 1–14. Whelan, T., & Fink, C. (2016). The comprehensive business case for sustainability. Harvard Business Review, 21. Wilkinson, A. (2005). Downsizing, rightsizing or dumbsizing? Quality, human resources and the management of sustainability. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 16(8–9), 1079– 1088. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360500163326 Wilkinson, A., Hill, M., & Gollan, P. (2001). The sustainability debate. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(12), 1492–1502. https://doi.org/10.1108/014435701 10410865. Wirtenberg, J., Harmon, J., Russell, W. G., & Fairfield, K. D. (2007). HR’s role in building a sustainable enterprise: Insights from some of the world’s best companies. Human Resource Planning, 10–19. Wolf, J. (2012). Improving the sustainable development of firms: The role of employees, business strategy and the environment. New York: John Wiley & Sons, ERP Environment.

3 Sustainable Human Resource Management: Making …

55

Wright, P., & Snell, S. (1998). Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibility in strategic human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 756–772. Zakhem. A., Palmer, D. E. (2017). Normative Stakeholder Theory. In David M. Wasieleski, J. Weber (ed.), Stakeholder Management (Business and Society 360, Vol. 1), Emerald Publishing Limited. Zaugg, R., Blum, A., & Thom, N. (2001). Nachhaltiges personal management: Spitzengruppenbefragung in europäischen Unternehmungen und Institutionen. Arbeitsbericht Nr. 51 des Instituts für Organisation und Personal, Universität Bern, Bern.

Chapter 4

Incorporating Psychological Contract into the Sustainable HRM Model Pattanee Susomrith

Abstract Sustainable human resource management (HRM) is heralded as the successor to strategic HRM by providing a more holistic view of people management that balances the goals of the present without jeopardising the needs of the future. Shifting focus from immediate, short-term gains to future, long-term gains benefits employees, the organisation and society resulting in a state that is sustainable. To achieve this state, it has never been more critical that the employee–employer relationship is established and nurtured. An important aspect of this relationship is the concept of the psychological contract. HRM policies and practices developed for sustainability must also consider their impact on psychological contracts within their HR capital. To conceptualise the interaction between sustainable HRM and psychological contract, a theoretical framework is proposed, based on the Ehnert (2009) model and expanded to include the concept of psychological contract which may be used to guide future research in this field. Keywords Sustainable human resource management · Psychological contract · HRM · People management

Introduction As organisations embrace the concepts of sustainable human resource management (HRM) with the aim of ensuring a productive and motivated workforce, greater focus is being placed on developing and retaining employees. An important aspect of an employee’s willingness to remain with an organisation and contribute to its success is the unwritten psychological contract. The predecessor to sustainable HRM and strategic human resource management (SHRM) aimed to align people management policies and procedures to organisational strategies. To this end, research centred on the influence of employee policies and procedures on economic outcomes (Boudreau and Ramstad 2005; Douglas Pugh and Subramony 2016; Pfeffer 1998). Even when P. Susomrith (B) School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. Vanka et al. (eds.), Sustainable Human Resource Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5656-2_4

57

58

P. Susomrith

employee outcomes such as behaviour and productivity were considered, these were linked back to the organisation’s outcomes with no regard of the value to the employee (Lengnick-Hall et al. 2009). Over the last 30 years, successful organisations have adapted to survive in a dynamic knowledge-based economy. These organisations have begun to realise that the previous market models which focused on short-term gains would not ensure long-term success (Docherty et al. 2002; Hahn and Figge 2011). This leads to the emergence of a new approach, termed sustainable human resource management (sustainable HRM), which recognises the influence of people management policies and procedures on both financial and human outcomes (Clarke 2011; Ehnert 2009; Mariappanadar 2012). This approach also encompasses the influence of HRM on ecological outcomes (Dunphy et al. 2007). An important concept in attracting and retaining the key resource in an organisation, human resource, is the psychological contract. The psychological contract describes the perceived reciprocal obligations between an employee and employer and ultimately affects the attitudes and behaviours between the two parties. The outcome of a psychological contract is a motivated and productive employee (Usmani and Khan 2017). On the other hand, a breach of the psychological contract has the potential to reduce motivation, commitment and effort on the part of the employee and increase absenteeism and turnover intension. These outcomes are a result of negative emotions such as frustration, disappointment and anger (Rousseau et al. 2013). A healthy psychological contract is aligned with the goals of sustainable HRM and enhances organisational performance through improved cooperation and communication between employees and employer. The cultivation and maintenance of psychological contracts have always been important, but it is even more so within a sustainable HRM environment to attract and preserve the organisation’s human capital. Proposed sustainable HRM models, such as the Ehnert (2009) and Kramar (2014) models, mention the psychological contract as a component of the individual effect although they ignored the broader implications and feedback effect on the human capital. This paper provides a framework that can be used to frame sustainable HRM and incorporates the effects of the psychological contract concept. This paper commences with an examination of the sustainability concept and then reviews the transition of strategic HRM to sustainable HRM. Next, the concept of psychological contract is discussed followed by a review of the sustainable HRM model. The integration of psychological contract into the sustainable HRM model is then discussed prior to presenting the extended sustainable HRM model based on the Ehnert (2009) and Kramar (2014) sustainable HRM models.

Sustainability Concept The globalised economic growth and corresponding ecological degradation of the 1980s lead to the establishment of the Brundtland Commission by the United Nations (Brundtland 1987). The goal of the Brundtland Commission was to (1) propose

4 Incorporating Psychological Contract into the Sustainable …

59

long-term environmental strategies to achieve sustainable development, (2) recommend methods of cooperation amongst developing counties, (3) propose means for the international community to deal with environmental concerns and (4) develop an understanding of long-term environmental issues. The Brundtland Commission published the Brundtland Report in 1987 which coined the term ‘Sustainable Development’ and defined three pillars upon which this concept is built, economic, social and environmental. The Brundtland approach has been applied to businesses and builds on the same three pillars by proposing that financial performance, social and ecological/environmental impacts should be considered dimensions of organisational performance (Elkington 1997). This gives rise to three approaches to sustainability: responsibility-oriented approach, efficiency- and innovation-oriented approach and substance-oriented approach. The responsibility-oriented approach includes both internal and external impacts to an organisation and both short- and long-term impacts to all stakeholders. Considered the stakeholder approach to sustainability, importance is given to the interconnection and interaction of the organisation, social systems and the environment (Benn and Bolton 2011). This results in the need to accept ambiguity, uncertainty and deal with different perspectives within the organisation. The efficiency- and innovationoriented approach is based on the fact that even decisions seemingly driven by the aims of sustainability can be reduced to sustaining the organisation and therefore benefitting the owners of the organisation. The substance-oriented approach seeks to maintain balance between consumption and reproduction of resources to ensure the organisation’s survival in the future. Organisations develop an understanding of the value of people within the organisation and dependence upon external institutions such as educational and training organisations. Sustainability continues to be an important issue demonstrated by the 2015’s UN General Assembly’s publication of ‘The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’ (United Nations, General Assembly 2015, p. 12). This initiative’s ultimate goal is to develop economies that are people-oriented, innovative and sustainable. This goal may be broken down to 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs). These goals rest on the three sustainable dimensions—economic, social and environmental—and apply to people, planet, prosperity, peace and partnership which are otherwise known as the ‘five Ps’. The SDGs for ‘people’ and ‘prosperity’ are to develop appropriate conditions to encourage sustained economic growth, efficient resource allocation, prosperity and reasonable work environments. It is envisaged that these goals may be achieved by organisations working towards developing well-educated, healthy and productive employees.

60

P. Susomrith

Transition from Strategic HRM to Sustainable Human Resource Management The activities related to the management of people who work for an organisation are termed human resource management (HRM) (Kramar 2014). When these activities are focused on improving organisational performance or their impact is measured against organisational performance, then this approach is termed as strategic human resource management (SHRM) (Boxall et al. 2008). Wright and McMahan (1992, p. 298) define SHRM as a series of planned human resource activities and deployments designed to achieve an organisation’s goals. Based on this premise, SHRM seeks to align HRM activities and organisation’s strategies with the aim of improving the organisation’s performance by reducing turnover, improving productivity, reducing recruitment and training costs and supporting a positive social outcome (Armstrong and Brown 2019; Boxall and Macky 2009; Kaufman 2015). One of the developments from SHRM has been high-performance work systems (HPWS) encompassing recruitment and selection, employee development and career planning processes which are designed to complement each other and improve productivity (Combs et al. 2006; Macky and Boxall 2008; Pfeffer 1998). Even with the advantages offered by SHRM, the current theories are unable to explain the variability of HRM practices within organisations or consider the difficulties as a result of ambiguities, paradoxes, dualities and dilemmas (Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars 2000). These arise from the dualities and dilemmas created by the implementation of HRM policies (Hampden-Turner 1990). For example, HRM managers are tasked with reducing labour costs to improve organisational performance while simultaneously ensuring employees’ work–life balance. With strategic HRM’s key focus being the development of human resources for the creation of competitive advantage (Colbert 2004), human resources are considered as a pool of skills derived from a pool of resources. Although these resources may be adequate when resources are plentiful, it becomes problematic when resources are scarce. Of even greater concern is the situation where the ability of the source of resources to generate and supply new resources wanes. Based on SHRM theory, the response to a diminishing resource pool would be to improve HR recruitment and retention efforts. It has been realised that this approach is limited as from a sustainability point of view, simply changing internal processes is inadequate for the organisations long-term performance. Sustainable HRM differs from SHRM by focusing on the sources of human resources and the effect HRM has on these sources (Ehnert 2009). Sustainable HRM takes an active approach to influence the source of resources whereas SHRM attempts to align with organisational strategy and economic outcomes while dealing with the current state of the labour market. An analysis of the literature linking sustainability and HRM gives light to eleven characteristics of sustainable HRM including care of employee, care of the environment, long-term approach, profitability, employee participation, employee development, flexibility, employee cooperation, fairness and equality, compliance and external partnership (Stankeviciute and Savaneviciene 2018). Majority of these

4 Incorporating Psychological Contract into the Sustainable …

61

eleven characteristics are employee focused. Care of employee encompasses health and safety, work–life balance, remuneration and workload. Employee participation facilitates social interaction between employer and employee, encourages human growth and satisfies social needs. The development of groups of skills and capabilities required in the future is termed as employee development. This is closely coupled to flexibility which required multi-skilled and adaptable employees.

Psychological Contract Both the economic and behavioural outcomes of an organisation are influenced by the employer–employee relationship which in turn is affected by HRM practices. The psychological state of employees is an important factor in determining how employees behave and react at work. Disengaged employees withdraw and uncouple themselves from work and contribute less. Employees who perceive a variance between what they believe was promised by the employer and what they received may seek alternative opportunities outside the organisation. This results in an economic loss to the organisation in addition to a loss of skills and experience. Researchers are becoming aware that HRM procedures and practices do affect the source of human resources. An area of research that has the potential to influence the source of human resources is the concept of psychological contract. The psychological contract concept has proven itself a useful tool to explore the factors that influence employee motivation and ongoing commitment. Stemming from social exchange theory, the psychological contract concept developed as Levinson et al. (1962) combined the set of mutual expectations between employee and employer whether perceived or not. In the late 1970s, the concept of violation of psychological contract was introduced. It was not until the 1990s that interest in the psychological contract was revived by Rousseau (1989, 1990) coining the term ‘transactional psychological contracts’. This term captured the current labour market trend where employment was perceived as a transaction of hours worked for pay and training. This differed from the previous understanding of employment as being a long-term relationship based on loyalty and job security. Rousseau proposed that individuals could have psychological contracts with an organisation but not vice versa. The operation of a psychological contract requires (1) perceived employee obligations, (2) perceived organisation/employer obligations and (3) perceived fulfilment/violation of the employer obligations (Sonnenberg et al. 2011). Guest (2004b) noted that more flexible forms of employment have complicated the workplace, while simultaneously managers are demanding more streamlined employment relation systems. In addition, market pressures are rapidly changing the employee–employer relationship which cannot be explained by traditional employment relation literature. The concept of psychological contract, which encompasses

62

P. Susomrith

the needs and implicit expectations of the employee, has found favour in this environment by acknowledging the indeterminacy and strong social aspect of the employment relationship (Persson and Wasieleski 2015). A recent review of psychological contract research by Coyle-Shapiro et al. (2019) revealed the current and emerging themes in addition to a summary of the past trends. The past research focused on psychological contract breach in an attempt to explain how employees react to perceived broken promises. The contract breach resulted in negative consequences which were generally directed to the organisation. Social exchange theory, norm of reciprocity and affective events theory were used to explain the effects of contract breach. More recent trends in psychological contract research have expanded both the understanding of how breach occurs (processual view of breach) and the outcomes of the breach (outcomes directed towards third parties internal or external to the organisation and outcomes directed towards the employee such as employee’s health). An emerging area of psychological contract research is the expansion of resource exchange to encompass intrinsic rewards in addition to economic rewards. Blau (1964) named this ‘ideological rewards’. This concept enables employees who have an ideological component to their psychological contract to consider as part of the reciprocal exchange that the organisation provides a means for the employee to contribute to that particular cause.

The Sustainable HRM Model Sustainable HRM literature proposes that sources of resources are not static entities to which organisations need to adapt but are influenced by HRM procedures, practices and strategies. Researchers are discovering that this influence can be both positive and negative with the effects being felt either immediately or sometime in the future (Wright and Snell 2005). For example, cost-cutting strategies resulting in downsizing efforts now could have an effect on the organisation’s ability to source suitably trained and motivated staff in the future. As such organisations need to adopt a more reflective approach to control side effects and feedback effects on the current employees and sources of resources. Sustainable HRM aims to maintain the HR base over an extended period of time. Unlike other types of resources, HR resources have proven to be more complicated, encompassing such factors as well-being, need for rest and recuperation and the need for progress. Adding to the complexity is the fact that these factors are resource dependent, where one employee is able to handle stressful conditions and is motivated by the stress, another employee may be incapacitated. A key element of sustainable HRM is to simultaneously maintain the HR base while deploying HR efficiently and effectively. Basic sustainability strategies include (1) developing the HR base and source of HR (2) controlling the side and feedback effects, (3) developing mutual exchange relationships, and (4) sustaining social legitimacy (Ehnert 2009). Based upon the integrative model of strategic HRM, Ehnert (2009) developed the sustainable HRM model which was adapted and extended from the Martin-Alcazar et al.

4 Incorporating Psychological Contract into the Sustainable …

63

(2005) model. The major extension included the addition of the ‘Source of HR’ component which is influenced by the socio-economic context and in turn influences the organisation’s human capital. The previous HRM models had not included this factor. The second major effect was the incorporation of the Sustainability Interpretation Matrix which included organisational, social and individual effects together with their rationales and tensions between normative, efficiency and substance. For each effect (organisational, social and individual), the organisation’s interpretation of sustainability defined combination of normative-efficiency-substance characteristics. Normative characteristics focused on responsibility, ethics, social legitimacy and well-being, whereas efficiency characterises aimed to achieve sustained competitive advantage, innovation, human capital and reduce costs. The substance characteristics were more concerned with long-term supply, employability, work–life balance and health. The Ehnert (2009) sustainable HRM model was developed further by Kramar (2014) by including the ecological effects together with organisational, social and individual effects. In addition, the reciprocal influence of these effects on HRM was also incorporated. Both the Ehnert (2009) and subsequently the Kramar (2014) sustainable HRM models only consider the concept of psychological contract to be a component of the individual effects of sustainable HRM. In the sustainable HRM models, the sustainability interpretations must be tuned for each organisation, and these interpretations change over time. The feedback loop to the organisational context and the socioeconomic, ecological, institutional and technological contexts influence the source of HR and the organisations HR base. What has been overlooked in these models is the more complex interaction of factors that influence an employee’s perception of the employment contract, not only individual effects but also organisational, social and ecological effects must be considered as a whole. From the Ehnert (2009) and Kramar (2014) sustainable HRM models, organisational effects correspond to the normative-efficiency-substance characteristics and are also expectations of employees in regard to their workplace include responsibility ethics, care, good employment relationships, workplace quality and healthy workforce. To some degree, employees would consider their employer to be obligated to meet some or all of these factors and therefore form part of the employee’s psychological contract. The efficiency factors of sustained competitive advantage, innovativeness and productivity are of more interest to the employer than the employee. Other than the side effect of ensuring the viability and sustainability of the organisation and therefore providing job security, the efficiency factors are less likely to be part of an employee’s psychological contract. Similarly, the social effect’s normative characteristics including social legitimacy, accountability, trust, quality of life and good relations are areas where employees would consider employers are obligated to deliver as compensation for the employee’s contribution to the organisation. The social effect’s efficiency and substance characteristics including human capital, viability of HR sources and ‘employer of choice’ are less likely to be considered as obligations to provide for the employee.

64

P. Susomrith

The individual characteristics including well-being, quality of life, sense of identity, employability, work–life balance, learning, health, satisfaction and motivation are distinct candidates for inclusion in an employee’s psychological contract. These perceived promises would keep the employee safe at work, allow the employee to undertake interesting and fulfilling tasks and continue to gain experience and skills to remain employable. These effects span the normative, efficiency and substance characteristics. The ecological effect’s normative–efficiency–substance characteristics include energy use, paper use, travel to work, green products and services and volunteer programs. The influence of these characteristics on an employee’s psychological contract will be dependent on an employee’s convictions and beliefs regarding sustainability. An employee concerned with ecological sustainability may sacrifice more traditional rewards to work for an organisation whose sustainability interpretation is in alignment with the employee’s beliefs. This type of psychological contract has been termed as ideology-infused psychological contracts (IPCs) (Dixon-Fowler et al. 2019).

Psychological Contract Concept Within Sustainable HRM A typical psychological contract forms as follows: a potential employee will commence forming an impression of the organisation prior to attending their first interview. The impression will be developed upon the organisation’s publicly available information although the candidate will already have developed general values about reciprocity which were formed from family, friends and social interactions (Morrison and Robinson 2004). This impression of the organisation will continue to develop with each contact the candidate has with the organisation. By the time, the candidate receives an offer of employment they would have developed their initial psychological contract based upon these impressions and information conveyed to them by the organisation either explicitly or implicitly (Wanous and Reichers 2000). The psychological contract is different for each individual as it is formed from the individual’s values and perception of the expectations and obligations conveyed during their interaction with the organisation. This psychological contract will continue to form over the initial stages of employment as the employee discovers organisational boundaries, norms and develops relationships with their peers. Dulac et al. (2006) found that employee’s psychological contract formed over a 12-month period. Once formed, the psychological contract remained relatively fixes with ongoing minor modifications to cater for environmental and organisational changes. The content of a psychological contract will be as individual as the employee and reflect the factors and values that the employee considers important. Even two employees working in the same organisation and in the same role may have two very different psychological contracts. Going beyond the explicitly defined employment contract which specifies the required number of working hours, pay rates, holidays and training support, the psychological contract covers career prospects, job security,

4 Incorporating Psychological Contract into the Sustainable …

65

pay raises, social responsibility, support for the community, social responsibility, justice, employee relations, fairness, workplace quality and job security. These factors may be categorised into the same four groups as defined for the sustainable HRM model—organisational, social, individual and ecological. Within a sustainability context, the mix of organisational, social, individual and ecological effects will be organisation dependent. Over time, in response to the changing socio-economic environment, organisations will vary their sustainability interpretations which in turn impacts on the organisational, social, individual and ecological effects. Each employee must then re-evaluate the new sustainability interpretation effects against their individual schema upon which their psychological contract is based. To better understand the sustainable HRM effects on the psychological contract and vice versa, the framework for applying the psychological contract (Guest 2004a) was used. The direction taken by Guest (2004a) in relation to the psychological contract returns to the earlier definitions prior to Rousseau (1989) that is based upon the idea of exchange and the concept of two parties participating in a contract. Based on the traditional industrial relations systems framework and taking into consideration the context of the psychological context, Guest (2004a) proposed a framework for applying the psychological contract which consists of five blocks: (1) contextual and background factors, (2) policy and practice, (3) psychological contract, (4) state of the psychological contract and (5) outcomes. The contextual and background factors encompass both individual (age, gender, education, level in the organisation, type of work, hours worked, employment contract, ethnicity, tenure and income) and organisational (sector, size, ownership, business strategy and union recognition) factors. The contextual and background factors influence the policy and practices which consist of HR policies and practices, direct participation, employment relations and organisational culture. The policy and practices influence the psychological contract consisting of the reciprocal promises, inducements and obligations. The perceived delivery of the psychological contract conditions and the perceived fairness leads to the establishment of trust, which constitutes the state of the psychological contract. The outcomes are then dependent on the state of the psychological contract. The outcomes are categorised as either attitudinal or behavioural consequences. The attitudinal consequences include organisation commitment, work satisfaction, work–life balance, job security, motivations and stress. The behavioural consequences entail attendance, intention to stay or leave and job performance.

Extended Sustainable HRM Model Drawing on Guest’s (2004a) psychological contract framework and the integrative framework (Aggarwal et al. 2007), the Kramar (2014) sustainable HRM model was enhanced to better encompass the psychological contact concept. This new model was termed as the extended sustainable HRM model (ESHRM) which is shown in Fig. 4.1. The organisational, social, individual and ecological effects of the HRM policies and

66

P. Susomrith

Fig. 4.1 Extended sustainable HRM model (Model adapted and extended from Kramar 2014: 1081)

processes form the input to the employee’s psychological contract and are evaluated against the employee’s schema which is used as a basis upon which the psychological contract is evaluated (Coyle-Sharpiro and Parzefall 2008). These effects are modulated by each individual’s contextual and background factors. The modulated comparative output from the four groups will be used to evaluate the state of the psychological contract for the particular individual. This mechanism is supported by the ideologyinfused psychological contracts (IPCs) as proposed by Dixon-Fowler et al. (2019) where employees may substitute financial reward for ideological currency when they have internalised motivations regarding sustainability. A positive state will correspond to favourable attitudinal and behavioural consequences, whereas a negative state will result in unfavourable attitudinal and behavioural consequences. These attitudinal and behavioural consequences will affect the human capital effectiveness via a feedback loop.

Conclusion This chapter presents an enhanced sustainable HRM framework that incorporates the concept of psychological contract. The new framework provides researchers with a more comprehensive sustainable HRM framework that may better explain employee reactions to sustainable decisions. This framework also enables researchers to identify sustainability factors that influence employee’s perceptions and how these factors can be controlled or optimised by managing the sustainability changes.

4 Incorporating Psychological Contract into the Sustainable …

67

A major implication of the developed extended sustainable HRM model is that employee’s psychological contract is affected by sustainability interpretation decisions across organisational, social, individual and ecological fields. The second implication is that a feedback loop is formed from the evaluation of the psychological contract to the human capital. As the goal of sustainable HRM is to attract and retain HR resources, it is important that the employee’s psychological contract develops trust which leads to positive attitudinal and behavioural outcomes. Employers seeking to introduce or expand sustainability initiatives can do so more successfully by (1) understanding the linkage between sustainability decisions and employees’ psychological contract and (2) focusing on preventing psychological contract violations. Although new insights into sustainable HRM and psychological contract are offered, the proposed relationships between sustainable HRM and psychological contracts need to be tested.

References Aggarwal, U., Datta, S., & Bhargava, S. (2007). The relationship between human resource practices psychological contract and employee engagement: Implications for managing talent. IIMB Management Review, 19(3), 313–325. Armstrong, M., & Brown, D. (2019). Strategic human resource management: Back to the future? A literature review. Brighton, UK: Institute for Employment Studies. Benn, S., & Bolton, D. (2011). Key concepts in corporate social responsibility. London, UK: Sage Publications. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2005). Talentship, talent segmentation, and sustainability: A new HR decision science paradigm for a new strategy definition. Human Resource Management, 44(2), 129–136. Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2009). Research and theory on high-performance work systems: Progressing the high-involvement stream. Human Resource Management Journal, 19(1), 3–23. Boxall, P., Purcell, J., & Wright, P. M. (2008). Human resource management: Scope, analysis and significance. In P. Boxall, J. Purcell, & P. M. Wright (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of human resource management (pp. 1–6). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Brundtland, G. (Ed.). (1987). Report of the World Commission on environment and development: Our common future. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Clarke, M. (2011). Sustainable HRM: A new approach to people management. In M. Clarke (Ed.), Readings in HRM and sustainability (pp. 1–7). Melbourne, Australia: Tilde University Press. Colbert, B. A. (2004). The complex resource-based view: Implications for theory and practice in strategic human resource management. Academy of Management, 29(3), 341–358. Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do high performance work practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 501–528. Coyle-Sharpiro, J. A. M., & Parzefall, M. R. (2008). Psychological contracts. In J. Barling & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational behavior: Volume one: Micro Approaches (pp. 17–34). London: Sage Publications. Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., Pereira Costa, S., Doden, W., & Chang, C. (2019). Psychological contracts: Past, present, and future. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 145–169.

68

P. Susomrith

Dixon-Fowler, H., O’Leary-Kelly, A., Johnson, J., & Waite, M. (2019). Sustainability and ideologyinfused psychological contracts: An organizational- and employee-level perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 100690. Docherty, P., Forslin, J., (Rami) Shani, A. B., & Kira, M. (2002). Emerging work systems: From intensive to sustainable. In P. Docherty, J. Forslin, A. B. (Rami) Shani, & M. Kira (Eds.), Creating sustainable work systems: Emerging perspectives and practice (pp. 3–14). New York: Routledge. Douglas Pugh, S., & Subramony, M. (2016). Taking services seriously: New directions in services management theory and research. Human Resource Management Reviews, 26(1), 1–3. Dulac, T., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M., & Delobbe, N. (2006). The role of socialization tactics and information seeking behavior in newcomers’ psychological contract evaluation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, USA. Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A., & Benn, S. (2007). Organization change for corporate sustainability (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Ehnert, I. (2009). Sustainable human resource management: A conceptual and exploratory analysis from a paradox perspective. Berlin: Physica-Verlag. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom lines of 21st century business. Oxford: Capstone Publishing. Guest, D. (2004a). The psychology of the employment relationship: An analysis based on the psychological contract. Applied Psychology, 53(4), 541–555. Guest, D. (2004b). Flexible employment contracts, the psychological contract and employee outcomes: An analysis and review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5(6), 1–19. Hahn, T., & Figge, F. (2011). Beyond the bounded instrumentality in current corporate sustainability research: Toward an inclusive notion of profitability. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(3), 1–21. Hampden-Turner, C. (1990). Creating corporate culture: From discord to harmony. Massachusetts, USA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, F. (2000). Building cross-cultural competence: How to create wealth from conflicting values. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kaufman, B. E. (2015). The evolution of strategic HRM as seen through two founding books: A 30th anniversary perspective on development of the field. Human Resource Management, 54(3), 389–407. Kramar, R. (2014). Beyond strategic human resource management: Is sustainable human resource management the next approach? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(8), 1069–1089. Lengnick-Hall, M. L., Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Andrade, L. A., & Drake, B. (2009). Strategic human resource management: The evolution of the field. Human Resource Management Review, 19(2), 64–85. Levinson, H., Price, C. R., Munden, K. J., & Solley, C. M. (1962). Men, management and mental health. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Macky, K., & Boxall, P. (2008). High involvement work processes, work intensification and employee well-being: A study of New Zealand worker experiences. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 46(1), 38–55. Mariappanadar, S. (2012). The harm indicators of negative externality of efficiency focused organisational practices. International Journal of Social Economics, 39(3), 209–220. Martin-Alcazar, F., Romero-Fernandez, P. M., & Sanchez-Gardey, G. (2005). Strategic human resource management: Integrating the universalistic, contingent, configurational and contextual perspectives. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(5), 633–659. Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (2004). The employment relationship from two sides: Incongruence in employees’ and employers’ perceptions of obligations. In J. A.-M. Coyle-Shapiro, L. M. Shore, M. S. Taylor, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), The employment relationship: Examining psychological and contextual perspectives (pp. 161–180). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

4 Incorporating Psychological Contract into the Sustainable …

69

Persson, S., & Wasieleski, D. (2015). The seasons of the psychological contract: Overcoming the silent transformations of the employer–employee relationship. Human Resource Management Review, 25(4), 368–383. Pfeffer, J. (1998). Seven practices of successful organizations. California Management Review, 40(2), 96–124. Rousseau, D. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2), 121–139. Rousseau, D. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and employer’s obligations: A study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11(5), 389–400. Rousseau, D. M., Tomprou, M., & Montes, S. D. (2013). Psychological contract theory. In E. H. Kessler (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of management theory (pp. 635–640). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sonnenberg, M., Koene, B., & Paauwe, J. (2011). Balancing HRM: The psychological contract of employees. Personnel Review, 40(6), 664–683. Stankeviˇci¯ut˙e, Ž., & Savaneviˇcien˙e, A. (2018). Designing sustainable HRM: The core characteristics of emerging field. Sustainability, 10(12), 1–23. United Nations, General Assembly. (2015, October). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/ migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf. Usmani, K., & Khan, F. S. (2017). Understanding psychological contract: Long-term investment for business sustainability. Management Dynamics, 17(2), 60–69. Wanous, J. P., & Reichers, A. E. (2000). New employee orientation programs. Human Resource Management Review, 10(4), 435–451. Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management. Journal of Management, 18(2), 295–320. Wright, P. M., & Snell, S. A. (2005). Partner or guardian? HR’s challenge in balancing value and values. Human Resource Management, 44(2), 177–182.

Chapter 5

A Grounded Research Approach to Sustainable Leadership Practices and Competencies Agna Fernandez, Francis David Kullu, and Ramesh Shankar

Abstract Sustainable leadership is an enduring model of leadership in the current context of scarce and depleting resources. However, there does not seem to be a consensus as far as the interpretation and definition of the concept in light of competencies are concerned. A new paradigm for the development of leadership has necessitated a relook at this concept. There are limited empirical studies dealing with sustainable leadership (Crews 2010). The primary objective of the paper was to provide a contemporary, conceptual clarity of sustainable leadership competencies and practices, through an understanding of it from global HR leaders across different sectors in the industry. The review of literature indicated a gap of knowledge in a suitable framework of competencies for a sustainable leader. The study applied the qualitative research approach, using the grounded-theory methodology originally developed by Glaser and Strauss (Jones and Noble 2007). This method was chosen as it offered an eye view reality, insights and enhanced understanding of the same contextually. The qualitative research design included a sample of country and South Asian Heads of HR from India who were selected from different industries to represent diverse perspectives. Eighteen Global and Country Heads of HR of India and South Asia participated in this study. The competencies that emerged from the interviews were strategic thinking, cognitive diversity, learning agility, systems approach, intuitive decision making and societal values. Keywords Sustainable leadership · Sustainable leadership model · Sustainable leadership competencies · Sustainable leadership practices · Grounded theory

A. Fernandez (B) · F. D. Kullu Loyola Institute of Business Administration, Chennai, India e-mail: [email protected] R. Shankar Former CHRO Siemens & Chief Joy Officer, Hrishti, Mumbai, India © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. Vanka et al. (eds.), Sustainable Human Resource Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5656-2_5

71

72

A. Fernandez et al.

Introduction Sustainable leadership is seen as an enduring model for the future. However, there does not seem to be a consensus as far as the interpretation and definition of the concept are concerned. A new paradigm for the development of leadership has necessitated a relook at this concept. This paper examines the competencies of leaders and the driving force behind their practices. From an organization perspective, the responsibilities of business organization have increased in scope. Organizations need to be conscious of their obligations towards stakeholders and take cognizance of the larger interests (Mirvis and Googins 2006). All the same, the declining state of the social and environmental issues calls for leadership behaviour that can be sustained. Corporate sustainability is a priority these days for business leaders. Sustainability should blend in alongside with business performance (Stone 2000; Dunphy et al. 2003). Sustainable businesses move beyond mere compliance to consciously integrate the interests of all stakeholders with global sustainable priorities. Sustainable leadership development models need to be developed comprehensively to address this requirement. Sustainable leadership takes cognizance of complex interrelationships between individuals, the business community, global markets and the ecosystem, by achieving social welfare through a respect of social values focussing on long-term success through value-based strategic decision making (Peterlin et al. 2015). Eisenbeiss (2012) defined responsibility and sustainability orientation as one in which there is a long-term orientation, in terms of the organization’s success and the welfare of the society or environment. In the instance of proximal leadership, which focuses on the exchange between the leader and the follower, sustainability leadership orientation is futuristic with reference to goals set, decisions made strategically and the manner in which ethical conduct is accorded priority. The world, thus, needs exemplary leadership to deal with the serious threats to stability and sustainability (Bennis 2007).

Review of Literature Sustainable Leadership-Conceptual Perspectives Artificial intelligence and its surge in a pervasive manner have shifted the focus of leadership towards person-centred and resource-based views of leadership. Researchers seek more contemporary and enduring practices (Avery and Bergsteiner 2011). Critical social and environmental issues call for leadership for sustainability. The institute of sustainable leadership describes sustainable leadership as those practices, which add value for all stakeholders of the organization (Edge Equilibrium 2015). A collective causation view of sustainable leadership recognizes a world view on various shared dilemmas with respect to global trends on deprivation, lack of equality, biodiversity and shift in weather patterns (World Watch 2015). This view

5 A Grounded Research Approach to Sustainable Leadership …

73

is largely in the context of leadership and sustainability. Leadership and sustainability have been discussed from the point of view of social progress (Sen 1999), corporate social responsibility (Bendell 2009) and social enterprise (Nicholls 2006). In terms of project effectiveness and productivity, a study of the same in the context of sustainable development considered transformational leadership as a process of leading subordinates in a humane manner (Tabassi et al. 2012). Sustainable leadership ethics focussed on expectations of stakeholders, both internal and external to the organization (Svensson and Wood 2007). According to them, the first phase focuses on the expectations of involved stakeholders, who may be internal or external. The second phase focuses on the actions undertaken towards these stakeholders and the third phase is the evaluation of these actions. Corporate leaders should look beyond mere economic well-being towards their role as agents fostering change. The overall objective of this type of leadership is to accord a balance to human life, bottom line of a business, and the globe over the life of the firm, and thereby making organizations resilient (Avery and Bergsteiner 2011). Sustainable leadership mindset is not easy, when managers are under pressure to please the shareholders (Hillmer et al. 2004). An integrated view of corporate sustainability suggests that people and firms have a general responsibility towards other human beings. An organization operates according to the ethics of care, when its human resource practices are conscious of its impact on all stakeholders and ensure a harmonious approach (Gilligan 1982; Botes 1998). Sustainable leadership development is more about a process rather than the result—which begins in a consciousness that may be evoked by the organization and individual personal values. Sustainable leadership was compared with transformational leadership and the similarity lay in the sense of meaning which facilitates the commitment by stakeholders, inspiring action through motivation and individualized treatment of each one of them (Avolio et al. 1999; Bass et al. 2003). Sustainable leadership was also compared with servant leadership, which focussed more on the needs of others than individual needs (Brown and Trevino 2006). Sustainable leadership ideology has a strong element of inclusion (Hargreaves and Fink 2006). Further, the humane aspects of a leader assumes greater significance in the position they hold rather than the educational qualifications or skills (Davies 2007). In this context, the authors highlight the need for leaders to renew themselves and not succumb to burnout. A culture of employee and leader development is central to sustainable success.

Sustainable Leadership Practices The grid of Avery (2005) which consists of nineteen elements, point out that the qualities of a sustainable leader is quite exhaustive in its information. An organization is regarded as sustainable if its financial indicators of performance are strong and at the same time, they demonstrate characteristics that can endure economic and social difficulties. Sustainable leadership practices were seen as a system of longterm cooperative relationships between affected parties. Sustainability in the context

74

A. Fernandez et al.

of staff retention pointed out to the creation of a job secure environment that can lead to lower costs (Mariappanadar 2013). These enterprises also maintained a position in the leadership market. The “honeybee”, sustainable leadership practices are classified into basic and advanced level practices at the first and second level. Their underlying practices included identifying and developing new talent, emphasizing the importance of customer experience and constant innovation. Further, the practices assess CEO’s contribution and classify them into a champion or a team lead, the pursuit of ethical behaviour, a culture of futuristic thinking and his role in managing change with concern for all. Advanced level sustainable leadership practices include, shared decision making, empowering employees, nurturing team culture, creating pillars of trust and according priority to knowledge dissemination (Avery and Bergsteiner 2011). Thus, it is evident that the perspectives on sustainable leadership evidence the impact of a harmonious approach towards its stakeholders for sustainable leadership development. All the same, the leaders’ contribution of not only identifying the talent and competencies in the team but also the perceived ethical behaviour to manage change assumes significance in this context. Studies evidence literature in isolation discussing sustainable leadership development and sustainable leadership competencies, thus requiring an integrated approach for conceptual clarity.

Objectives of the Study The primary objective of the paper is to provide a greater contemporary, conceptual clarity of sustainable leadership competencies and practices, through an understanding of the same from global leaders across different sectors in the industry. The paper attempts to address the issue of a competency framework which can be further developed through subsequent research based on their perception and insights.

Methodology A qualitative research approach was adopted to gain insights and contemporary perspectives on sustainable leadership (Kothari 1996; Creswell 1998; Denzin and Lincoln 2000). Grounded-theory methodology advanced by Glaser and Strauss helped in classifying the items generated through in-depth interviews (Jones and Noble 2007). Contemporary insights were meaningfully captured through this method of research. The qualitative research design included a sample of Indian and South Asia Heads of HR from India who were selected from different industries to represent diverse perspectives. All of them belonged to multinational organizations viz., Bosch, Bayers, Siemens, HUL, P&G, Britannia, Daimler Benz, TMTC, Teva to name a few. An interview guide consisting of structured open-ended questions and observation of practices was followed to collect data. Extensive insights were obtained through a

5 A Grounded Research Approach to Sustainable Leadership …

75

purposeful sampling approach in the form of categories of competencies and Human Resource Practices (Patton 1990). The interviews lasted for about 45 minutes to one hour. Consent was taken to record the interviews and transcriptions were used for data analysis. The study applied the Straussian grounded-theory research approach. This grounded-theory-based study helps identify newer perspectives on “sustainable leadership”, by providing answers to research questions. The empirical data was then compared to literature during the data examination and integration stage. This paper offers a new way of looking at the knowledge, skills and attitudes of sustainable business leaders. The results of the study can be used as a framework for developing competencies of individuals, for self-betterment or development programs. Strategic leaders can use this framework to gain better insights on leading in an uncertain context (Tavakoli and Lawton 2005).

Interview Questions Four research questions were constructed to draw responses from leaders in strategic positions about the concept of sustainable leadership. These questions came forth from an analysis of literature, a practitioner perspective of the researchers in industry and academics and through a socratic dialogue with experts in the industry. This resulted in the following four questions: 1. How would you describe sustainable leadership from an organization’s point of view? What are your personal thoughts and ruminations on this? 2. What factors act as driving forces of sustainable leadership practices in organizations today? 3. How would you classify or categorize sustainable leadership competencies? 4. What would be the changing paradigms or dimensions of sustainable leadership and HRM?

Coding and Data Analysis The observed phenomena were named and classified through a method called open coding (Strauss and Little 1990). A sentence or a paragraph of transcription, each separate event is assigned a code word that signifies the concept being observed by breaking up an observation by a line. Connections between a category and its subcategories were thereafter made using a method called axial coding. Categories were formed to bring out a substantive theory (Strauss and Little 1990). The identification of a core category, one that accounts for most of the variation in the pattern of behaviour is essential for the development of the theory. Categories obtained from the codes (phrases) are presented below. The categories which emerged from the discussions as to the nature of sustainable leadership competencies are:

76

A. Fernandez et al.

Strategic Thinking Future oriented—Leadership pipeline/developing leaders to look ahead, an intensity to think long term. Preempt—Anticipate and prevent crisis/foresightedness—futuristic thinking. Impact—Innovation, is it ok for the next generation, thinking about the future to meet customer requirements, how it affects the environment, the society and other resources. Integrity—Doing things right in the long term for the stakeholders.

Learning Agility Continuous learning—Continually learns and develops themselves as leaders. Staying relevant—Learning to stay relevant amidst change. Reinventing—As an organization and individual reinventing to each of the stakeholders. Challenge—Ability to question, challenge and be future oriented. Listening to customers—Ear to the ground, whether it is synchronization with stakeholders and see how it works for them. Understanding the context—Taking insights from the events that are happening around us. Openness to change—The ability to understand personal adjustments, being open to change and change things, studying things to learn from it. Adapting—Ability to adapt oneself through listening and sensing.

Cognitive Diversity Diversity—Encouragement of different shades of opinion. Inclusion—Everyone’s opinion is heard, different generational groups working together, building organizations that understand the ideas of all stakeholders. Participatory—Encouraging a culture of participation. Empowerment—Through decision making at the lowest level possible.

Community Engagement Engagement—Company’s innovation needs to actively engage with society to solve society’s problems. Understanding the correlation between the business and the community. Interdependency—Designing organizations as dependent on each other.

5 A Grounded Research Approach to Sustainable Leadership …

77

Interconnectedness—How different people projects and processes are getting interconnected and everybody is on the chain or on the ecosystems. Looking at how I earn the profit. Where you do things right to the society, community and investors. Collaboration—Thinking collaboratively, understanding common deliverables. Long-term view—Always looking at a long-term impact of actions. Not to be a rash short-term profit centred organization. Social awareness—Interpret the social awareness and its impact on others.

Systems Thinking Holistic View—A 360 degree view of business. Integrated perspective—What your building/creating fit in not only with customers but a wider section of the society. Working with complexity—System thinking is a tool which helps to understand complexity and see order in chaos. Enduring System—Creating ecosystems or processes that stand the test of time. Influencing—Creating a perspective, influencing and changing. Sustainable human resource practices which emerged from the discussion are as under.

Sustainable Human Resource Practices Generating a pipeline of leaders—Through job rotation, greater responsibility and coaching; allowing for failures. Succession planning—Developing people and giving them roles. Fit with the ecosystem—Protecting and sustaining HR to look at ecosystem and then recruit. Hire for values—At that time, first look at values and then for leadership qualities. Catalyst role—Move from basic services to a platform delivering customized solutions recognize them as expertise centres, towards governance from a mere execution role. Charismatic leadership—Attract and engage the right type of talent. Rewarding critical talent—Talent management to focus on this, training linked with growth and to be groomed. Reverse mentoring—To exchange information and knowledge. People-driven approach—Creating a culture of development, creating a career path. Data-driven HR—Metrics. Innovation—People get the feeling that they are part of the creative quotient of the organization.

78

A. Fernandez et al.

Accountability—A feedback system that makes people more accountable and process driven.

Values Family values—Building on the foundational pillars of family values. Purposiveness—Passionate and resolute will. Gratitude—Acknowledgement, world view of magnanimity. Humility—To do something affirmatively. Courage—To express thoughts, take a call, discern and make choices that are ethical. Fairness—Respect at the workplace. Sustainable leadership encompasses the following according to the Global HR leaders who were interviewed.

Sustainable Leadership Institutionalizing leadership—Developing leadership at each level. Leading—Leading self, other businesses and leading change. Continuous process—Leadership development as an ongoing process. How do we groom the next level of leaders? How do we develop people? Leadership which matches the ecosystem—Businesses cannot be isolated from the environment and society. It is interdependent. What works for the organization according to the environment? Nurturing—Allowing a culture of young leadership, not only through seniority but also nurturing leaders from within to sustain the culture. Balance—Personal values with business objectives. No one who becomes indispensable. Balancing both short-term and long-term objectives. Leadership style—Charismatic leadership which attracts talent. Courage—To express thoughts, take a call, discern and make choices that are ethical. Demonstrating leadership even when the opportunity is not in your favour. Communication—Articulation of purpose, drive vision and purpose, enable teams to stay in the course, keep the bigger picture and reinforce the purpose. Core values or objectives that build an organization. Leaving a legacy—A better organization than it was before. Dialogic—Have a dialogue with society, taking different stakeholders views into consideration. Impact on stakeholders—Leadership always looked at the impact on stakeholders. How do leaders measure this impact at each level and the world at large?

5 A Grounded Research Approach to Sustainable Leadership …

79

In addition, a qualitative method was used to obtain the perceptions of leaders on sustainable leadership. The analysis of the qualitative data on these issues is given below. Sustainable leadership: The perception of leaders was obtained on the issue of sustainable leadership from an organizational perspective and also their personal experience. The data reveal that the business leaders laid heavy emphasis on the development of a culture of leadership at each level. According to them, it meant four components viz., leading self, others, leading businesses and leading change. The need for leadership to align with the current ecosystem was largely visible in their perception. Leadership was said to be considered as an ongoing process and nurturing leadership to sustain the ethos and value system of the organization played an important role. Leadership to articulate with clarity the goals, vision and mission was a felt need among the leaders. Leadership needed to take tough calls, even when the opportunity is not in one’s favour was cited as a hallmark of sustainable leadership. Sustainable leadership is about influence and being authentic. Institutionalizing the process of leadership development to empower employees can build sustainable organizations. Sustainable leadership is also about taking balanced decisions, balancing both short-term and long-term objectives. Sustainable leadership focuses on the long-term needs of all interested parties and does not rest on the current needs of followers (Avery and Bergsteiner 2011). Factors-Driving force for sustainable leadership practices in organizations: The need to differentiate oneself acts as one of the driving forces of sustainable leadership in the contemporary era. Leadership, which takes quick decisions and draws the right talent act as driving forces of sustainable leadership practices. The business leaders felt that sustainable leadership practices should be driven by the top management, with shared commitment. Initiatives should flow from the top management and implemented with respect to the environment. It was also felt that the leadership team should articulate this clearly. E.g. Why are we here in this Business? The need to reinvent oneself and be relevant to all stakeholders influences sustainable leadership practices in organizations. The HR leaders felt that the CEO should believe that sustainable leadership is important. Blending a leadership style according to the environment was largely the thought of the HR leaders. The need for a leader to leave a legacy also acts as the driving force, according to the HR leaders. It was also perceived that it is not only about earning the profit but the top leadership should also deliberate on how the profit is earned. A culture of participation, people centric practices and moving beyond mere safety and compliance for the greater good acted as driving forces of sustainable leadership.

80

A. Fernandez et al.

Values: The role of personal values as the foundation and pillar for demonstrating values in the workplace was also examined in the study. Consistency of the values practiced forming the cornerstone of a good value system of a sustainable leader was also largely voiced. Personal values and their orientation are important as they predict the behaviour at the workplace on critical issues of social significance (Rokeach 1973; Zhao et al. 1998). Courage to take a call to balance the interests of all stakeholders was an important component of the value system of the interviewed global leaders. This paradigm moves against the conventional conception of leadership and brings personal empowerment into the focus (Bendell and Little 2015). Importantly: Sustainability leaders recognize that the experience of change itself, and the dissonance it creates, fuels new thinking, discoveries, and innovations that can revitalize the health of organizations, communities, and the earth (Ferdig 2007, p. 25). Some of the perceptions are worth quoting. To quote a few, perceptions like: Courage to take a call, not afraid of losing when they take that call and You bring out the inherent goodness of people when you take those tough calls then people respond back to you etc.

Sustainable leadership competencies: The perception on sustainable leadership competencies from the sampled leaders revealed the following. They are: a. Strategic thinking: A futuristic orientation, a form of unconventional thinking, according to the business leaders, has moved away from the meaning of patterned responses to new and unforeseen challenges and has been positively linked to the managers’ ability to meet new and unforeseen challenges with greater effectiveness (Mckenzie et al. 2009). Innovative behaviour has been cited by them to improve performance and sustainability, engage employees’ competitiveness and propel organizational success (Carmeli et al. 2006). HR heads largely meant looking ahead up to twenty-five years down the line for success. They highlighted the need for a talented set of leaders who could understand the core objectives and value system the organization stands for. Grooming leaders at all levels to think ahead was the focus of the discussion. Strategic thinking also referred to as balancing both the long-term and short-term requirements, by striking a balance of not a myopic short sight of profit but the continuing interests of different stakeholders was also felt as the need of the hour. Making a difference to society though dialogue, thereby leaving a legacy formed the core of strategic thinking according to the HR leaders. Being far-sighted with a well-defined vision of the future by using innovation to engage with the society and solve societal problems was also highlighted. A thinking, which puts people on the top of everything and groom them through different roles was the hallmark of a sustainable practice. Quoting them—What your building is in harmony, how it works out for everyone, A bold vision, which says is it ok for the next generation were voiced by them. b. Learning agility: An important dimension of sustainable leadership was the eagerness to learn and apply the new perspectives gained in different situations (Kon/Ferry 2011). HRM systems need to invest in a workforce which is willing

5 A Grounded Research Approach to Sustainable Leadership …

81

to engage in continuous learning, a workforce which is high in learning agility (Lombardo and Eichinger 2005; Paauwe and Boselie 2005). This perspective evolved as one of the critical sustainable leadership competencies. Learning to stay relevant amidst change and reinventing as an organization to stakeholders is critical. Aspects with reference to learning contributed to the development of leadership competencies and scores related to their potential in leadership assessment (Spreitzer et al. 1997). Learning agility from both an organizational and individual perspective meant a close understanding of customer expectation through an active process of listening and sensing the environment. It also meant studying things to learn from it. Learning to stay relevant amidst change and the courage to challenge and take decisions, which are future oriented formed the crux of the perspectives in this context. Listening and sensing to become an agent of transformation to the customers, suppliers other stakeholders and the community at large was crucial to build enduring relationships opined the HR heads. c. Cognitive diversity: Encouraging different shades of opinion through openness and informal meetings can create a sense of psychological safety. A leading thought has emerged in this study was the different generational group learning, teaching and working together. An inclusive culture of leadership where leadership is nurtured at all levels forms the culture of these organizations. In the context of sustainable leadership, it meant the identification of conditions that foster helplessness and the removal of them with the help of both formal and informal organizational processes. The experts also referred to the employee’s discernment of recognizing their importance in the organization by virtue of decision-making rights (Berry et al. 1994). It also meant equipping the employees with influence and power, by sharing information and allowing them to make decisions based on that information. Employee’s role in the actual decisionmaking process empowers and motivates them (Mendel 2001; Ostrowski 2009; Rodulf and Skorupinska 2012). This was said in the context of generating and preparing the next line of leaders. Many of them referred to the creation of an organizational climate that promoted the eagerness of people managers to respect varying viewpoints and thereby cut across demographic and positional boundaries. A diversity that cuts across functions and status of workers into organizational decision-making was highlighted as a quality that needs to be nurtured (Fujimoto et al. 2017). Diversity sets the broad context here for leadership. An enabling environment for people to make effective decisions can be created only if structures and processes are inclusive in its approach and create an ambience to promote the same (Maringe 2012). A few perceptions are worth quoting—Inclusion not only from different countries, states but from different generational groups working together; Ability to adapt oneself through listening and sensing plays an important role; Diversity is about encouraging different shades of opinion; Sustainable leaders have to encourage and devise openness. d. Community engagement: Community engagement assumes importance as it moves beyond the geographical boundaries of the organization. Community engagement focusses on societal well-being by working together with different

82

A. Fernandez et al.

groups in the society (Bowen et al. 2010). A growing consensus was evident among HR heads that companies are increasingly aware that they are no longer accountable to shareholders alone, but differing groups and individuals who could impact the success of the business. Decisions taken everyday are closely linked to engagement with the community and the position of each in the chain or the ecosystem. The focus is on a balanced decision. Community engagement has many benefits for both the organization and the community. Their goodwill enhances and the organization can contribute to enhance the competencies and capabilities of the community thereby empowering societies (Bowen et al. 2010; Gordon et al. 2013). Their perceptions like—Looking at how I earn the profit; How different people projects and processes are getting interconnected and everybody is on the chain or on the ecosystems substantiate community engagement. e. Systems thinking: HR leaders demonstrated the need to practice thinking about the world at large. A higher order purpose was the general refrain. The intricate and volatile nature of the environment necessitates an integrated perspective towards finding optimal solutions for growth (Senge 2007). HR leaders also emphasized the need to learn to connect the dots holistically. It also meant integrating the disparate parts. This helps them to interpret patterns and events in a different manner and provide solutions, which generates greater goodwill for the organization (Sterman 2000). Further, this study brought out the concept of shared leadership in a systems thinking perspective, which evidences the development of social awareness and relationship management. The relationship between the leader and the follower influences the leader’s performance that in turn has an impact on organizational outcomes. This was highlighted in the interviews. HR leaders also felt that if the organization is construed as a system, it helps to focus attention on strategic aims and resources. Understanding collaboration between departments and fostering interdependence also featured as the key to treat an organization as a system. To quote some of the responses—Find a wide segment and keep evolving from a broader perspective which advocates systems thinking. Sustainable leadership and HRM-Changing paradigms/dimensions: Sustainable leadership and human resource practices centred on discussions largely around a people-driven approach to development. Gratton (2000) was of the view that people should be the focal point in organizations for the long-term sustainability of the organization. Leadership development process to be given the highest importance was highlighted by them. The power to attract, motivate and engage the right type of people in organizations was also stressed by them. HR as a catalyst cannot stick to prefixed practices and policies, if it has to retain high-performing individuals and make informed workforce decisions was also felt as an important change. An organization needs to come up with customized solutions to develop employee skills, guidance on appropriate career paths and grooming high potential resources for leadership roles as a catalyst. It was also expressed that digitizing practices can help organizations have access to HR analytics, organizational design, talent pipeline and workforce planning. Actively engaging the workforce with providing them clarity in goals and the

5 A Grounded Research Approach to Sustainable Leadership …

83

strength of seeing their own contribution was also felt. In a nutshell, employees should demonstrate ownership to contribute and create. This will empower them bringing out more leaders who can then act as coaches and mentors. Research pointed out the need for a culture of coaching. Other practices that sustainable leadership look towards were the nurturing of critical talent with differential reward and pay mechanisms. Relook at expert centres, which cause expertise was found to be the pillar on which sustainability revolves. The view pronounced by the resource-based theory, says resources that are unique, valuable and difficult to imitate provide a source of competitive advantage for the firm. Employees are herein viewed as a valuable resource and a source of competitive advantage for the organizations (Lawler and Mohrman 2003; Wright and Mchahan 1992). A system or design thinking approach of the HR function wherein an ecosystem nurtures leaders, creates a learning environment, provides opportunities to take risks and create a culture of development is what was highlighted by the leaders.

Results and Conclusion: Model Obtained From Fig. 5.1, it can be seen that sustainable leadership evolves from sustainable HR practices. An organization needs to ensure that it recruits for values and for laying the foundation for sustainability. The reward and recognition system must differentiate critical talent. The talent of today prefers a customized approach to individuals rather than mass treatment as one size does not fit all. The loyalty is more to the profession rather than organization and hence the need for coaching and mentoring to evolve their careers in organizations so as to fulfil their career aspirations. The evolution of a culture of leadership development in the organization ensures a pipeline of leadership potential—for the present and for the future. This study helps practitioners understand the competencies that could be nurtured in organizations as sustainable leadership competencies at every level. Sustainable HR practices leads to sustainable leadership. A sustainable leadership model has to enrich talent with strategic thinking. This ensures that the talent in the organization is able to create systems and processes for the present and the future. Cognitive diversity ensures widening of thinking and ability to anticipate the future. Learning agility helps to continually learn and adapt to the environmental needs. A systems approach ensures the connection between various subsystems in the organization. Speed and decision making are the key to stay ahead in the market vis a vis the competitors. This model establishes that there is a symbiotic relationship between sustainable HR practices and sustainable leadership. Values can be likened to the bloodstream in the body for this model. It can thus, be inferred that nurturing the right values is important in the process of building sustainable leadership competencies. Sustainable leadership and sustainable HR practices jointly lead to community engagement.

84

A. Fernandez et al.

Fig. 5.1 Sustainable HR practices and competencies leading to community engagement

References Avery, G. (2005). Leadership for sustainable futures: Achieving success in a competitive world. Edward Elgar Publishing. Avery, G. C., & Bergsteiner, H. (2011). Sustainable leadership practices for enhancing business resilience and performance. Strategy & Leadership, 39(3), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/108785 71111128766. Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 7, 441–462. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207–218. Bendell, J. (2009). The corporate responsibility movement. Sheffield: Green Leaf Publishing. Bendell, J., & Little, R. (2015). Seeking sustainability leadership. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 6(1), 13–26. Bennis, W. (2007). The challenges of leadership in the modern world: Introduction to the special issue. The American Psychologist, 62(1), 2–8.

5 A Grounded Research Approach to Sustainable Leadership …

85

Berry, D., Cadwell, C., & Fehrmann, J. (1994). 50 activities for coaching/mentoring. Amherst: Human Resource Development Press Inc. Botes, A. (1998). Ethics of justice and ethics of care. Johannesburg: Rand Afrikaans University. Bowen, F., Newenham-Kahindi, A., & Herremans, I. (2010). When suits meet roots: The antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 297– 318. Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616. Carmeli, A., Meitar, R., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Self-leadership skills and innovative behavior at work. International Journal of Manpower, 27(1), 75–90. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (pp. 55–58). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Crews, D. E. (2010). Strategies for implementing sustainability: Five leadership challenges. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 75(2), 15. Davies, B. (2007). Developing sustainable leadership. Management in Education, 21(3), 4–9. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A., & Ben, S. (2003). Organisational change for corporate sustainability. London, UK: Routledge. Edge Equilibrium. (2015). Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://www.edgeequilibrium.com/concept/ what_is_sustainable_leadership.php. Eisenbeiss, S. A. (2012). Re-thinking ethical leadership: An interdisciplinary integrative approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 791–808. Ferdig, M. A. (2007). Sustainability leadership: Co-creating a sustainable future. Journal of Change Management, 7(1), 25–35. Fujimoto, Y., Hartel, E. J., & Charmine. (2017). Organizational diversity learning framework: Going beyond diversity training programs. Personnel Review, 46(6), 1120–1141. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gordon, M., Schirmer, J., Lockwood, M., Vanclay, F., & Hanson, D. (2013). Being good neighbours: Current practices, barriers, and opportunities for community engagement in Australian plantation forestry. Land Use Policy, 34, 62–71. Gratton, L. (2000). Living strategy: Putting people at the heart of corporate purpose. NJ, USA: FT Press. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Redistributed leadership for sustainable professional learning communities. Journal of School Leadership, 16(5), 550–565. Hillmer, S., Hillmer, B., & McRoberts, G. (2004). The real costs of turnover: Lessons from a call center. Human Resource Planning, 27(3), 34–41. Jones, R., & Noble, G. (2007). Grounded theory and management research: A lack of integrity? Qualitative Research in Organizational Management: An International Journal, 2(2), 84–103. Kon/Ferry. (2011). Annual Report. Kothari, C. R. (1996). Research methodology: Method and technique (2nd ed.). Delhi: Wishwa Prakashan. Lawler, E. E., & Mohrman, S. A. (2003). HR as a strategic partner: What does it take to make it happen? Human Resource Planning, 26(3), 15–29. Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (2005). HR’s role in building competitive edge leaders. Human Resource Management, 36(1), 141–146. Mariappanadar, S. (2013). A conceptual framework for cost measures of harm of HRM practices. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 5(2), 103–114. Maringe, F. (2012). Staff involvement in leadership decision making in the UK further education sector. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(4), 463–482.

86

A. Fernandez et al.

Mckenzie, J., Woolf, N., & Winkelen, C. V. (2009). Cognition in strategic decision making: A model of non-conventional thinking capacities for complex situations. Management Decision, 47(2), 209–232. Mendel, T. (2001). Participation in modern organizations’ management. Poznan: Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej. Mirvis, P., & Googins, B. (2006). Stages of corporate citizenship: A development framework. California Management Review, 48(2), 104–126. Nicholls, A. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ostrowski, P. (2009). Formation of trade unions in the private business sector in Poland. Warszawa: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. Paauwe, J., & Boselie, J. P. (2005). HRM and performance: What’s next? Human Resource Management Journal, 15(4), 68–83. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Peterlin, J., Pearse, N. J., & Dimovski, V. (2015). Strategic decision making for organizational sustainability: The implications of servant leadership and sustainable leadership approaches. Economic & Business Review, 17(3). Rodulf, S., & Skorupinska, K. (2012). Direct form of employee participation. Poland and the old UE member countries. Lodz: Wyd: Uniwersytetu Lodzkiego. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Senge, P. (2007). Collaborating for systemic change. MIT Sloan Management Review, 2, 44–54. Spreitzer, G. M., McCall, M. W., & Mahoney, J. D. (1997). Early identification of international executive potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 6–29. Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modelling for a complex world. Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill. Stone, L. (2000). When case studies are not enough: The influence of corporate culture and employee attitudes on the success of cleaner production initiatives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 8, 353–359. Strauss, A. L., & Little, R. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Svensson, G., & Wood, G. (2007). Sustainable leadership ethics: A continuous and iterative process. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(3), 251–268. Tabassi, A., Ramli, M., & Bakar, A. (2012). Effects of training and motivation practices on teamwork improvement and task efficiency: The case of construction firms. International Journal of Project Management, 213–224. Tavakoli, I., & Lawton, J. (2005). Strategic thinking and knowledge management. Handbook of Business Strategy, 6(1), 155–160. World Watch. (2015). State of the world 2015: Confronting hidden threats to sustainability. Washington, DC: Island Press. Wright, P. M., & Mchahan, G. C. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management. Journal of Management, 18(2), 295–320. Zhao, J., He, N., & Lovrich, N. (1998). Individual value preferences among American police officers: The Rokeach theory of human values revisited. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 21(1), 22–37.

Chapter 6

Sustainable HRM for Sustainable Careers of Women Professionals Swati Singh and Sita Vanka

Abstract Evidence about the barriers and challenges to the sustainable career advancement of women professionals is present in the literature. Past studies report the inadequacy of strategic HRM, the dominant HRM approach, in developing sustainable careers for women professionals. This paper introduces the need for sustainable HRM practices for sustainable careers of women professionals. A comprehensive view of career issues of women professionals across their lifespan, a critical analysis of the role of strategic HRM and proposing the conceptual framework based on sustainable HRM for sustainable careers of women forms the crux of this paper. The paper builds on the theoretical grounding of kaleidoscope career model, evidence-based management and work–family enrichment to suggest theoretically informed sustainable HRM practices for sustainable careers of women. The specific strategies are discussed, and future research agenda was presented at the end. Keywords Strategic HRM · Sustainable HRM · Sustainable careers · Women · Gender · Kaleidoscope career model

Introduction The world’s population is ageing. The trend related to ageing is common to every country of the world with older people increasing in number (UN 2017). The forecasts show that nearly one out of four American workers will be above 55 years by 2024 (Toossi and Torpey 2017). The population in European countries is also ageing at an unprecedented rate (Eurostat 2016). The ageing population is set to impact all sectors including labour markets. The trend signals labour shortage. Alongside it, another noted phenomenon existing in the labour market is under-representation of women in managerial roles. While organizations are set to face labour shortage, it is appalling to see talented women dropping out of workforce at a higher rate (Silbey 2016; Mainiero and Sullivan 2005). The organizations are set to face the labour S. Singh (B) · S. Vanka School of Management Studies, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. Vanka et al. (eds.), Sustainable Human Resource Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5656-2_6

87

88

S. Singh and S. Vanka

shortage in future if they fail to manage, retain and utilize human capital, especially the talented women who are leaving the workforce. Research related to women turnover details that women experience greater barriers in their careers due to gender differences and discrimination (Joshi 2014; Rudman et al. 2012). As compared to men, women usually have a large amount of additional non-work responsibilities as they are primary caregivers (Powell and Greenhaus 2010; Leslie et al. 2012). These unique challenges make women’s career unstable and unsustainable. Past research highlights the issues of complex, nonlinear and unstable careers of women and call for further research for crafting sustainable careers (Greenhaus and Kossek 2014; De Hauw and Greenhaus 2015). An attempt is made in this paper to answer this call by proposing that sustainable HRM approach can be effective in developing synergistic sustainable careers. It can be argued that unsustainability in women’s career is a result of multiple issues which are unique to women’s career. In this paper, the intent is to list out the factors that make women’s career unsustainable, critically analyse the role of SHRM with respect to women’s career, introduce the sustainable HRM for sustainable career for women’s approach and suggest theoretically informed sustainable HRM practices for sustainable career development.

(En)Gendering Career Issues Women have entered the workplace at a record rate across the world in the past decades and have made inroads into the conventionally male-dominated professions. However, recently the female labour force participation has shown a decline both in developed countries, e.g. USA and developing countries, e.g. India (ILO 2017). The highly talented women are leaving the job at an increasing rate, often referred as optout revolution (Silbey 2016). These sobering trends of declining participation and voluntary dropout are a challenge for the organizations as more women in workplace have been significantly linked with higher profits, stock prices and ROI (Catalyst 2004). Additionally, women’s participation in leadership roles is also significantly linked with CSR (Byron and Post 2016), accounting returns (Post and Byron 2015) and long-term performance (Jeong and Harrison 2017). Traditionally, research in the management domain revolved around the belief that as the female participation increases, the working condition gets better for women, e.g. better career opportunities and less gender-based discrimination (Kanter 1977). However, the recent trends call for a review of the traditional belief, as with the increase in women’s participation in absolute terms in past decades, the issues like glass ceiling and workplace discrimination still exist (Joshi et al. 2015a). Further it is critical to understand that addressing a specific issue, e.g. workplace discrimination or dropouts would unravel only a part of the whole problem. A comprehensive view of the problem is, thus, required to develop sustainable careers for women to benefit both from the standpoint of women professionals and organizations. Based on the available literature, an

6 Sustainable HRM for Sustainable Careers of Women Professionals

89

attempt is made to link different career issues faced by women to the career outcomes to develop a comprehensive view of women’s career issues. This inclusive view is important as it uniquely highlights the reasons behind the unsustainable careers of women. Studies on gender issues in management are not new, and scholars have explored different workplace issues related to women’s career. Gender has been a key research focus in management research. There were as many as 107 articles published in Academy of Management Journal, a flagship management journal, in the last five decades with gender as a focal construct. Research in the past tried to study the gender-based differences (Chapman 1975), barriers (Stewart and Gudykunst 1982; Sigelman et al. 1982; Ragins and Scandura 1994), work–family balance issues (Leslie et al. 2012; Powell and Greenhaus 2010) and discrimination and gender inequality at workplace (Powell and Butterfield 1994; Joshi et al. 2006) to point out the problems faced by women at the place of work. While the past researches highlight the issues and also discuss the related negative career outcomes, the focus has largely been on a specific agenda (e.g. Cabrera 2007—reason behind women leaving the workplace, Ladge et al. 2012—implication of pregnancy on work-related outcomes, Eagly and Karau 2002—implications of bias and discrimination at workplace), rather than the comprehensive view of the problem. Thus, an overreaching attempt is required to study the women’s career issues in totality to bring a more comprehensive picture, before the career implications are analysed. On the basis of existing literature, career issues specific to women are categorized into three major heads (1) work versus non-responsibilities (2) gap in pay and rewards and (3) barriers to leadership roles. It can be argued that these issues not only paralyse the women’s career advancement by making it unsustainable but also retard organizational effectiveness. Further, the implications of these issues on career outcomes of women and organizations are discussed at the end.

Work Versus Non-work Responsibilities The large amount of unpaid, non-work roles, responsibilities and events, e.g. caregiving to children and elderly, household chores, marriage, relocation and every other non-work engagement often called the “second shift” (Hochschild and Machung 1989) impact the career choice and career pattern of women to a great extent. While these issue look personal to every woman, its spillover to the work performance and career is evident. A large number of successfully advanced women choose to truncate their career due to burnout (Fondas 1996). The ineffective organizational support leads to voluntary dropout from the work often called “leaky pipeline”. The talented women amidst work and non-work responsibilities and inadequate support at workplace opt for career breaks or change in profession (Cabrera 2007; Sullivan 1999). The career interruptions are found to be negatively linked with career outcomes and experiences including loss in salary, benefits and advancement opportunity in career

90

S. Singh and S. Vanka

(Eby 2001; Valcour and Tolbert 2003). These losses due to interruption remain difficult to plug in as it negatively influences the career outcomes for a very long duration, at times 25 years (Reitman and Schneer 2005). Career breaks lead to loss of “know how, know whom and know why” competencies (DeFillippi and Arthur 1994), which are crucial for career success in the modern knowledge economy. The loss for organizations is also not less, as they loose a large number of talented women professionals or face a talent drain of female employees, the situation becomes more precarious in professions like management where skills and talents are considered scarce and a major source of competitive advantage and innovation for an organization (O’Reilly and Pfeffer 2000).

Gap in Pay and Rewards The issue of inequal pay, rewards and promotion to women is another vital issue which negatively impacts women’s career outcomes. The issue of pay and reward gap has been extensively studied in the past (Blau and Kahn 1992, 2007; Lips 2013), and recent studies depict that it still exists (Kohout and Singh 2018; Bishu and Alkadry 2017; Blau and Khan 2017). A recent meta-analysis of research on gender pay gap of past three decades reported that, averaging over time, women receive significantly lower pay and rewards as compared to men in comparable jobs, inducing the authors to raise the concern about whether women can ever close the “gap in rewards in the workplace” (Joshi et al. 2015b: 1529). The scholars have argued that difference in pay and rewards among men and women is rarely due to performance differences but discrimination (Alksnis et al. 2008; Figart 2005; Becker 1971). The phenomena like “glass ceiling” and “sticky floors” act as barrier in the path of career advancement of women (Arulampalam et al. 2007; Xiu and Gunderson 2014). The barriers and discrimination lead to situation of depressed pay, rewards and promotions. The depressed pay and economic rewards negatively impact objective career success which is linked with monetary benefits to a large extent. The discrimination and glass ceiling belief also influence subjective career indicators such as career satisfaction, work engagement, happiness and well-being (Smith et al. 2012). As noted, inequity in pay and promotion impacts women’s career outcomes negatively, and the implications for organizations are also gloomy. The low levels of work engagement and well-being are linked with low organizational commitment and high turn over, and well-being is also a predictor of job performance (Wright and Cropanzano 2000). The adverse impact of gap in pay and promotion is evident on organizational diversity management, which is linked with better managerial decisions and innovation (McLeod et al. 1996; Shen et al. 2009). Thus, the impact of gap in pay and promotion is significantly negative for the women and also adverse for the organization.

6 Sustainable HRM for Sustainable Careers of Women Professionals

91

Barriers to Leadership Roles Women are under-represented on the highest level and leadership roles of big corporate organizations. Females accounted for a meagre 4.6% of S&P 500 companies (Catalyst 2018). The issue of under-representation of women on the top has attracted scholars in the past to unearth the obstacles in the women’s path into upper echelons. The arguments of numerical under-representation (Kanter 1977), non-fit of stereotypical expectations (Eagly and Karau 2002) and “glass cliff”—being provided a leadership role only when organization is in a precarious situations (Haslam and Ryan 2008) have been given to explain the issue of few females at the top. The barriers in the way towards the top position are shaped by male-typed schemas, stereotypes and biases (Dwivedi et al. 2018). These barriers impose restrictions on career advancement of talented women, depriving them of upper echelons roles. The obvious adverse impact of such gender-based stereotyping is seen on objective and subjective career success (Ryan and Haslam 2006; Igbaria and Shayo 1997). While most of the women who experience or perceive such bias, discrimination and stereotypes often have slow career progress (Dubbelt et al. 2016). The job demands–resources model (Demerouti et al. 2001) is helpful in this context to understand the adverse impact of discriminations and barriers on job characteristics and career outcomes. The perceived discrimination leads to high job demands due to a feeling of job insecurity and lowers job resources due to discriminated developmental opportunities, thus leading to suboptimal performance condition for women. The suboptimal conditions lead to negative job characteristics such as absenteeism and burnout (Schaufeli et al. 2009). The adverse career implications are related, and suboptimal performance conditions lower the motivation for career advancement and work engagement. It is vital to highlight that suboptimal job characterizes impact organizations as well, and job demands and resources are found to be significantly linked with intention to leave (Jourdain and Chênevert 2010), task enjoyment (Bakker et al. 2010) and also with financial output (Xanthopoulou et al. 2009). Additionally, the business perspective view related to the argument that female managers possess unique abilities (Folkman and Zenger 2012) cannot be ignored and organizations cannot neglect it in the era of fierce competition. The past research also advocates the positive impact of gender diverse boards and top positions on organizational outcomes (Byron and Post 2016). Hence, it is evident that discrimination and barriers to leadership impact organizations adversely akin to women. While women can contribute significantly to the organizational effectiveness and performance, the complexity of their career, intensity of invisible biases and discrimination make it difficult for women to sustain their careers. Organizations manage employee’s careers through HRM, and career management is a key function of HRM. It is interesting and elemental to critically analyse the role played by HRM in shaping women’s career in past decades.

92

S. Singh and S. Vanka

Strategic HRM and (Un) Sustainable Careers of Women Strategic human resource management (SHRM) emerged as a key approach to HRM practice and policy in the past three decades. SHRM links HRM policies to organizational outcomes such as financial performances and market outcomes. The strategic alignment of HRM activities to the financial goal has been the core element of the SHRM, so much so that even employee’s outcomes have been studied in the light of financial goals instead of value accruing to employees (Lundy and Cowling 1996; Lengnick-Hall et al. 2009). Over the time, SHRM has evolved as a performanceoriented approach which has prioritized short-term financial outcomes over longterm sustainable benefits often neglecting the concerns of employees (Marchington 2015; Kramar 2014). The high-performance work practices (HPWP), bundles of HRM practices aligned towards organizational goal and a key SHRM element have been found to be negatively linked with employee well-being (Ramsay et al. 2000; Thompson 2011). It is elemental to bring “gender” in the discussion for topical interest. The early alarm about negative consequences of SHRM on gender equality was raised by scholars (Steele 1992; Dickens 1994, 2006), and empirical studies confirmed the notion that SHRM practices were not sufficient to revolutionize the workspace for better opportunities for women (Ng and Chiu 1998). The SHRM policies also proved ineffective in overriding the factors leading to turnover intentions (Chiu 1998) causing women talent drain and leaky pipelines. The research evidenced that organizational effectiveness can be achieved through SHRM practices by gender equality and fairness in promotion, but SHRM has not been able to achieve it due to strategic dilemma arising out of over emphasis on cost containment strategy (Pas et al. 2011). The HRM policies safeguarding women interest or the so-called women-friendly policies have largely been superficial and more of a public stunt (Fondas 1996, Mainiero and Sullivan 2005). In connection to this, the scholars have found that women-friendly flexible work practices are linked to negative well-being (Sparks et al. 2001) and career penalties for women (Glass 2004) mostly due to underlying work intensification. The HPWP with its approach of being socially desirable, politically correct in policy and organizational outcome oriented in practice signals confusing message regarding desirable workplace behaviours—for instance a women employee considering to avail flexitimings may drop the idea after noticing the denial of pay hike and career rewards to other women employee who availed flexitimings in the past. Another issue related to SHRM is its narrow approach and restrictive view which incorporates only the dyadic relationship between employee and organization and conveniently ignores community and other stakeholders. Women’s career revolves around the significant others—family, friends and community (Sullivan and Lewis 2001), and HRM policies ignoring the needs related to these key elements of women’s career are found inadequate to bring desirable career outcomes for women. Research in the past has evidenced that SHRM has not been able to provide solution to the critical problems related to women’s career, for instance, Pichler et al. (2008) reported that use of any

6 Sustainable HRM for Sustainable Careers of Women Professionals

93

extent of SHRM did not improve the career advancement opportunities of women to reach to top positions in the organization. In line with this, Klode et al. (2017) argued that the existing gender pay gap is typically a result of imperfect and inadequate HRM policies. As the demand for more just, inclusive and diverse workplace strengthens, the SHRM’s alignment with the financial goal approach looks incapable of delivering desired results. Although the SHRM with its strategic approach has contributed significantly and positively to firm’s performance (Gritti and Leoni 2012; GouldWilliams 2003; Huselid 1995), it has not contributed similarly to the employees, as SHRM policies are reported to be linked negatively with employee well-being (Godard 2001; Ogbonnaya et al. 2017). The narrow focus of SHRM largely targeted on firm’s performance at the cost of employee well-being cannot be justified because employee well-being has been reported as a key predictor of major organizational outcomes like performance and organizational commitment (Zakaria et al. 2014). It is furthermore not justified in the case of unequal pay, promotion and benefits for women as gender equality and fairness are not a matter of being “politically correct” or to be perceived as “socially desirable” but a serious concern related to “organizational effectiveness” (Harel et al. 2003). In relation to women’s career, SHRM with its narrow focus has been proved to be ineffective in managing it adequately in past three decades, rendering it largely unstable and unsustainable. The limitation of SHRM is rightly pointed out by Beer (2015:417) “Chief Executives know HR improves performance, but what they need to understand is how to develop sustainable and positive work related systems.”, signalling a need for an alternate approach to HRM. Scholars demand for alternate approach which is more inclusive rather than narrow focused, based on long-term view rather than the short term, and more pro-business than pro-market (Dundon and Rafferty 2018; Guest 2017).

Sustainable HRM Sustainable HRM is the new approach of human resource management. In contrast to SHRM which focused only on financial goals, sustainable HRM involves embracing and adopting those HRM practices that ensure accomplishment of social and ecological goals along with the financial goals. Although the scope of sustainable HRM is wider and involves external stakeholders and environment as well, its key distinguishing feature is to strike a balance between the interest of employers, employees and society for sustainable development, often referred as triple bottom line approach (De Lange and Koppens 2007). The three major theoretical explanations which provide conceptual grounding to sustainable HRM are theory of negative externalities and harm to stakeholders (Mariappanadar 2012, 2013), stakeholder theory (Guerci 2011; Guerci and Pedrini 2014) and the paradox view (Ehnert 2009). The central idea shared by different theories is to ensure a long-term positive impact of HRM strategies and practices within and outside the organization by controlling their negative impact on employees, stakeholders and society (Ehnert et al. 2016). It is

94

S. Singh and S. Vanka

important to highlight that the multidimensional sustainable HRM goals although shared are often conflicting. The synthesis paradox approach (Mariappanadar 2014), however, ensures that with the adoption of HRM practices, organizational profits are maximized and at the same time the stakeholder’s harm is controlled and minimized; this is achieved by adopting a mutually reinforcing rather than mutually exclusive approach. The Respect Openness Continuity (ROC) model (De Prins et al. 2014), another model of sustainable HRM, emphasizes the importance of respecting employees for long-term continuity and profitability of the organization. The ROC model highlights the vitality and contribution of human capital in competitive advantage. As per the model, respecting human resources through efforts made to enhance dialogue, autonomy, career development opportunities, employability and work–life balance brings synergistic benefits to the organization and also a positive impact on society. The common thread between the theories of sustainable HRM is the prominence of interconnection between organization, employee and environment. The recent studies establish the significant role of sustainable HRM. De Prins et al. (2018) reported that sustainable HRM practices reduce the employee harm, additionally the sustainable HRM were found to be positively linked with cooperative industrial relations climate. Diaz-Carrion et al. (2018) delineate the role of sustainable HRM practices in enhancing employee satisfaction and commitment as well as improving organization’s image to the society. While the sustainable HRM essentially focuses on reducing negative harm of all stakeholders, its relationship with organizational performance, a key aspect of business, is also highlighted (De Bussy and Suprawan 2012). The sustainable HRM enables the organizations to simultaneously achieve the mutually reinforcing goals of organizational performance (Buˇci¯unien˙e and Kazlauskait˙e 2012), improving employee motivation and quality of life (Shen and Benson 2016; Newman et al. 2016) and inclusive approach towards employee’s family and society (Mariappanadar 2014; Diaz-Carrion et al. 2018, Cleveland et al. 2015). The research in the area of sustainable HRM suggests that with sustainable orientation, all HRM functions like talent acquisition, compensation, training, diversity, career management, occupational health and safety, etc., can be reoriented to provide synergistic benefits to the organization and employee (Shen and Benson 2016; Diaz-Carrion et al. 2018). Table 6.1 depicts the theoretical grounding and impact of some sustainable HRM practices. The table highlights that sustainable HRM practices which seems to be anchored around employee benefits and well-being are resulting in organizational benefits too. Sustainable HRM approach is, thus, a need of the hour for achieving mutually reinforcing goals. Career management is a key function area of HRM, orientation of existing HRM practices towards sustainable HRM can enable the sustainable careers development, and benefits of such a career positively reinforce employees and employers alike.

6 Sustainable HRM for Sustainable Careers of Women Professionals

95

Table 6.1 Sustainable HRM, sustainable HRM practices and its impact Theoretical orientation of sustainable HRM

Example of sustainable HRM practices

Negative externality and harm of work (Mariappanadar 2014)

Minimising psychological, and Reduction of work harm emotional work risks by adopting policies of work- non work balance for employees

Respect, Openness and Continuity (ROC) model (De Prins et al. 2014)

Providing formal equal opportunity to all employees Registering discrimination and taking corrective actions

Stakeholder view (Guerci 2011) Providing leaves/assistance for child/elderly care beyond legal requirements

Impact

Inclusive workplace and improved diversity

Improved employee engagement

Source Authors

Sustainable Careers Traditionally, the careers were defined as sequence of work experiences over time within the boundary of a single organization. Career success meant climbing up the organizational ladder. The organizational loyalty guaranteed career goals achievement. However, the times have changed. The popular long-term contract between the employer and employee is weakening. The subjective career success definition in sync with individual’s strengths, values and interest is an emerging reality. The dynamics of labour market characterized by ageing workforce and tight regulatory framework is impacting careers like never before. The careers today are shaped in an unpredictable, dynamic and uncertain career paradigm. The careers at present go through many phases, involve several organizations, call for shift in KSAs and are shaped under the situation of volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (vuca). The new knowledge economy of today’s era presents unpatrolled uncertainties and hardships, amidst this volatile scenario careers are under tremendous pressure. In this dynamic era, traditional career approaches based on single employer and lifetime employment view are ineffectual. The careers in new age require a fresh perspective to solve the problems with key focus on sustainability of careers. The new career concept of sustainable careers addresses the issues of contemporary careers of knowledge economy. “Sustainable careers”, an emerging concept in career research, has attracted the attention of scholars to a large extent. Sustainable careers, rooted in the core concept of sustainability (WCED 1987, p. 43) gives better understanding and ways to manage careers in the existing labour market conditions characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (VUCA). A sustainable career adopts a long-term view by ensuring present employability, renewability of career resources during the employment without compromising the future employment needs. A sustainable career is thus characterized by renewability, flexibility and balance (Newman 2011), with key focus on employability, work–life fit, continuous learning along with the

96 Table 6.2 Sustainable careers—features and focus

S. Singh and S. Vanka Sustainable careers—features

Focus

Integration of individual’s values, needs and interests

Subjective career success and stability

Employability

Economic stability

Flexibility

Adaptability to changing needs

Renewability

Continuity and future employability

Source Authors (Based on the literature survey)

alignment of individual’s strengths, interest and values with work (Valcour 2015). In a sustainable career, the employees are healthy, happy and employable throughout the lifespan and such a career fits into individual’s broader view of life, thus giving meaning to it. Although the sustainable careers emphasize individual agency, it is considered mutually beneficial and a mutual responsibility of individual and organization (Van der Heijden and De Vos 2015). It is essential to highlight that although the core concept of sustainable careers does not differ from the definition of “career” which includes sequence of experiences, but all careers essentially are not sustainable. The implicit notion of enhancing skillsets and protecting employability has always been the focus of career development, but the explicit orientation towards renewability, flexibility and long-term orientation with career progression is exclusive to sustainable careers. A sustainable career is marked by (i) successful integration of individual’s values, interest, personal and family needs with one’s careers, (ii) flexibility to adapt the changes in environment and individual’s needs and interest over time, (iii) current employability to the individual that ensures economic stability and (iv) renewability of knowledge and skills that ensures future employability and continuity of work across the lifespan. Table 6.2 depicts the key features and focus of sustainable careers. A sustainable career thus provides economic security, flexibility, balance between work and non-work roles and renewability to regenerate the career resources for future employment. A sustainable career is mutually beneficial. The sustainable HRM practices with the focus to develop sustainable career are essential for shaping such careers.

Sustainable HRM for Sustainable Careers for Women Recent research has advocated the need for sustainable careers (Ybema et al. 2017) amidst changing labour market landscape of ageing workforce in several economies (Eurostat 2016), dual earners, and migrant workforce in others (Greenhaus and Kossek 2014). While scholars have promoted the need of sustainable careers in general, it is appalling yet notable that women’s career has largely remained unsustainable (Kirton and Robertson 2018; Servon and Visser 2011; Mainiero and Sullivan 2005), and SHRM has been ineffective in managing the women’s career in the past.

6 Sustainable HRM for Sustainable Careers of Women Professionals

97

The studies have demanded alternative approaches, new and better ways for managing women’s careers in the contemporary knowledge economy (Greenhaus and Kossek 2014; Sullivan and Mainiero 2007), however there is a clear dearth of studies which have attempted to respond to this call. Sustainable HRM, a new and a better approach to HRM can play a critical role in creating sustainable careers for women. The idea of sustainable HRM for sustainable careers is being proposed by the scholars recently (De Vos and Van der Heijden 2017; De Prins et al. 2015). Although the women’s career is characterized by unique challenges, the argument of developing sustainable careers for women should be viewed in the light of prevailing issues of labour shortage (Eurostat 2016) and problem of finding scarce talent. Additionally, it is noteworthy to inspect the business case for developing a sustainable career for women. The distinct leadership and managerial capacity of women (Zenger and Folkman 2012; Bass and Avolio 1994), which is linked with organizational effectiveness, along with the other arguments clearly make a business case in favour of developing sustainable careers for women. Thus, unsustainable careers of women resulting out of career breaks, voluntary dropouts and unequal career advancement opportunities due to discrimination and bias result in loss to the organization akin to the women. The situation is precarious, effective and sustainable HRM practices are required to solve the problems of women’s career which is complex and uniquely influenced by several non-work events, visible workplace issues and invisible workplace biases. While most of the organizations do have women-friendly practices in place, but the desired results have not been achieved (Kirton and Robertson 2018), and impact of certain new and selective practices is yet to be evaluated. Recently, organizations have incorporated new practices to cover biological aspects, e.g. egg freezing, to support women to plan their life and careers in a better way; however, the adoption rate and the career impact of such practice are yet to be established (Baldwin 2018). Additionally, it is critical to highlight that a comprehensive sustainable HRM approach is required to create sustainable careers for women rather than stray practices. We suggest following measures based on informed theoretical grounding that can be integrated with the sustainable HRM practices for sustainable careers of women.

Embrace Kaleidoscope Career Thinking Kaleidoscope career model—KCM—(Mainiero and Sullivan 2006) proposes that very similar to a kaleidoscope which produces changing pattern after rotation due to adjustment of glass chips, individuals also change the pattern of their career by rotating and shifting the different aspects of their lives to adjust their roles and relationships in new manner. KCM model highlights distinctness of women’s career pattern from men’s career. The research related to KCM has shown that women look for challenge (need to learn and grow up in the career ladder) in their early careers, balance (striking equilibrium between work and non-work responsibilities) in their mid-careers and authenticity (being true to oneself) in the later stages of their career as

98

S. Singh and S. Vanka

against men who look for challenge, authenticity and balance (Mainiero and Gibson 2018; Sullivan and Mainiero 2007; Smith-Ruig 2009; Cabrera 2007; August 2011), respectively, in their career. The KCM model highlights the differences between men and women’s career and demands distinct approach towards it. The KCM model is built on the idea of relationalism (Gilligan 1978). It establishes that women take career actions keeping significant others in mind. They evaluate career choices in terms of its potential outcomes to herself and others. The KCM model expands the concept of relational issues beyond family and introduces the idea of non-work issues. The non-work issues encompass a woman’s well-being parameters, spirituality, friends and community. The KCM’s consideration of broader non-work issues beyond family is akin to the tenets of stakeholder theory (Guerci 2011) of sustainable HRM. KCM similar to stakeholder theory patronizes the premise of differentiated HR practices rather than the “one-size-fits-all approach”. KCM and sustainable HRM approach both emphasize to look beyond employees while devising HRM practices and policies. Building on the similarity of propositions of two approaches, we propose that the tenets of KCM and sustainable HRM can be effectively merged to produce a comprehensive career support programme for women addressing career issues at different career stages. We argue that incorporating kaleidoscope thinking while strategizing the sustainable HRM practices will be mutually beneficial. The idea of utilizing kaleidoscope career thinking with sustainable HRM is imperative as it will help organizations to devise the career programme as per the career patterns of women and thus be able to work in synchronization with their career aspirations, values and interests, achieving a mutually beneficial sustainable career. In contrast to it, if organizations devise career plan and strategies which are not based on women’s distinct career need and pattern, they might end up creating ineffective policies not resonating with the women’s career issues at different career stages. The suggestive sustainable HRM practices based on KCM thinking, which organizations might consider are listed below: • Create a career development programme which allows women to take up early challenges, extend organizational support to offer ample learning and development opportunities. Create a scope for taking initiative to work on challenging task early in their career and reward the performers. Focus on regeneration by creating recreational spaces at workplace and encourage the participation in recreational activities. • Integrate technology to create flexible work, rather than flexible timings/schedules. Allow women to use technology for job completion and foster the culture of appraisal based on output/performance irrespective of amount spent at the workplace. Acknowledge the career complexities of women, allow women to work part-time during the career breaks. Devise career restart programme for women with career interruptions and encourage the voluntary dropouts to rejoin the organization.

6 Sustainable HRM for Sustainable Careers of Women Professionals

99

• Acknowledge the need for authenticity in women in later career stages. Promote the importance of wellness and well-being. Organize and sponsor wellness programmes. Consider spirituality at workplace approaches to add greater meaning and higher purpose to work. • In sync with kaleidoscope career thinking, equip managers with the understanding of distinct career patterns of women. Create the system to reward and recognize the managers who contribute to the career advancement of women. • Create an integrated network of women professionals to recognize the role models who effectively use organizational policies to achieve career advancement.

Endorse Family as an Ally View Work and family are not two distinct domains now, rather more integrated than ever, largely due to technological advancement. There is a wide range of literature available related to work and family indicating that the positive experiences in one domain improve the performance and quality of life in the other domain (Greenhaus and Powell 2006). There are several theories which have been used to explain the phenomenon of this positive spillover, e.g. the job demands–resources model (Demerouti et al. 2001), job demand control- support model (Karasek and Theorell 1990) and the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll 2011). The studies in past have evidenced that family experiences improve the quality of work and vice versa, by the transfer of resources generated in one role to the other (Zhao et al. 2018; Bhargava and Baral 2009). The research also highlights that supportive work– family culture enriches work to family experience that positively impacts the vital outcomes—psychological capital, organizational citizenship behaviour and negatively—the intention to quit (Mishra et al. 2014). The sustainable HRM also promotes family as an important stakeholder (Mariappanadar 2012) which should be considered while devising HRM practices. Interestingly, women’s career cannot be defined completely without adding the family perspective to it. Thus, it is imperative for the organizations to adopt family as an ally view. While academic research has produced evidences of transfer of positive emotions, skills, values and behaviour from one domain to the other (Hanson et al. 2006), the organizations are yet to embrace the idea fully, as most of the family-friendly policies are narrowly defined, mainly with “children” focus (Armstrong 2006; Mainiero and Sullivan 2005). The narrowly defined family-friendly policies are not sufficient to develop sustainable careers for women, and the broad range of family-friendly policies is the need of the hour. Organizations might consider following components to devise a broad range of “family-friendly” sustainable HR policies. • Define “family” more comprehensively to include other dependents, e.g. elders and friends. • Make provision for elderly care. • Consider a certain number of dependents leave or time off for emergencies.

100

S. Singh and S. Vanka

• Allow switching to part-time job from a full-time job for a specific period. • Extend benefits of health and fitness-oriented policies, such as subsidy for joining a gym or yoga centre to the spouse and children. • Include family’s feedback during appraisal. • Engage actively with family. Organize annual events for families, company picnics and on site get togethers.

Ensue Evidence-Based Management Evidence-based practices have gained much popularity in last decade. The core notion of evidence-based management (EBMgt) is the use of scientific knowledge in a systematic manner to improve managerial decision making by reducing inefficiencies and enhancing the level of consistency. Evidence-based management promotes the systematic decision making based on scientific and organizational evidences (Baba and Hakem Zadeh 2012). The evidence-based management and evidencebased HR are being used by organizations to improve their decision-making process and improvise the HR functions (van der Togt and Rasmussen 2017). A main feature of evidence-based management is the emphasis on data and analytics which creates scientific knowledge and evidences that become the basis of decisions. Another fundamental aspect of EBMgt is the consideration of long-term impact of business decisions on the stakeholders (Rousseau and Olivas-Luján 2015; Rousseau 2006) which is akin to the concept of sustainable HRM. Hence, the integration of evidencebased management with sustainable HRM for devising practices ensures a sound theoretical fit. We propose that evidence-based sustainable HRM practices will be crucial in developing sustainable careers for women. The organization-based data of women employees can be used to generate evidence for better decision making. We also argue that adopting an evidence-based practice will be elemental in highlighting and evidencing even modest discrimination. The scientific evidence based on organizational data of women’s career will be effective in challenging beliefs that form the basis of bias against the women. The indicative sustainable HRM practices based on evidence-based management which organizations might consider are as follows: • Use industry data to analyse overall gender pay gap, use organizational data to analyse internal gender pay gap, compare and analyse the gaps. Device strategies to plug in the pay gap. • Create evidence for supervisory role in career advancement of women employees. Reward the managers who contribute significantly in career advancement of women subordinates. • Chart out succession plan for women employees based on the analytics of their performance and output. • Apply analytics to create evidence for leadership roles of women to challenge subtle biases and discrimination that obstruct career advancement of women.

6 Sustainable HRM for Sustainable Careers of Women Professionals • Sustainable HRM

• • • • • • •

• • •

Kaleidoscope career view Family as an ally approach Evidence based

Reduc on of work harm Inclusive workplace Improved diversity Equality at workplace Dis nct career policies for different career stages Benefits for child and elderly care Analysing gender gap in key roles Evidences for leadership roles for women to combat bi

101

Sustainable Careers for women

Management

Fig. 6.1 Conceptual framework for sustainable careers of women Source Authors

As the sustainable HRM highlights, appreciates and involves the multiple stakeholder view, it provides the required ground for the development of sustainable careers for women. Additionally, adopting kaleidoscope career thinking, family as an ally view and evidence-based management with sustainable HRM practices would ensure the successful and sustainable career for women across the lifespan. Figure 6.1 depicts the conceptual integration of sustainable HRM and other measures to achieve sustainable careers for women professionals. The measures clubbed with the sustainable HRM practices might prove instrumental in solving several problems faced by women across their career. Embracing kaleidoscope career thinking can be instrumental in tackling issues related to distinct career patterns of women, similarly, adopting family as an ally view can be crucial in facilitating balance between work and non-work balance roles of the women. Embracing evidence-based management can play a key role in combating workplace discrimination, bias and also enhance the leadership opportunities for women. As discussed earlier, the three major issues which make women’s career unsustainable are work versus non-work responsibilities, pay gap and barriers to leadership. The framework suggests that adopting sustainable HRM practices with the key measures, the major issues of women’s career can be tackled and thus a sustainable career for women professionals can be developed.

102

S. Singh and S. Vanka

Conclusion The unsustainability of women’s career has been a challenge for long. The measures used in the past by the organizations has not been successful in bringing the desired results. As the problem related to women’s career is multifaceted, no single solution can be a panacea; however, the suggested framework can be instrumental is tackling a large number of issues related to women’s career thus enabling sustainable career development. The sustainable HRM practices with informed theoretical grounding, e.g. kaleidoscope career model can fetch the desired outcomes. Further research can be carried out to test the conceptual framework empirically which would strengthen research related to the evolving concepts of sustainable HRM and sustainable careers along with relevant additions to the existing research on women’s career.

References Alksnis, C., Desmarais, S., & Curtis, J. (2008). Workforce segregation and the gender wage gap: Is “women’s” work valued as highly as “men’s”? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(6), 1416–1441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00354.x. Armstrong, M. (2006). A handbook of personnel management practice (6th ed.). London: Kogan Page. Arulampalam, W., Booth, A., & Bryan, M. (2007). Is there a glass ceiling over Europe? Exploring the gender pay gap across the wage distribution. ILR Review, 60(2), 163–186. August, R. A. (2011). Women’s later life career development: Looking through the lens of the kaleidoscope career model. Journal of Career Development, 38(3), 208–236. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0894845310362221. Baba, V. V., & Hakem Zadeh, F. (2012). Toward a theory of evidence based decision making. Management Decision, 50(5), 832–867. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211227546. Bakker, A. B., Van Veldhoven, M. J. P. M., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2010). Beyond the demand-control model: Thriving on high job demands and resources. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 3–16. Baldwin, K. (2018). Conceptualising women’s motivations for social egg freezing and experience of reproductive delay. Sociology of Health & Illness, 40, 859–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/14679566.12728. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (Eds.). (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication. Becker, G. S. (1971). The economics of discrimination (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Beer, M. (2015). HRM at a crossroads: Comments on ‘Evolution of strategic HRM through two founding books: A 30th anniversary perspective on development of the field’. Human Resource Management, 54(3), 417–421. Bhargava, S., & Baral, R. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of work-family enrichment among Indian managers. Psychological Studies, 54, 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646009-0028-z. Bishu, S., & Alkadry, M. (2017). A systematic review of the gender pay gap and factors that predict it. Administration & Society, 49(1), 65–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399716636928. Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (1992). The gender earnings gap: Learning from international comparisons. American Economic Review, 82, 533–538. Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2007). Changes in the labor supply behavior of married women: 1980–2000. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(3), 393–438.

6 Sustainable HRM for Sustainable Careers of Women Professionals

103

Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2017). The gender wage gap: Extend, trends, and explanations. Journal of Economic Literature, 55(3), 789–835. Buˇci¯unien˙e, I., & Kazlauskait˙e, R. (2012). The linkage between HRM, CSR and performanceoutcomes. Baltic Journal of Management, 7(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/174652612111 95856. Byron, K., & Post, C. (2016). Women on boards of directors and corporate social performance: A meta-analysis. Corporate Governance: An international Review, 5(4), 428–442. Cabrera, E. F. (2007). Opting out and opting in: Understanding the complexities of women’s career transitions. Career Development International, 12, 218–237. Catalyst. (2004). The bottom line: Connecting corporate performance and gender diversity. Available at: www.catalyst.org/publication/82/the-bottom-line-connecting-corporate-perfor mance-and-gender-diversity. Catalyst. (2018, October 3). Women CEOs of the S&P 500. Retrieved from: https://www.catalyst. org/knowledge/women-ceos-sp-500. Chapman, J. (1975). Comparison of male and female leadership styles. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 645–650. Chiu, C. (1998). Do professional women have lower job satisfaction than professional men? Lawyers as a case study. Sex Roles, 521–537. Cleveland, J. N., Byrne, Z. S., & Cavanagh, T. M. (2015). The future of HR is RH: Respect for humanity at work. Human Resource Management Review, 25, 146–166. De Bussy, N. M., & Suprawan, L. (2012). Most valuable stakeholders: The impact of employee orientation on corporate financial performance. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 280–287. De Hauw, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2015). Building a sustainable career: The role of work–home balance in career decision making. In A. De Vos & B. I. J. M. Van der Heijden (Eds.), Handbook of research on sustainable careers (pp. 223–238). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. De Lange, W., & Koppens, J. (2007). De duurzame arbeidsrelatie. Amsterdam: WEKA Uitgeverij. De Prins, P., De Vos, A., Van Beirendonck, L., & Segers, J. (2015). Sustainable HRM for sustainable careers: Introducing the ‘Respect Openness Continuity (ROC)’ model. In Handbook of research on sustainable careers (Vol. 21, pp. 319–334). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. De Prins, P., Stuer, D., & Gielens, T. (2018). Revitalizing social dialogue in the workplace: The impact of a cooperative industrial relations climate and sustainable HR practices on reducing employee harm. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–21. https://doi. org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1423098. De Prins, P., Van Beirendonck, L., De Vos, A., & Segers, J. (2014). Sustainable HRM: Bridging theory and practice through the ‘Respect Openness Continuity (ROC)’-model. Management revue, 263–284. De Vos, A., & Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M. (2017). Current thinking on contemporary careers: The key roles of sustainable HRM and sustainability of careers. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 28, 41–50. DeFillippi, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1994). The boundaryless career: A competency-based perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(4), 307–324. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512. Diaz-Carrion, R., López-Fernández, M., & Romero-Fernandez, P. M. (2018). Developing a sustainable HRM system from a contextual perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1528. Dickens, L. (1994). The business case for women’s equality: Is the carrot better than the stick? Employee Relations, 16(8), 5–18. Dickens, L. (2006). Re-regulation for gender equality: From ‘either/or’ to ‘both’. Industrial Relations Journal, 37(4), 299–309. Dubbelt, L., Rispens, S., & Demerouti, E. (2016). Gender discrimination and job characteristics. The Career Development International, 21(3), 230–245. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-10-20150136.

104

S. Singh and S. Vanka

Dundon, T., & Rafferty, A. (2018). The (potential) demise of HRM? Human Resource Management Journal, 28, 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12195. Dwivedi, P., Joshi, A., & Misangyi, V. D. (2018). Gender-inclusive gatekeeping: How (mostly male) predecessors influence the success of female CEOs. Academy of Management Journal. Epub ahead of print 20 April. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.1238. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. Eby, L. T. (2001). The boundaryless career experiences of mobile spouses in dual-earner marriages. Group and Organization Management, 26(3), 343–368. Ehnert, I. (2009). Sustainable human resource management: A conceptual and exploratory analysis from a paradox perspective (contributions to management science). Heidelberg: Springer. Ehnert, I., Parsa, S., Roper, I., Wagner, M., & Muller-Camen, M. (2016). Reporting on sustainability and HRM: A comparative study of sustainability reporting practices by the world’s largest companies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(1), 88–108. Eurostat. (2016). Employment rates by sex, age and educational attainment level. Retrieved June 2, 2017, from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Employment_stat istics#Employment_rates_by_sex.2C_age_and_educational_attainment_level. Figart, D. (2005). Gender as more than a dummy variable: Feminist approaches to discrimination. Review of Social Economy, 63(3), 509–536. Folkman, J. & Zenger, J. (2012). Are women leaders better than men? Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2012/03/a-study-in-leadership-women-do. Fondas, N. (1996). Feminization at work: Career implication. In M. B. Arthur & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The boundaryless career. A new employment principle for a new organizational era (pp. 282–293). New York: Oxford University Press. Gilligan, C. (1978). In a different voice: Women’s conception of the self and of morality. Harvard Educational Review, 47(4), 481–517. Glass, J. (2004). Blessing or curse? Work-family policies and mother’s wage growth over time. Work and Occupation, 31, 367–394. Godard, J. (2001). High performance and the transformation of work? The implications of alternative work practices for the experience and outcomes of work. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54(4), 776–805. Gould-Williams, J. S. (2003). The importance of HR practices and workplace trust in achieving superior performance: A study of public-sector organizations. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(2), 1–27. Greenhaus, J. H., & Kossek, E. E. (2014). The contemporary career: A work-home perspective. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 361–388. https:// doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091324. Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work–family are allies: A theory of work–family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72–92. Gritti, P., & Leoni, R. (2012). High performance work practices, industrial relations and firm propensity for innovation. In A. Bryson (Ed.), Advances in the economic analysis of participatory and labor-managed firms (Vol. 13, pp. 267–309). Bingley (UK): Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Guerci, M. (2011). La gestione delle risorse umane per la sostenibilita’ dell’impresa [The management of human resources through corporate sustainability]. Franco Angnelli. Guerci, M., & Pedrini, M. (2014). The consensus between Italian HR and sustainability managers on HR management for sustainability-driven change—Towards a ‘strong’ HR management system. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25, 1787–1814. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09585192.2013.860388. Guest, D. (2017). Human resource management and employee well-being: Towards a new analytic framework. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(1), 22–38. Hanson, G. C., Hammer, L. B., & Colton, C. L. (2006). Development and validation of a multidimensional scale of perceived work-family positive spillover. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(3), 249.

6 Sustainable HRM for Sustainable Careers of Women Professionals

105

Harel, G. H., Tzafrir, S. S., & Baruch, Y. (2003). Achieving organizational effectiveness through promotion of women into managerial positions: HRM practice focus. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(2), 247–263. Haslam, S. A., & Ryan, M. K. (2008). The road to the glass cliff: Differences in the perceived suitability of men and women for leadership positions in succeeding and failing organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 530–546. Hobfoll, S. E. (2011). Conservation of resources theory: Its implication for stress, health, and resilience. In S. Folkman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of stress, health, and coping (pp. 127–147). New York: Oxford University Press. Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. New York, NY: Viking. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0165-z. Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635–672. Igbaria, M., & Shayo, C. (1997). The impact of race and gender differences on job performance evaluations and career success. Equal Opportunities International, 16(8), 12–23. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/eb010703. International Labour Organization. (2017). World employment and social outlook: Trends for women 2017. Geneva. Jeong, S. H., & Harrison, D. A. (2017). Glass breaking, strategy making, and value creating: Metaanalytic outcomes of women as CEOs and TMT members. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4), 1219–1252. Joshi, A. (2014). By whom and when is women’s expertise recognized? The interactive effects of gender and education in science and engineering teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59, 202–239. Joshi, A., Liao, H., & Jackson, S. (2006). Cross-level effects of workplace diversity on sales performance and pay. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 459–481. Joshi, A., Neely, B., Emrich, C., Griffiths, D., & George, G. (2015a). Gender research in AMJ: An overview of five decades of empirical research and calls to action. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1459–1475. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.4011. Joshi, A., Son, J., & Roh, H. (2015b). When can women close the gap? A meta-analytic test of sex differences in performance and rewards. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), 1516–1545. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0721. Jourdain, G., & Chênevert, D. (2010). Job demands–resources, burnout and intention to leave the nursing profession: A questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47(6), 709–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.11.007. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Karasek, R. A., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books. Kirton, G., & Robertson, M. (2018). Sustaining and advancing IT careers: Women’s experiences in a UK based IT company. Journal of Strategic Information System, 27(2), 157–169. Klode, C., Schüller, K., & Armbruester, T. (2017). Practicing what they preach? The scope and explanation of a gender pay gap in HR management. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017(1), 13489. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2017.13489abstract. Kohout, R., & Singh, P. (2018). Pay equity and marginalized women. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 33(2), 123–137. Kramar, R. (2014). Beyond strategic human resource management: Is sustainable human resource management the next approach? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25, 1069–1089. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.816863. Ladge, J. J., Clair, J. A., & Greenberg, D. (2012). Crossdomain identity transition during liminal periods: Constructing multiple selves as professional and mother during pregnancy. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1449–1471.

106

S. Singh and S. Vanka

Lengnick-Hall, M. L., Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Andrade, L. S., & Drake, B. (2009). Strategic human resource management: The evolution of the field. Human Resource Management Review, 19(2), 64–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.01.002. Leslie, L. M., Manchester, C. F., Park, T.-Y., & Mehng, S. A. (2012). Flexible work practices: A source of career premiums or penalties? Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1407–1428. Lips, H. M. (2013). The gender pay gap: Challenging the rationalizations. Perceived equity, discrimination, and the limits of human capital models. Sex Roles, 68(3–4), 169. Lundy, O., & Cowling, A. (1996). Strategic human resource management. London: Routledge. Mainiero, L. A., & Gibson, D. E. (2018). The kaleidoscope career model revisited: How midcareer men and women diverge on authenticity, balance, and challenge. Journal of Career Development, 45(4), 361–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845317698223. Mainiero, L. A., & Sullivan, S. E. (2005). Kaleidoscope careers: An alternate explanation for the “opt-out” revolution. Academy of Management Executive, 19 106–123. Mainiero, L. A., & Sullivan, S. E. (2006). The opt-out revolt: How people are creating kaleidoscope careers outside of companies. New York, NY: Davies-Black. Marchington, M. (2015). Human resource management (HRM): Too busy looking up to see where it is going longer term? Human Resource Management Review, 25, 176. Mariappanadar, S. (2012). Harm of efficiency oriented HRM practices on stakeholders: An ethical issue for sustainability. Society and Business Review, 7, 168. https://doi.org/10.1108/174656812 11237628. Mariappanadar, S. (2013). A conceptual framework for cost measures of harm of HRM practices. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 5, 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1108/175743213 11321595. Mariappanadar, S. (2014). The model of negative externality for sustainable HRM. In: Sustainability and human resource management (pp. 181–203). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. McLeod, P. L., Lobel, S. A., & Cox Jr, T. H. (1996). Ethnic diversity and creativity in small groups. Small group research, 27(2), 248–264. Mishra, P., Gupta, R., & Bhatnagar, J. (2014). Grounded theory research: Exploring work-family enrichment in an emerging economy. Qualitative Research Journal, 14(3), 289–306. https://doi. org/10.1108/QRJ-01-2013-0001. Newman, A., Miao, Q., Hofman, P. S., & Zhu, J. (2016). The impact of socially responsible human resource management on employees’ organizational citizenship behaviour: The mediating role of organizational identification. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(4), 440–455. Newman, K. L. (2011). Sustainable careers. Lifecycle engagement in work. Organizational Dynamics, 40(2), 136–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2011.01.008. Ogbonnaya, C., Daniels, K., Connolly, S., & van Veldhoven, M. (2017). Integrated and isolated impact of high-performance work practices on employee health and well-being: A comparative study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(1), 98–114. O’Reilly, C. A., & Pfeffer, J. (2000). Hidden value: How great companies achieve extraordinary results with ordinary people. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Pas, B. R., Peters, P., Eisinga, R., Doorewaard, H., & Lagro-Janssen, A. (2011). Explaining career motivation among female doctors in the Netherlands: The effects of children, views on motherhood and work-home cultures. Work, Employment & Society, 25, 487–506. Pichler, S., Simpson, P. A., & Stroh, L. K. (2008). The glass ceiling in human resources: Exploring the link between women’s representation in management and the practices of strategic human resource management and employee involvement. Human Resource Management, 47, 463–479. Post, C., & Byron, K. (2015). Women on boards and firm financial performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1546–1571. Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. (1994). Investigating the “glass ceiling” phenomenon: An empirical study of actual promotions to top management. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 68–86. Powell, G. N., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2010). Sex, gender, and the work-to-family interface: Exploring negative and positive interdependencies. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 513–534.

6 Sustainable HRM for Sustainable Careers of Women Professionals

107

Ragins, B., & Scandura, T. (1994). Gender differences in expected outcomes of mentoring relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 957–971. Ramsay, H., Scholarios, D., & Harley, B. (2000). Employees and high-performance work systems: Testing inside the black box. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38(4), 501–531. Reitman, F., & Schneer, J. A. (2005). The long-term negative impacts of managerial career interruptions. Group and Organization Management, 30(3), 243–262. Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Keeping an open mind about evidence based management: A reply to Learmonth’s commentary. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 1091–1109. Rousseau, D. M., & Olivas-Luján, M. R. (2015). Evidence-based management. In Wiley encyclopedia of management (pp. 1–3). American Cancer Society. https://doi.org/10.1002/978111878 5317.weom110013. Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011. 10.008. Ryan, M., & Haslam, A. (2006).What lies beyond the glass ceiling? The glass cliff and the potential precariousness of women’s leadership positions. Human Resource Management International Digest, 14(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/09670730610663150. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 893–917. Servon, L., & Visser, M. (2011). Progress hindered: The retention and advancement of women in science, engineering and technology careers. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(3), 272–284. Shen, J., & Benson, J. (2016). When CSR is a social norm: How socially responsible human resource management affects employee work behaviour. Journal of Management, 42(6), 1723–1746. Shen, J., Chanda, A., D’Netto, B., & Monga, M. (2009). Managing diversity through human resource management: An international perspective and conceptual framework. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(2), 235–251. Sigelman, L., Milward, H. B., & Shepard, J. M. (1982). The salary differential between male and female administrators: Equal pay for equal work? Academy of Management Journal, 25, 664–671. Silbey, S. S. (2016, August 23). Why do so many women who study engineering leave the field? Harvard Business Review. Retrieved on, 26-01-2018. https://hbr.org/2016/08/why-do-so-manywomen-who-study-engineering-leave-the-field#comment-section. Smith, L., Caputi, P., & Crittenden, N. (2012). How are women’s glass ceiling beliefs related to career success? Career Development International, 17(5), 458–474. https://doi.org/10.1108/136 20431211269702. Smith-Ruig, T. (2009). Mapping the career journey of accountants in Australia. In S. G. Baugh & S. E. Sullivan (Eds.), Maintaining energy, focus and options over the career: Research in careers (Vol. 1, pp. 163–196). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Sparks, K., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. (2001). Well-being and occupational health in the 21st century workplace. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 74, 498–509. Steele, C. M. (1992, April). Race and the schooling of Black Americans. Atlantic Monthly, 68–78. Stewart, L., & Gudykunst, W. (1982). Differential factors influencing the hierarchical level and number of promotions of males and females within an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 586–597. Sullivan, C., & Lewis, S. (2001). Home-based telework, gender and the synchronization of work and family: Perspective of teleworkers and their co-residents. Gender, Work and Organisation, 8(2), 123–145. Sullivan, S. E. (1999). The changing nature of careers: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 25, 457–483.

108

S. Singh and S. Vanka

Sullivan, S. E., & Mainiero, L. A. (2007). The changing nature of gender roles, alpha/beta careers and work-life issues: Theory-driven implications for human resource management. Career Development International, 12, 238–263. Thompson, P. (2011). The trouble with HRM. Human Resource Management Journal, 21, 355–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2011.00180.x. Toossi, M., & Torpey, E. (2017, May). Older workers: Labor force trends and career options. Career Outlook. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2017/article/older-wor kers. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2017). World population ageing 2017. New York. Valcour, M. (2015). Facilitating the crafting of sustainable careers in organizations. In A. De Vos & B. I. J. M. Van der Heijden (Eds.), Handbook of research on sustainable career (pp. 20–34). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782547037.00007. Valcour, P. M., & Tolbert, P. S. (2003). Gender, family, and career in the era of boundarylessness: Determinants and effects of intra- and inter-organizational mobility. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(5), 768–787. Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., & De Vos, A. (2015). Sustainable careers: Introductory chapter. In A. De Vos & B. I. J. M. Van der Heijden (Eds.), Handbook of research on sustainable careers (pp. 1–19). Cheltenham; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. van der Togt, J., & Rasmussen, T. H. (2017). Toward evidence-based HR. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 4(2), 127–132. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-02-20170013. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as predictors of job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 84–94. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behaviour., 74, 235–244. Xiu, L., & Gunderson, M. (2014). Glass ceiling or sticky floor? Quantile regression decomposition of the gender pay gap in China. International Journal of Manpower, 35(3), 306–326. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJM-01-2012-0017. Ybema, J. F., Vuuren van, T., & Van Dam, K. (2017). HR practices for enhancing sustainable employability: Implementation, use, and outcomes. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–22. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1387865. Zakaria, M., Abdulatiff, N. K., & Ali, N. (2014). The role of wellbeing on performance in services sector. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 164, 358–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbs pro.2014.11.088. Zenger, J., & Folkman, J. (2012). A study in leadership–Women do it better than men. Harvard Business Review, 80–85. Zhao, Y., Fujimoto, Y., & Gaur, S. S. (2018). Life enrichment for workers in contemporary China. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 31(1), 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM06-2017-0239.

Chapter 7

Organizational Culture Dimensions as Drivers of Employee Engagement for Business Sustainability: Towards a Conceptual Framework Shefali Nandan and Jyoti Abstract The concept of organizational sustainability is gaining currency over time, as companies across industries strive to survive and counter stiff competition. Organizations today use employee engagement as a tool to gain competitive advantage. There are many determinants of employee engagement, of which organizational culture is considered to be one of the key drivers. The study focuses on those key dimensions of organizational culture that not only act as drivers of employee engagement but also directly or indirectly affects organizational sustainability. The objective is to explore the literature to identify the linkages between the three concepts. A multidisciplinary approach was adopted for identifying relevant literature and multiple databases were used to extract studies. Integrative literature review on employee engagement, organizational culture, and business sustainability dimensions was conducted. Business sustainability has three key dimensions— social, environmental, and economic. Organizational culture dimensions that affect employee engagement are teamwork, leadership behaviour, rewards, support towards employees, and internal communication. These also impact the three dimensions of business sustainability. Employee engagement was also found to impact business sustainability. The available literature indicates that there is a paucity of studies that interlink organizational sustainability, employee engagement, and organizational culture. The study shows linkages between the dimensions of organizational culture, employee engagement, and the three dimensions of organizational sustainability by developing a conceptual model. Researchers, practitioners, and policy makers can take cues from the proposed model for their future action plans. Keywords Organizational culture · Employee engagement · Business sustainability · Organizational sustainability

S. Nandan (B) University of Allahabad, Prayagraj, India e-mail: [email protected] Jyoti University of Allahabad, Prayagraj, India © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. Vanka et al. (eds.), Sustainable Human Resource Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5656-2_7

109

110

S. Nandan and Jyoti

Introduction The changing business environment creates multiple challenges for business organizations. The new economic order has created a fast-changing and highly competitive business environment that is characterized by complexity and high volatility. Business organizations need to face competition with effectiveness and efficiency to achieve sustainable growth. Today, firms have accepted the value of human capital and have recognized that tending to both human and non-human aspects of the organization is the route to sustainable profitability. The Gallup report in the decade of 1990s showed that employee engagement is the most important factor which is essential for the companies to attain growth. Companies having highly engaged employees are better in terms of parameters like quality and quantity of output, employee efficiency, work environment, growth in number of customers base, and overall profit margins (Gallup 2015). Managers are giving attention to the concept of employee engagement as it is considered to be a probable driver that leads an organization to the path of competitiveness, effectiveness, innovativeness, and sustainability (Welch 2011). A vast body of literature is dedicated to studying the meaning, drivers, and outcomes of employee engagement (EE). Despite the importance of EE, it is declining, as per the reports. For example, according to the estimates by Gallup, a whopping loss of about $300 billion occurs annually in the form of lost productivity due to disengaged employees in the USA. Another study reported that about forty per cent of the employees surveyed were not engaged, while twenty per cent were actively engaged (Hewitt 2013). According to Involvement and Participation Association, ‘we are entering the age of sustainability’, it is thus important for businesses to adopt ethical and sustainable business practices to achieve success (Wales 2013, p. 38). Business sustainability (BS) has captured the attention of practitioners and researchers alike. Business sustainability depends on the socio and economic conditions. It is about achieving today’s success without jeopardizing future needs. The term ‘corporate sustainability’ is much broader and includes concepts like corporate social responsibility and corporate governance. Corporate sustainability constitutes the operations of a firm in its environment so as to address the economic, social, and natural environmental concerns so as to ensure the firm’s long-term existence. In this regard, it becomes essential for organizations to ensure fairness, transparency, and effective human capital management as these values are important for society and people care for them. Globally, business enterprises are making efforts towards becoming more sustainable. EE is considered to be an integral part of a firm’s approach for corporate sustainability. There has been an increased interest in the organizations in Canada in achieving EE for facing challenges in the economic environment, particularly when employee turnover increased in the post-recession period, as highlighted by Hewitt Associates (2009). According to a model proposed by Avery and Bergsteiner (2010), sustainable enterprises have been successful in attaining EE as their employees evinced intellectual and emotional involvement with their organization.

7 Organizational Culture Dimensions as Drivers of Employee …

111

More than 90 countries use global reporting initiative guidelines through a global process in which representatives of business, labour unions, investors, accountants, civil society organizations, and other experts participate to report sustainability standards (Brandt and Arbex 2015). About four dozen studies from reputed consulting firms and prominent academic journals and various other research firms that are high on sustainability index have better financial output, growing stock value, face lower risks, and more engaged workforce (Collin 2007). Companies that care about sustainability have institutionalized EE in their organizations so as to get a competitive advantage (Bees and Spencer 2011; Carrie 2011). Culture has also been found to affect sustainability (Eccles et al. 2012). Epstein et al. (2010) studied four companies that have woven sustainability with the every practice of the business focussing on leadership and organizational culture (OC) to encourage and engage employees to attain sustainability. They could achieve this by adopting appropriate practices like reducing waste and emissions that reduced both company cost and social cost. Recent studies suggest that it is but sensible for organizations to promote a healthy culture and also to make certain that employees remain engaged at the workplace. A good number of studies have attempted to explore the impact of OC on EE. Organizational culture is a holistic term that itself is made up of various dimensions, risk taking, innovativeness, rewards, performance orientation, etc., each of which has some impact on EE. BS, EE, and OC have received attention as areas of interest for researchers and practitioners. A vast body of literature is dedicated to the study of these three areas separately, or any two of these areas together, or any two of these areas along with a third variable, to explore the linkages. However, very few studies have taken BS, EE, and OC together. The current study makes an attempt to fill this gap by integrating the research work on the dimensions of EE, OC and BS. The purpose of the study is to explore the literature to develop a conceptual framework showing linkages between OC dimensions, EE, and BS.

Research Methodology The literature review included studies from 1987 to 2017. An integrative literature review was conducted for the study. Integrative literature reviews were conducted on topics that are continuously evolving so that a new insight and perspective is generated, wherein the researcher analyses, synthesizes, and critiques available research findings and studies on a topic by weaving them together in such a way that new models are generated (Torraco 2005). An extensive review of literature was conducted on EE, OC and BS. Books and scholarly articles published in refereed journals were selected for review. Nonscholarly works, like technical reports and articles, have also been included in the current study. A multidisciplinary approach was adopted, and relevant literature in the fields of Business Management, Sociology and Psychology, Applied Psychology was searched. This study used multiple databases to extract literature. The databases

112

S. Nandan and Jyoti

searched included the following: ProQuest, JSTOR, Sage, Emerald Insight, Elsevier, Taylor & Francis, Springer, Wiley, and the Academy of Management database. Websites like Google Scholar and ResearchGate were additionally used as a source of information collection. The keyword combinations used to search articles for OC were ‘dimensions’, ‘factors’, ‘components’, ‘variables’, along with the term ‘organizational culture’. For EE, the key terms used were ‘employee engagement’, ‘job engagement’, ‘work engagement’, and ‘role engagement’. Keywords like ‘organizational sustainability’, ‘corporate/BS’, and ‘social sustainability’ were used for identifying studies on BS. The initial search conducted generated 630 research papers from various databases. Articles were reviewed in terms of relevance, out of 630 articles, 300 research papers were shortlisted on the basis of their face value and appropriateness, downloaded for further review. While conducting the review of literature, the focus was on articles investigating the topics EE, organizational culture, BS, and the relationship between any two or all three of these areas. Finally, 276 research papers were studied. The paper was organized by grouping together the studies that were similar in terms of the concepts or theories of interest that they focused on (American Psychological Association 2010). The thematic structure was followed for organizing the review of literature (studies are organized keeping in mind the main themes of the review topic). The paper first explored the terms BS, EE, and organization culture and its dimensions, under appropriate headings. It further examined the organizational culture dimensions affecting BS through EE. Lastly, a conceptual framework is proposed that attempts to show a relationship between the different dimensions of organizational culture, EE, and BS.

Employee Engagement Engaged employees are believed to be assets for an organization. EE is a psychological state that determines if a person is engaged or not engaged at work (Kahn 1990). Schaufeli et al. (2002) consider EE as a condition of mind at the workplace that is marked by ‘vigour, dedication, and absorption’. There are several factors that contribute to EE at work like leadership, system and process, strategy, positive work, and culture and values (Wellins and Bernthal 2007). EE is considered as a dominant factor for gaining competitive advantage. Engaged employees exhibit an emotional commitment to their work (Baumruk 2004). For any organization, EE is essential for organization performance. Saks (2006) opined that employees who are engaged in work are attentive towards their responsibilities and are mentally involved at their workplace. EE is able to predict various organizational outcomes like employee performance, organizational achievements, and its financial performance (Bates 2004; Baumruk 2004; Harter et al. 2002a; Richman 2006; Welch 2011).

7 Organizational Culture Dimensions as Drivers of Employee …

113

According to Hewitt Associates (2009), EE is a process which is not just about making employees happy and satisfied. It focuses on how to engage employees at the workplace and also to maintain and enhance engagement among employees who are already performing and are an asset. Research also indicates that EE positively influences customer satisfaction (Coffman and Gonzalez-Molina 2002; Ellis and Sorensen 2007). Czarnowsky and Ketter (2008) suggest a direct link between EE and profit. In a meta-analysis, Harter et al. (2002a) studied the linkage between employee satisfaction—engagement and various organizational outcomes—output, customer satisfaction, eco-friendly products, employees’ exit from organization, physical safety, and profit. Engaged employees influence their team members by creating a healthy environment, positive work culture, buoyancy, and being alert, and the outcome is an enhanced team output (Bakker and Demerouti 2008; Xanthopoulou et al. 2009). Highly engaged employees are more active and are better in social interactions at the workplace that results in better team performance. Employees have to be engaged to ensure higher productivity at the workplace in organizations (Lawler 2005; Schiemann 2009) to acquire competitive advantage (Macey et al. 2009; Bhatnagar 2009). Strategies like career development, provisions of quality resources for work, and work–life balance may be used to motivate and engage employees (Aon Consulting 2011). One of the prime driving factors for engagement is well-being of employees (Berger 2011). EE affects well-being and psychological responses and is also essential for employee innovation.

Business Sustainability In the context of business, the term sustainability is concerned with societal, environmental, and economic systems within which a business exists, aiming at their growth and maintenance with focus on future (Chartered Institution of Personnel and Development 2012). In simple terms, sustainability means to ensure the existence of business by accruing benefits for today, while not endangering the needs of the future (Colbert and Kurucz 2007; Boudreau and Ramstad 2005). The concept of sustainability seems to provide an improved natural and social environment along with economic growth for both present and the generations yet to come (Eswarlal and Vallesi 2014). Businesses organizations have realized the significance of sustainability in every aspect of their activities—systems, processes, products, and services due to changing and challenging market scenario. Gallopín (2003, p. 35) opined that ‘sustainability is a property of a system open to interactions with its external world… a dynamic preservation of the essential identity of the system amidst permanent change’. In fact, BS is a requirement for better financial performance to be able to satisfy stakeholders (Høgevold and Svensson 2012).

114

S. Nandan and Jyoti

BS may thus be viewed as the ability of firms to take care of their short-term financial needs while keeping an eye on their future needs. From a system’s perspective, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED 1987) considered ‘time’ as basis for understanding the concept of ‘sustainability’ and conceptualized sustainability as practices of judicious use and distribution of resources today in order to meet the needs of generations yet to come, by maintaining a balance in economic, societal, and ecological systems. Cheung (2011, p. 162) argues that a sustainable organization should include ‘an explicit objective to reduce their negative economic, social and environmental externalities, but in a manner that increases the wealth of the corporation’. Eventually, the objective of sustainable development is to ensure that in every decision taken today, the four factors—basic needs, environment, ecoefficiency, and people’s growth—additionally concern for future generation must obtain central place (Blackburn 2000). Sustainability is of strategic importance for profit-making and non-profit-making companies alike (Strandberg Consulting 2009). From the perspective of a business organization, the term sustainability can be viewed from various dimensions. Studies have focused on economic dimensions, social dimensions, and environmental dimensions of sustainability. All these dimensions together lead to BS. Companies maintain a network of various stakeholders, who may be a part of market or may be outside market, focusing on relationship management to create value for their customers ultimately leading to BS (Boesso and Kumar 2009).

Economic Dimension of Business Sustainability The economic dimension of sustainability constitutes a firm’s capability to generate economic value from their operations and improve financial performance. Choi and Ng (2011) opine that economic sustainability is important as a lack of it may result into job losses and unemployment, affect the viability of public programs, leading to an adverse impact on economic and industrial growth of a country. Reduction in overall costs and taking care of economic interests of external stakeholders (i.e. a general progress in economic condition and a better quality of living) have been identified as two important aspects of sustainability by Sheth et al. (2011). Since the elements of sustainability are believed to affect corporate image and reputation (Fombrun 2005; Pfau et al. 2008; Klein and Dawar 2004; Miles and Covin 2000; Van Marrewijk 2003), sustainability is also seen as a dominant challenge for today’s marketing system (Sheth et al. 2011). Companies must have transparency and sensitivity towards their economic and social issues affecting stakeholders if they want to grow and sustain (Hillenbrand and Money 2007). This also would give them a competitive advantage as positive actions towards stakeholders interests would help in creating a good image and reputation (Martínez and Bosque 2014). BS needs to be driven by economic opportunities to enhance sales and profit margins, the

7 Organizational Culture Dimensions as Drivers of Employee …

115

company’s reputation, and brand value (Porter and Linde 1995a, b). Some authors have discussed certain indirect economic outcomes of BS that include employer brand and innovative capability of firms (Ehnert 2009; Revell et al. 2010; Hansen 2010). The stakeholder theory, which considers profitability as the main objective of companies for BS, has been widely adopted by various disciplines (Hutchinson et al. 2013; Mainardes et al. 2011). It is believed that stakeholder consideration frames BS efforts (Svensson et al. 2016; Rindell et al. 2011). To enhance the impact of firm’s innovative practices towards building a sustainable business, there is a need to put together the efforts of different stakeholders for businesses (Ayuso et al. 2011; Walker and Laplume 2014). This has been corroborated by Biggemann et al. (2014) who proposed that BS is built with the integrated efforts of various stakeholders including suppliers, manufacturers, and retailers whose efforts are guided by a sense of social responsibility with the objective to create a sustainable value chain. Studies have advocated adopting business plans and policies that are not only advantageous for the firm and its stakeholders, but also protect the needs of future (Garcia and Vredenburg 2002; Freeman et al. 2010).

Social Dimension of Business Sustainability BS requires the corporation to pursue societal goals (Cheung 2011). Several studies have tried to analyse the association between social responsibility commitment and financial performance of firms (Wu 2006; Van Beurden and Gössling 2008; Aguinis and Glavas 2012). Social dimension of sustainability constitutes sensitivity and actions addressing issues of society, like respect for others’ views and equality in every walk of life (Goodland 1995). It is focused on bringing wellness and a better life for people in society (Choi and Ng 2011). Business organizations must actively think and plan actions the good interests of society by having a clear vision for the future and a concern for the well-being of future generations (Zsolnai 2011). Today, the consumers are tough to please and are more aware than ever. Tai and Chuang (2014) reported about a survey that indicates that the majority of consumers prefer to buy products from a socially responsible company and were ready to switch retailers if it did not require any compromise on cost and quality. Social dimension has become important for business organizations also because people are expecting business organizations to think and act towards well-being of society, while the corporate governance scandals are increasing in number (Mohr and Webb 2005).

Environmental Dimension of Business Sustainability Today, the concerns for conservation of nature are increasing in society. Firms are expected to earn profits adopting ways that protect natural environment (Stead and

116

S. Nandan and Jyoti

Stead 1994). Khare and Wollard (2005) selected five major emerging environmental and social issues to analyse for their impact on BS—climate change, pollution and health, repercussions of globalization, the energy shortage, and erosion of customer trust. Sustainability concerns must be addressed during the stage of life cycle of a product, right from product designing and manufacturing, through transportation and distribution to final dumping. Sustainable business practices must, at every step, focus on proper coordination of various activities involved in the every stage of product life cycle—beginning from product design and manufacturing, through distribution and delivery to final disposal (Hong et al. 2009). A report of the consulting firm Capegimini titled ‘Future Supply Chain 2016’ (p. 9) highlights that the supply chain in the times to come is likely to consider interest of various stakeholders at every level of economy–customer level, firm level, industry level, and ultimately the society. A company might deploy new technologies that lead to less pollution and greater effectiveness of the process that leads to increased environment sustainability (in terms of cleaner water, less energy, reduced forest resources, and forest regeneration). Now, it is not just the companies, but retailers have also been forced to address societal concerns of business and need to take care of not just the economic impact but also environmental and social impact of their activities (Jones et al. 2005). These situations give power to consumers who finally make the purchase decision about products or services. When companies embark upon their initiatives towards environmental and societal sustainability, the important forces that make them do so are public image of the firm, brand image, employees’ interests, risk management, and possible cost reductions (Collins et al. 2010). Certain drivers of firms’ success and sustainability while adopting environment-friendly activities have been identified as follows: cost reduction (through resource efficiency), following regulatory norms, talent retention, increasing customer base, growth in market share, and getting good publicity (Revell et al. 2010).

Organizational Culture The concept of OC gained significance as a subject matter of research since the early 1980s and ever since the number of studies in this area has increased consistently. OC is a system of shared beliefs and assumptions held by people that differentiate people of one organization from another, giving them an identity (Schein 1985; Xiaoming and Junchen 2012). It gives meaning to an organization, helps in bringing out strengths, and keeps the members of the organization glued together (Singh 2016). It determines the strength of an organization (Smith 2003). O’Donnell and Boyle (2008) proposed that culture creates a unique identity for an organization and gives an idea of the practices of an organization, through the organization’s assumptions, stories, rituals, values, accepted practices, and languages. OC is considered as a key component to organizational performance (Baker 2002; Gallagher et al. 2007). According to Abu-Jarad et al. (2010), organization culture practices are the most crucial factor that will determine organizational success. Strong OC increases the

7 Organizational Culture Dimensions as Drivers of Employee …

117

chances of achieving objectives by employees and together and increases organizational performance (Deal and Kennedy 1982; Marcoulides and Heck 1993; Tushman and O’Reilly 1997; Atkinson and Kandula 1990). Organization’s internal environment is built upon the assumptions and beliefs of the managers and employees (Aycan et al. 1999). Thus, culture shapes employees’ behaviour and influences organizational performance. A vast body of literature has attempted to identify dimensions of OC. The fact that these dimensions differ in different studies implies that that organizational culture is a construct that is multidimensional (Hurley and Hult 1998; O’Reilly et al. 1991; Detert et al. 2000).

Organizational Culture Dimensions and Employee Engagement Regardless of the frequent use of EE in organizations and various studies on the effective development of EE, there exists a gap between research findings on the importance and methods in creating EE (Saks 2006; Shuck 2010). It is essential to understand how to engage employees, not only for good performance but also for BS. Studies have shown links between OC and EE. In general, good organizational culture leads to EE (Duffy et al. 2013; Denison Organizational Culture Survey 2010). Since it is now known that culture is a multidimensional construct, studies have also attempted to explore linkages between organizational culture dimensions and EE (Nandan and Jyoti 2016). Rewards, recognition, and leadership were supported as leading to EE (Jiony et al. 2015; Fowler 2009) that further leads to good financial performance of companies (Hewitt 2011). The importance of rewards for EE has been established by a number of studies (Jaghargh et al. 2012; Carnegie 2012). In addition, the importance of a culture of learning in an organization can also make a positive contribution towards engaging employees (Kim et al. 2014). According to Jiony et al. (2015), EE results in organizational effectiveness and better performance which is the outcome of effective systems, supportive leadership, personality—job fit, realistic targets, and security—which are various dimensions of OC. A study by Bedarkar and Pandita (2014) highlights the key drivers of EE, which include organizational communication, work–life balance, and leadership, which are also the predictor of OC. Internal communication of an organization is essential for achieving EE (Welch 2011; Hartnell et al. 2011). Studies have also found a positive link between EE and organizational processes of power sharing, communication, team orientation, mentoring behaviours, leader behaviours, and support for organizational goal attainment (May et al. 2004; Saks 2006; Papalexandris and Galanki 2009), and a study by Parent and Lovelace (2015) has further supported these findings. Devi (2009) asserted EE works for achieving organizational objectives through proper coordination in teams, healthy working condition, taking care of employees’ interests, providing growth opportunities, effective leadership, and flexible policies and practices. It is imperative for

118

S. Nandan and Jyoti

every firm to create better work conditions, leadership, teamwork, collaboration, communication, reward, and recognition for employee performance for engaging the employees in their jobs (Fowler 2009; Cameron and Quinn 2006; O’Reilly et al. 1991; Robbins and Coulter 1998). Further, teamwork, openness, innovation and risk taking, organizational support to employees, work environment, organizational goals, and internal communication have also been found as significant organizational culture dimensions as drivers of EE (Hoogervorst et al. 2004; Suharti and Suliyanto 2012; Devi 2009; Park 2001; Glaser and Zamanou 1987; Aydin and Ceylan 2009; Jehn and Chatman 2000; Siddhanta and Roy 2010; Denison and Neale 1996). Jung et al. (2009) have done a comprehensive analysis of various measures of OC, which are FOCUS, Culture Survey, Culture Audit, OC Profile, Denison OC Survey, Japanese OC Scale, Competing Values framework, and Perceived Cultural Compatibility Index. After a comprehensive review of literature on dimensions of OC, it was found that five dimensions—leadership behaviour, teamwork, rewards, support towards employee, and internal communication—have been seen as an important component of OC and were chosen for the study.

Impact of Organizational Culture Dimensions on Employee Engagement On exploring the literature on OC, it was found that certain dimensions of OC are widely accepted as being its integral part. This section explores the impact of the widely accepted dimensions of OC (as identified from literature) on EE.

Leadership Behaviour and Employee Engagement Organizations want to comprehend the drivers of employee motivation and performance with the objective of improving the work engagement level of their staff (Gallup 2005). In this regard, leadership has appeared as one of the important driving factors that help in engaging employees. Leadership behaviour facilitates in increasing EE at the workplace (Nohria et al. 2008; Bhatnagar 2007; Singh and Shukla 2012). Leaders set the tone for engagement in the workplace as they have quality and capability to fulfil the psychological and task-related needs of their employees. Leaders need to demonstrate a clear genuineness in their actions towards employees. Cartwright and Holmes (2006) opined that leaders who attach importance to developing and building relationships and trust at work are successful in increasing the engagement level. Leaders who exhibit higher task behaviour and show support

7 Organizational Culture Dimensions as Drivers of Employee …

119

for subordinates have also been found to be effective at promoting EE (Salanova and Schaufeli 2008). According to Sadeli (2012), leadership behaviour significantly leverages OC and EE, as employees tend to give more time and spend energy in their jobs to show gratitude to their leaders (Dienesch and Liden 1986).

Internal Communication and Employee Engagement Communication is one of the important drivers of EE (Kahn 1992). According to Wyatt (2007), organizations with good internal communication are able to do many activities differently from organizations with lesser effective communication. Along with positive work culture, communication practices also ensure EE in organizations (Sarangi 2009). Effective employee communication and high organizational performance are strongly correlated (Trahant 2008). Organizational performance can be enhanced through EE with communication as a crucial factor, while ineffective communication systems act as an obstacle to achieving engagement. Welch (2011) studied the impact of communication on EE by developing a model and found that the related outcomes are innovation, ability to compete, organizational effectiveness, awareness, and an understanding of external environmental changes and organizational goals, which are promoted by internal corporate communication. Certain organizations consider internal communication as instrumental in EE (Sparrow and Balain 2010; Bindle and Parker 2010; Papalexandris and Galanaki 2009; Bakker et al. 2011, as cited in Welch 2011). Organizational beliefs and underlying values are conveyed to employees through internal communication system which helps in getting their support in achieving organizational goals. Research has recognized that communication strategies, like emphasizing the importance of effective communication in routine work, precision and correction of instructions, and clarity and timeliness of feedback given to employees, play crucial role in developing and maintaining EE (Guest and Conway 2002; Bakker et al. 2011).

Team Orientation and Employee Engagement Ouchi (1981) emphasizes the importance of teamwork and a team goal. Teams where growth, development, and encouragement of members are the core values, where they are given tasks according to their interests, employees feel secure and engaged as the work then gets rewarding. Development-oriented teams allow the employees to hone and develop their talent and develop their competence, thus fulfilling their needs for growth (Vansteenkiste et al. 2007). Employees would show higher levels of work engagement when working in team (Schereus et al. 2014). Sharing of same values, beliefs, and assumptions by team members result in higher EE as there would be clearer role expectations of other members which results in reducing conflict and providing competitive advantage (Chuang et al. 2004).

120

S. Nandan and Jyoti

In organizational life, interpersonal relationships, dependence on each other, and social commitments are of particular significance; presence of these factors indicates high levels of employee involvement and commitment (Aryee et al. 2002). Organizations should make attempts to create and promote openness, collaboration, trust, autonomy, pro-activity, authenticity, and confrontation (OCTAPAC) culture as it enhances EE levels by satisfying certain basic needs like belongingness, autonomy, and competence development (Chaudhary et al. 2012).

Support Towards Employees and Employee Engagement Studies indicate that providing diverse types of support to employees at the workplace may result into desired outcomes like lower turnover rate, improved task performance, and increased organizational commitment (Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002; Rhoades et al. 2001). Variables of organizational support and supervisor support have been tested as predictors of EE in various researches (Dabke and Patole 2014; Saks 2006), and there are evidences that increased levels of supervisor and organizational support are related to higher levels of job satisfaction and feeling of well-being on the part of employees that results into EE (Chen et al. 2009; Ng and Sorensen 2008; Pan and Yeh 2012). A number of researches have studied the correlation between supervisor and organizational support, either taking both the variables together or taking each separately, to identify their impact on work outcomes, including work engagement, and interestingly, have reported consistent results. (Eisenberger et al. 2001; Saks 2006; Ng and Sorensen 2008; DeConinck and Johnson-Busbin 2009; Dabke and Patole 2014).

Rewards and Employee Engagement Employees working in organizations look for their contributions to be acknowledged. Tangible and intangible rewards like financial incentives, constructive feedback, and recognition of efforts have been found to be capable of changing employees’ workrelated behaviours, reinforcing desired ones that lead to improved performance (Truss et al. 2013). Recognition and reward strengthen intrinsic motivation leading to high levels of EE (Maslach et al. 2001). Further, Bonsdorff (2011) asserted that rewards are assumed to motivate individuals because they ultimately help satisfy human needs. Successful organizations use critical practices to improve EE by utilizing money in the form of compensation and incentives and timely feedback and recognition for rewarding extraordinary performance with the aim to motivate employees (Vance 2006; Carnegie 2012). Both monetary and non-monetary rewards have an impact on EE. Crawford et al. (2010) found a positive correlation between engagement and power to make decisions, timely feedback, growth opportunities, positive work culture, rewards and recognition, organizational and superior support, and task variety. In another study, self-determination theory was used as a framework because

7 Organizational Culture Dimensions as Drivers of Employee …

121

it is a motivational theory with direct relevance to rewards and recognition and is considered an appropriate driver of EE (Deci and Ryan 1985; Meyer and Gagné 2008; Bethencourt 2012).

Employee Engagement and Business Sustainability Literature on BS and EE suggests that engaged employees generate such internal gains as lead to sustainable business. It has been reported that engaged employees can be good corporate citizens and can have a strong influence on overall positive employee orientation towards work, quality, and organization, which results in enhanced shareholders value (Weiser and Zadek 2000; Zappala 2004). Quite parallel to this, Waddock and Graves (1997) and Mirvis (2012) have noted that organizations with engaged employees can benefit by encouraging employee commitment and productivity resulting into better financial performance that leads to sustainability activities. Csikszentmihalyi and Hunter (2003) believe that meaningfulness in work is of paramount importance as it leads to people working harder, further leading to increased productivity, and achievement of financial goals. Robinson et al. (2007) believe that to attain high level of EE, employee and employer should have mutual trust and two-way communication. Further, EE can also influence BS as it is known to impact individual level, organizational level outcomes, and firm’s financial performance (Macey and Schneider 2008; Saks 2006). The idea matters even more because studies have established strong evidence for a link between EE, profitability, low absenteeism, concern for protecting environment (both internally and externally), and customer loyalty (Caplan 2014; Gonring 2008). Studies have also reported a strong and positive relationship of EE with financial outcomes like income growth, stock prices and overall financial performance, employee performance, and intangible outcomes like credibility of the organization (Mirvis 2012). EE is now being recognized as an important parameter for measuring organizational performance as it has been accepted as an important determinant of shareholder value in a firm. Perrin (Perrin 2003, Cited in European Alliance for CSR 2008, p. 11) revealed that the top ten engagement drivers for BS include top management’s concern for employee well-being, policies for participative management, creation of opportunities for employees for growth and development, besides firm’s reputation for fulfilling its corporate social responsibility. Employees have to be actively engaged in the responsibility of weaving sustainability in all the systems of a firm, which would help the firm to satisfy stakeholders like shareholders, customers, and communities, in general and thus create value for the firm (Stanberg 2009). On the financial front, studies have shown that engaged employees positively impact stock prices of a company, income growth, and overall financial performance (Edmans 2011). Research also establishes that more committed a company is towards its social, environmental, and corporate governance-related responsibilities, the better reputation it earns for itself, which is also linked with stronger financial health, achieve through engaged employees (Gonring 2008). Several researches

122

S. Nandan and Jyoti

have reported that more a firm makes efforts towards environment protection, higher the EE is. Thus, EE is positively related to loyalty towards environmental protection activities (Renwick et al. 2013) like reducing wastage of resources and other practices for reducing pollution at the workplace. The higher the employee participation in the environment-related activities and technologies, the greater is the understanding of environmental issues, which enhances the possibility of appropriate changes in ways of doing work (Remmen and Lorentzen 2000). This has been supported by Benn et al. (2014) who showed that commitment towards environment protection and making active efforts towards it is associated with higher level of EE. Employees became more involved, showed higher motivation level and more work engagement when organization showed concern and implemented green HRM practices (Wagner 2013; Cantor et al. 2012). EE works as a strategy that is used in industry to get a competitive edge over other players. Sustainable business is all about engagement, amalgamation of economic, social, and environmental aspects of organizational activities, and addressing the short-term and long-term needs of different stakeholders in a balanced manner. Global and domestic firms that make ongoing efforts to achieve high levels of EE foster employee loyalty and retention, strengthen customer loyalty, and develop better organizational performance and enhanced stakeholder value—all of which help in getting competitive advantage (Scott et al. 2015; Taneja et al. 2015). Reichheld (2006) reported a study that showed that companies that focus on EE showed improvements in customer loyalty and satisfaction. A research by Gallup (2012) across 192 companies reported that companies which were found to have higher EE reported outcomes lead to long-term sustainability of an organization—higher profitability, increase in number of satisfied and loyal customers, and decrease in unethical practices like thefts and healthy and safe workplace. Another research using a different measure of engagement (i.e. involvement and enthusiasm) has linked EE to such variables as employee turnover, customer satisfaction—loyalty, safety, supporting communities and to a degree, productivity and profitability criteria (Harter et al. 2002b). Whereas Taneja et al. (2015, p. 48) assert that ‘employees are likely to be more engaged if the organization has invested in their organization’s image and reputation in the marketplace’, Mees and Bonham (2004) argue that if employees are not engaged BS cannot be achieved in true sense as it simply becomes an exercise for building public relations and the company begins to lose the confidence and trust of stakeholders when truth is revealed, which may cause a dent in its public image. EE means the enthusiasm of employees towards achievement of organizational goals and attainment of sustainable growth (Little and Little 2006). Therefore, organizational leaders should try to enhance the levels of EE by creating optimism and positive attitude among employees towards BS and their inclination to connect to its values, among other factors (Ernst and Young 2012). Thus, various factors that constitute BS are the outcomes of EE, which can further be achieved by certain dimensions of OC.

7 Organizational Culture Dimensions as Drivers of Employee …

123

Fig. 7.1 Conceptual model of the linkages between organisational culture dimensions, employee engagement and business sustainability. Source Developed by author

Conceptual Model EE is an important element in the success of organizations (Mehrzi and Singh 2016). Organizations with engaged employees have greater efficiency, productivity, loyalty, employee retention, employee satisfaction, and customer satisfaction (Silverthorne 2001; Lockwood 2007; Malik 2013). These EE outcomes help in creating a sustainable organization. After a rigorous review of the relevant literature, those dimensions of culture were identified from the impact BS and EE. We propose a conceptual model (Fig. 7.1) that attempts to link the important dimensions of OC (as derived from the literature), EE, and BS.

Conclusion Literature suggests that the organizational culture dimension is important for achieving EE. EE delivers desired outcomes with respect to financial performance, environmental concerns, customer satisfaction, earning social reputation, long-term stakeholder interests, concern for community, etc., thus leading to BS. The present study identifies the research that have pinned the dimensions of OC affecting EE. Key dimensions of organizational culture that have been identified as an antecedent of EE are leadership behaviour, teamwork, rewards, support towards employee, and internal communication. Organization leaders and practitioners have recognized the importance of sustainable business practices. The present study identifies the meaning of economic sustainability, social sustainability, and environmental sustainability dimensions of BS as discussed in the literature. Outcomes of EE were found to be leading to BS.

124

S. Nandan and Jyoti

The study also addresses the linkage between the concepts of EE, organizational culture dimensions of leadership behaviour, teamwork, rewards, support towards employee and internal communication, and BS and proposes a conceptual framework by integrative literature review. It provides interesting insights to the practitioners and researchers regarding the role of OC and EE in achieving BS. The proposed conceptual model provides a direction to the practitioners and policy makers to consider cultural aspects of the organization and the role of EE before designing policies and action plans for BS. Future research may empirically test the proposed model in different industries or in a cross section of industries.

References Abu-Jarad, I. Y., Yusof, N. A., & Nikbin, D. (2010). A review paper on organizational culture and organizational performance. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 1(3), 26–46. Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968 (2012). https:// doi.org/10.1177/0149206311436079. American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: APA. Aon Consulting. (2011). Trends in global employee engagement. Retrieved from https://www.aon. com/attachments/thought-leadership/Trends_Global_Employee_Engagement_Final.pdf. Aryee, S., Budhwar, P., & Chen, Z. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 267–285 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1002/job.138. Atkinson, P. (1990). Creating cultural change. The TQM Magazine, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1108/ EUM0000000003011. Avery, G., & Bergsteiner, H. (2010). Honeybees and locusts: The business case for sustainable leadership. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R. N., & Sinha, J. B. P. (1999). Organizational culture and human resource management practices: The model of culture fit. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(4), 501–526 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022199030004006. Aydin, B., & Ceylan, A. (2009). The role of organizational culture on effectiveness. Ekonomika A Management, 12(3), 33–49. Ayuso, S., Rodríguez, M. A., García-Castro, R., & Ariño, M. A. (2011). Does stakeholder engagement promote sustainable innovation orientation? Industrial Management and Data Systems, 111(9), 1399–1417 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571111182764. Baker, K. A. (2002). Organizational culture. Retrieved from https://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ doe/benchmark/11-Organizational%20Culture. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13(3), 209–223 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430810870476. Bates, S. (2004). Getting engaged. HR Magazine, 49(2), 44–51. Baumruk, R. (2004). The missing link: The role of employee engagement in business success. Workspan, 47(11), 48–52. Bedarkar, M., & Pandita, D. (2014). A study on the drivers of employee engagement impacting employee performance. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 133, 106–115 (2014). https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.174. Bees, B., & Spencer, M. (2011). Burt’s bees, marks & spencer share staff engagement tactics. Environmental Leader. http://www.environmentalleader.com/2011/05/31/burts-bees-marks-spe ncer-s.

7 Organizational Culture Dimensions as Drivers of Employee …

125

Benn, S., Dunphy, D., & Griffiths, A. (2014). Organizational change for corporate sustainability (3rd ed.). New York, London: Routledge. Berger, R. (2011). Validity of the human system audit transformational leadership short scale (HASTFL) in four European countries. Universitas Psychologica, 10, 657–668. https://doi.org/10. 11144/Jveriana.upsy10-3.vhsa. Bhatnagar, J. (2007). Talent management strategy of employee engagement in Indian ITES employees: Key to retention. Employee Relations, 29(6), 640–663 (2007). https://doi.org/10. 1108/01425450710826122. Bhatnagar, J. (2009). Talent management: A changing face of HRM in India. New York, London: Routledge. Biggemann, S., Williams, M., & Kro, G. (2014). Building in sustainability, social responsibility and value co-creation. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 29(4), 304–312 (2014). https:// doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-08-2013-0161. Blackburn, J. B. (2000). Stakeholders and sustainable development. In J. Schmandt & C. H. Ward (Eds.), Sustainable development: The challenge of transition (pp. 175–220). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boesso, G., & Kumar, K. (2009). An investigation of stakeholder prioritization and engagement: Who or what really counts. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 5(1), 62–80 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1108/18325910910932214. Bonsdorff, V. (2011). Age-related differences in reward preferences. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(6), 1262–1276 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192. 2011.559098. Boudreau, J., & Ramstad, P. (2005). Talentship, talent segmentation, and sustainability: A new HR decision science paradigm for a new strategy definition. Human Resource Management, 44(2), 129–136 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20054. Brandt, S., & Arbex, N. (2015). Sustainability and reporting trends in 2025: Preparing for the future. Global Reporting Initiative, (Report No. 1), 4–15. Retrieved from https://www.globalreporting. org/resourcelibrary/Sustainability-and-Reporting-Trends-in-2025-1.pdf. Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2006). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 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, 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2011.032 57.x. Carnegie, D. (2012). What drives employee engagement and why it matters. Dale Carnegie Training White papers, 2–6. https://www.dalecarnegie.com. Carrie, R. (2011). How to teach environmental sustainability in healthcare management education. Allendale, MI: Grand Valley State University. Cartwright, S., & Holmes, N. (2006). The meaning of work: The challenge of regaining employee engagement and reducing cynicism. Human Resource Management Review, 16(2), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.03.012. Chaudhary, R., Rangnekar, S., & Barua, M. K. (2012). HRD climate, occupational self-efficacy and work engagement: A study from India. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 15(2), 86–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/10887156.2012.676938. Chen, Z., Powell, G. N., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2009). Work-to-family conflict, positive spillover, and boundary management: A person-environment fit approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(1), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.10.009. Cheung, A. W. K. (2011). Do stock investors value corporate sustainability? Evidence from an event study. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(2), 145–165. Choi, S., & Ng, A. (2011). Environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability and price effects on consumer responses. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(2), 269–282. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10551-011-0908-8.

126

S. Nandan and Jyoti

Chuang, Y. T., Church, R., & Zikic, J. (2004). Organizational culture, group diversity and intra-group conflict. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 10(1/2), 26–34. https://doi. org/10.1108/13527590410527568. CIPD. (2012). Responsible and sustainable business: HR leading the way—A collection of “thought pieces”. London: CIPD. Coffman, C., & Gonzalez-Molina, G. (2002). Follow this Path: How the world’s greatest organizations drive growth by unleashing human potential. New York: Warner Books Inc. Colbert, B., & Kurucz, E. (2007). Three conceptions of triple bottom line business sustainability and the role for HRM. Human Resource Planning, 30(2), 21–29. Collin, M. (2007). Get a green job: GreenCareers by MonsterTRAK. Treehugger. http://www.tre ehugger.com/culture/get-a-green-job-greencareers-by-monste. Collins, E., Roper, J., & Lawrence, S. (2010). Sustainability practices: Trends in New Zealand businesses. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(8), 479–494. Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019364. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Hunter, J. (2003). Happiness in everyday life: the uses of experience sampling. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4(2), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:102440973 2742. Dabke, D., & Patole, S. (2014). Predicting employee engagement: Role of perceived organizational support and supervisor support. Tactful Management Research Journal, 3(1), 1–8. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate culture: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. DeConinck, J. B., & Johnson-Busbin, J. T. (2009). The effects of perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and organizational justice on turnover among sales people. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 29(4), 333–350. https://doi.org/10.2753/PSS 0885-3134290403. Denison, D. (2010). Diagnosing organizational cultures survey: Validating a model and method. International Institute for Management Development, 1–39. Retrieved From https://www. researchgate.net/publication/228801211_Diagnosing_Organizational_Cultures_Survey_Valida ting_a_model_and_method. Detert, J. R., Schroeder, R. G., & Mauriel, J. J. (2000). A framework for linking culture and improvement initiatives in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 25, 850–863. Devi, V. (2009). Employee engagement is a two-way street. Human Resource Management International Digest, 17(2), 3–4. https://doi.org/10.1108/09670730910940186. Dienesch, R. D., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 618–634. https://doi.org/10. 2307/258314. Eccles, R. G., Miller Perkins, K., & Serafeim, G. (2012). How to become a sustainable company. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(4), 43–50. Ehnert, I. (2009). Sustainable human resource management. A conceptual and exploratory analysis from a paradox perspective. New York, London: Physica-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Springer. Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organiza-tional support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42. Ellis, C. M., & Sorensen, A. (2007). Assessing employee engagement: The key to improving productivity. Perspectives, 15(1). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228 341039_Assessing_employee_engagement_the_key_to_improving_productivity. Epstein, A., Buhovac, R., & Yuthas, K. (2010). Implementing sustainability: The role of leadership and organizational culture. Strategic Finance, 91(10), 41–47.

7 Organizational Culture Dimensions as Drivers of Employee …

127

Ernst, A. C., & Young, A. (2012). Employee engagement 2011–2012 integrated annual review, 1–13. Retrieved from https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Jaarverslag_-_2011-2012/$FILE/ Annual%20Review%20-%202011-2012.pdf. Eswarlal, V., & Vallesi, M. (2014). Different stages of business sustainability: A visual metaphor. Management Research: The Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 12(3), 308– 325. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRJIAM-12-2013-0535. Fombrun, C. J. (2005). A world of reputation research, analysis and thinking—Building corporate reputation through CSR initiatives: Evolving standards. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(1), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540235. Fowler, D. (2009). The relationship between an organization’s culture and its leadership, and the impact on employee performance and satisfaction. In Master of science in training and development (pp. 5–35). Stout: University of Wisconsin. Freeman, E., Harrison, J., Wicks, A., & Parmar, B. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 403–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2010. 495581. Gallagher, S., Brown, C., & Brown, L. (2007). A strong market culture drives organizational performance and success. Employment Relations Today, 35(1), 25–31. Gallopín, G. (2003). A systems approach to sustainability and sustainable development. United Nations Publications, Chile: Winnipeg. Gallup. (2015). Engage your employees to see high performance and innovations. Available at: www.gallup.com/services/169328/q12-employee-engagement.aspx. Garcia, P., & Vredenburg, H. (2002). Collaboration between corporations, non-governmental organizations, and indigenous communities: The bridge strategy to pursue sustainable development in the oil and gas industry in Latin America. SPE International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment, 74412. Glaser, S. R., & Zamanou, S. (1987). Measuring and interpreting organisational culture. Management Communication Quarterly, 1(2), 173–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318987001002003. Gonring, M. (2008). Customer loyalty and employee engagement: An alignment for value. Journal of Business Strategy, 29(4), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/02756660810887060. Goodland, R. (1995). The concept of environmental sustainability. Review of Ecology Systems, 26, 1–24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2097196. Guest, D. E., & Conway, N. (2002). Communicating the psychological contract: An employer perspective. Human Resource Management Journal, 12(2), 22–38. Hansen, E. G. (2010). Responsible leadership systems: An empirical analysis of integrating corporate responsibility into leadership systems. Wiesbaden, Germany: Galber. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002a). Business-unit-level relationships between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. L. (2002b). Well-being in the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies. In C. L. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: The positive person and the good life (pp. 205–224). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Angelo, K. (2011). Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework’s theoretical suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 677–694. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021987. Hewitt, A. (2011). Trends in global employee engagement: Global employee engagement final. Retrieved from http://www.aon.com/attachment/thoughtleadership/Trends. Hewitt, A. (2013). Trends in global employee engagement highlights. AON Hewitt report highlights, 1–8. Retrieved from https://www.aon.com/attachments/human-capitalconsulting/2013_Trends_ in_Global_Employee_Engagement_Highlights.pdf.

128

S. Nandan and Jyoti

Hewitt Associates. (2009). Hewitt point of view: What makes a organization a best employer? Hewitt Associates report highlights. Retrieved from www.aon.com/attachments/human-capita lconsulting/2009Hewitt_point_of_view_What_makes_a_organization_a_best_employer_Hig hlights.pdf. Hillenbrand, C., & Money, K. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and corporate reputation: Two separate concepts or two sides of the same coin? Corporate Reputation Review, 10(4), 261–277. Høgevold, N., & Svensson, G. (2012). A business sustainability model: A European case study. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 27(2), 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1108/088586212 11197001. Hong, P., Kwon, H. B., & Roh, J. J. (2009). Implementation of strategic green orientation in supply chain: An empirical study of manufacturing firms. European Journal of Innovation Management, 12(4), 512–532. Hoogervorst, J., Flier, H., & Koopman, P. (2004). Implicite communication in organisations: The impact of culture, structure and management practices on employee behaviour. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(3), 288–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940410527766. Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: An integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 42–54. Hutchinson, D. B., Singh, J., Svensson, G., & Mysen, T. (2013). Towards a model of conscientious corporate brands: A Canadian study. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 28(8), 687–695. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-05-2012-0085. Jaghargh, F., Ghorbanpanah, H., Nabavi, S., Saboordavoodian, A., & Farvardin, Z. (2012). A survey on organizational culture based on Stephan Robbins’s Theory (Case Study). IPEDR, 35, 30–34. Jehn, K. A., & Chatman, J. A. (2000). The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict on team performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1), 56–73. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/eb022835. Jiony, M. M., Tanakinjal, G. H., Gom, D., & Siganul, R. S. (2015). Understanding the effect of organizational culture and employee engagement on organizational performance using organizational communication as mediator: A conceptual framework. American Journal of Economics, 5(2), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.5923/c.economics.201501.13. Jones, P., Hillier, D., Comfort, D., & Estwood, I. (2005). Sustainable retailing and consumerism. Management Research News, 28(1), 34–44. Jung, T., Scott, T., Davies, H. T., Bower, P., Whalley, D., McNally, R., et al. (2009). Instruments for exploring organizational culture: A review of the literature. Public Administration Review, 69, 1087–1096. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.5465/256287. Ketter, P. (2008). The big deal about employee engagement. TD Magazine. Retrieved from https:// www.td.org/Publications/Magazines/TD/TD-Archive/2008/01/The-Big-Deal-About-EmployeeEngagement. Khare, A., & Wollard, P. (2005). The link between continuous commissioning and sustainable business model. Intelligent Building International, 1(2), 142–155. Kim, W., Kang, I. G., Lim, D. H., & Song, J. H. (2014). Team performance in learning organizations: Mediating effect of employee engagement. The Learning Organization, 21(5), 290–309. Klein, J., & Dawar, N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and consumers’ attributions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 203–217. Lawler, E. E., III. (2005). From human resource management to organizational effectiveness. Human Resource Management, 44(2), 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20059. Little, B., & Little, P. (2006). Employee engagement: Conceptual issues. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict, 10(1), 111–120. Lockwood, N. R. (2007). Leveraging employee engagement for competitive advantage: HR’s strategic role. SHRM Research Quarterly, 1, 1–12. Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K. M., & Young, S. A. (2009). Employee engagement: Tools for analysis, practice, and competitive advantage. Malden, WA: Wiley-Blackwell.

7 Organizational Culture Dimensions as Drivers of Employee …

129

Mainardes, E. W., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2011). Stakeholder theory: Issues to resolve. Management Decision, 49(2), 226–252. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741111109133. Marcoulides, G., & Heck, R. (1993). Organizational culture and performance: Proposing and testing a model. Organization Science, 4(2), 209–225. Martínez, P., & Bosque, I. (2014). Sustainability dimensions: A source to enhance corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 17(4), 239–253. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397. May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11–37. Mees, A., & Bonham, J. (2004). Corporate social responsibility belongs with HR. Canadian HR Reporter, 17(7), 11–13. Mehrzi, N., & Singh, S. K. (2016). Competing through employee engagement: A proposed framework. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 65(6), 831–843. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-02-2016-0037. Meyer, J. P., & Gagné, M. (2008). Employee engagement from a self-determination theory perspective. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 60–62. Miles, M. P., & Covin, J. G. (2000). Environmental marketing: A source of reputational, competitive, and financial advantage. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(3), 299–311. Mirvis, P. (2012). Employee engagement and CSR: Transactional, relational, and developmental approaches. California Management Review, 54(4), 93–117. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2012. 54.4.93. Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2005). The effects of corporate social responsibility and price on consumer responses. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(1), 121–147. Nandan, S., & Jyoti, (2016). Linkages between organization culture and employee engagement: Review of literature. In S. S. Bhakar, C. Gulati, G. Mathur, & R. Pathak (Eds.), Global advancements in HRM: Innovations & practices (pp. 165–178). New Delhi: Bharti Publication. Ng, T. W. H., & Sorensen, K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the relationships between perceptions of support and work attitudes. Group & Organization Management, 33(3), 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601107313307. O’Donnell, O., & Boyle, R. (2008). Understanding and managing organizational culture. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration. O’Reilly, C. A., III, Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487–516. Ouchi, W. (1981). Theory Z. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Papalexandris, N., & Galanaki, E. (2009). Leaderships’ impact on employee engagement: Differences among entrepreneurs and professional CEOs. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30(4), 365–385. Parent, J. D., & Lovelace, K. J. (2015). The impact of employee engagement and a positive organizational culture on an individual’s ability to adapt to organization change. Eastern Academy of Management Proceedings: Organization Behaviour and Theory Track, 1–20. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.merrimack.edu/mgt_facpub/10. Perrin, T. (2003). Working today: Understanding what drives employee engagement. Talent report. US. Retrieved from http://www.keepem.com/doc_files/Towers_Perrin_Talent_2003%28T heFinal%29.pdf. Pfau, M., Haigh, M. M., Sims, J., & Wigley, S. (2008). The influence of corporate social responsibility campaigns on public opinion. Corporate Reputation Review, 11(2), 145–154. Porter, M. E., & Linde, C. (1995a). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97–118. Porter, M. E., & Linde, C. (1995b). Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate. Harvard Business Review, 73(5), 120–133.

130

S. Nandan and Jyoti

Remmen, A., & Lorentzen, B. (2000). Employee participation and cleaner technology: Learning processes in environmental teams. Journal of Cleaner Production, 8(5), 365–373. 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. Revell, A., Stokes, D., & Chen, H. (2010). Small businesses and the environment: Turning over a new leaf? Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(5), 273–288. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698. Richman, A. (2006). Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it? Workspan, 49(1), 36–39. Rindell, A., Svensson, G., Mysen, T., Billstrom, A., & Wilen, K. (2011). Towards a conceptual foundation of conscientious corporate brands. Journal of Brand Management, 18(9), 709–719. Robbins, S., & Coulter, M. K. (1998). Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice hall. Robinson, D., Hooker, H., & Hayday, S. (2007). Engagement: The continuing story. London: Institute for Employment Studies. Sadeli, J. (2012). The influence of leadership, talent management, organizational culture and organizational support on employee engagement. International Research Journal of Business Studies, 5(3), 2089–6271. Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619. Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Job resources, engagement and proactive behavior. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(1), 116–131. Sarangi, S. (2009). Impact of Organizational culture and communication on employee engagement. D.Phil. Theses. 901. Mumbai: K.J. Somaiya Institute of Management Studies & Research. 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. Schiemann, W. A. (2009). Aligning performance management with organizational strategy, values, and goals. In A. W. Smither, & M. London (Eds.), Performance management: Putting research into action (pp. 45–88). San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Sheth, J. N., Sethia, N. K., & Srinivas, S. (2011). Mindful consumption: A customer-centric approach to sustainability. Journal of the Academy Marketing Science, 39(1), 21–39. Shuck, M. B. (2010). Employee engagement: An examination of antecedent and outcome variables. Miami, FL: Florida International University. Siddhanta, A., & Roy, D. (2010). Employee engagement engaging the 21st century workforce. Asian Journal of management Research, 170–189, 2229–3795. Silverthorne, C. (2001). A test of the path-goal leadership theory in Taiwan. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 22(4), 151–158. Singh, A. (2016). Organizational culture: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Advance Research in Computer Science and Management Studies, 4(4), 196–203, 2321–7782. Smith, M. E. (2003). Changing an organisation’s culture: Correlates of success and failure. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(5), 249–261. Sparrow, P., & Balain, S. (2010). Engaging HR strategists: Do the logics match the realities? In S. L. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice (pp. 283–296). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishers. Stead, W. E., & Stead, J. G. (1994). Can humankind change the economic myth? Paradigm shifts necessary for ecologically sustainable business. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 7(4), 15–31. Strandberg Consulting. (2009). The business case for sustainability. Available from: http://corost randberg.com/wpcontent/uploads/files/Business_Case_for_Sustainability_21.pdf.

7 Organizational Culture Dimensions as Drivers of Employee …

131

Suharti, L., & Suliyanto, D. (2012). The effects of organizational culture and leadership style toward employee engagement and their impact toward employee loyalty. World Review of Business Research, 2(5), 128–139. Svensson, G., Høgevold, N., Petzer, D., Padin, C., Ferro, C., Klopper, H., et al. (2016). Framing stakeholder considerations and business sustainability efforts: a construct, its dimensions and items. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 31(2), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-052014-0094. Tai, F. M., & Chuang, S. H. (2014). Corporate social responsibility. iBusiness, 6, 117–130. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.4236/ib.2014.63013. Taneja, S., Sewell, S. S., & Odom, R. (2015). A culture of employee engagement: A strategic perspective for global managers. Journal of Business Strategy, 36(3), 46–56. https://doi.org/10. 1108/JBS-06-2014-0062. Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283. Trahant, B. (2008). Six communication secrets of top-performing organizations. The Public Manager, 68–75. Retrieved from http://en.atdchina.com.cn/magazines/the-public-manager/sixcommunication-secrets-of-top-performing-organizations. Truss, C., Alfes, K., Delbridge, R., Shantz, A., & Soane, E. (2013). Employee engagement in theory and practice. New York: Routledge. Van Beurden, P., & Gössling, T. (2008). The worth of values—A literature review on the relation between corporate social and financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 407–424. Van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2), 95–105. Vance, R. J. (2006). Employee Engagement and commitment: A guide to understanding, measuring, and increasing engagement in your organization. Alexandria, VA: The SHRM Foundation. Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Review, 18(4), 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-026 6(199704)18:43.0.CO;2-G. Wales, T. (2013). Organizational sustainability: What is it, and why does it matter? Review of Enterprise and Management Studies, 1(1), 38–49. Walker, K., & Laplume, A. (2014). Sustainability fellowships: The potential for collective stakeholder influence. European Business Review, 26(2), 149–168. Weiser, J., & Zadek, S. (2000). Conversations with disbelievers: Persuading companies to address social challenges. New York: The Ford Foundation. Welch, M. (2011). The evolution of the employee engagement concept: Communication implications. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16(4), 328–346. Wellins, E R., & Bernthal, P. (2007). Employee engagement: The key to realizing competitive advantage. Pittsburgh: Development Dimensions International. http://www.ddiworld.com/ddi/ media/monographs/employeeengagement_mg_ddi.pdf?ext=.pdf. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future. New York: Oxford University Press. Wu, M. (2006). Corporate social performance, corporate financial performance, and firmsize: A meta-analysis. Journal of American Academy of Business, 8(1), 163–171. Wyatt, W. W. (2007). Employee perspectives on health care: Voice of the consumer. (Catalog No. 2007-US-0094). Retrieved from 92Webc=HRS/USA/2003/200309/Talent_. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. (2009). Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(1), 183–2000. Xiaoming, C., & Junchen, H. (2012). A literature review on organization culture and corporate performance. International Journal of Business Administration, 3. Retrieved from https://doi. org/10.5430/ijba.v3n2p28.

132

S. Nandan and Jyoti

Zappala, G. (2004). Corporate citizenship and human resource management: A new tool or a missed opportunity? Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 42(2), 185–201. Zsolnai, L. (2011). Environmental ethics for business sustainability. International Journal of Social Economics, 38(11), 892–899. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068291111171397.

Chapter 8

Employer Branding and Employee-Emotional Bonding—The CSR Way to Sustainable HRM Sunil Budhiraja and Satbir Yadav

Abstract The idea of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has come of age as it has evolved itself into a state and practice of permanency in every organization with its potential to affect both internal and external business environment. By its inevitable nature in today’s corporate scenario, CSR acquired such strategic importance for business that no company worth its name can afford to ignore it, and thus, should sincerely integrate their CSR, aimed at both internal and external stakeholders, into its business strategy. For this fact and analogy, the employee, being the most important internal stakeholder for every business enterprise, needs to be paid extraordinary attention by the employer to strengthen the emotional bond between the two as the success of an organization largely depends on conducive work environment resulting from favorable employer–employee relations. The practice of CSR has the potential to affirmatively affect the employer branding (EB)—the power to pull the desired talent and employee-emotional bonding (EeB)—the strength of employer– employee relationship, through various internal and external initiatives, and in turn, helps to achieve sustainable human resource management (S-HRM). Though there is an abundance of research available on the role and importance of HR in CSR or impact of CSR on HR through employee engagement, etc., yet, there is marked dearth of literature on the interconnect between CSR and EB to understand EeB with the organization through the perspective of S-HRM. Thus, this paper comprehends the synthesis between CSR oriented EB, EeB, and S-HRM. The study shall help the researchers in conceptualizing various approaches and viewpoints of S-HRM into a model which is integrated internally and externally. Keywords Employer branding · Employee-emotional bonding · Corporate social responsibility · Sustainable human resource management

S. Budhiraja SCMS, Nagpur, Symbiosis International (Deemed) University, Pune, Maharashtra, India S. Yadav (B) Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab, India e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. Vanka et al. (eds.), Sustainable Human Resource Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5656-2_8

133

134

S. Budhiraja and S. Yadav

Introduction Sustainability with its all-pervasive nature has become an essential issue for researchers, academicians, and practitioners, with the concept having ‘emerged’ and ‘arrived’ by finding its way to more and more organizations in one form or the other. From the sustainability perspective, scholars have taken up different functions of management pertaining to the achievement of short- and long-term goals of organizations. Its potential, however, has not been realized till recently. Although human resource management (HRM) has emerged as a strategic function which integrates various functions with organizational values and visions, it received hardly any attention from researchers in the field of sustainable HR (Boudreau and Ramstad 2005). Strategic HRM (S-HRM) in its early days assumed that HR is consumed and exploited by the organizations rather than developed and strengthened (Zaugg and Thom 2002). This view has, however, undergone the role reversal, and HR is no more considered as a resource to be ‘consumed’ or which can be ‘exploited.’ It has rather emerged as a force multiplier, efficiency enabler, and resource of resources—the ultimate assumed role of HR. The strategic dimension of HRM thus requires to be integrated with every business strategy and ultimately to the organizational goal—the corporate sustainability, which in turn, emphasizes and envisages an environmental, economic, and social balancing with judicious harnessing of natural and societal resources including the human resources available at its disposal. Sustainability can thus be assumed as a multifaceted phenomenon, and sustainability of HRM is accordingly a multi-functional and an integrating aspect of corporate management. Though consensus belies the meaning and definition of sustainability yet, there is no denying the fact of its relevance, importance, and applied significance for HRM. Serious discussion on the concept of sustainable HRM (S-HRM) started around the turn of the century in some of the Western countries like Germany, Switzerland, and Australia (Macke and Genari 2019). Various researches by authors like MüllerChrist and Remer (1999), Gollan (2000), Zaugg et al. (2001) and Wilkinson et al. (2001) proved path breaking in the field. The relevance of sustainability for HRM was highlighted by these authors drawing on existing research on management of environment, human relations, and corporate sustainability (Ehnert and Harry 2012; De Stefano et al. 2018). The recent studies on the aspect of ‘sustainability’ in the field of human resource management are an outcome of research in varied but related disciplines and areas like corporate sustainability (CS), corporate social responsibility (CSR), and sustainable work environment. The ‘sustainability’ dimension of HRM is different from the ‘strategic’ concept and practice of HRM in a business organization (Macke and Genari 2019). The combination of the concept of sustainability with HRM in a business organization has emerged as an innovative approach to fill a void. The synthesis of sustainability with HRM assumes the importance of the role human resource and its management play to promote sustainability of the organization (Cohen et al.

8 Employer Branding and Employee-Emotional Bonding …

135

2012; Ehnert et al. 2013; Guerci and Pedrini 2014) including the processes of human resources management itself (Mariappanadar 2003; Ehnert 2009). Of late, though there is an increased interest of scholars and practitioners in making an organization sustainable—economically, socially, and ecologically (Bansal 2005; Hahn and Figge 2011) yet, there exists corresponding lack of research on sustainability of HRM until the start of the century (Cohen et al. 2012; Pfeffer 2010) and certainly not on establishing theoretical relation between CSR and S-HRM. Theory on CSR and employee–employer relations (termed here as employer branding and employee-emotional bonding) confirms their interconnections both at strategic and operational levels (Lena Lindholm 2018). On the strategic level, employer branding (EB) and employee-emotional bonding (EeB) can be achieved through the coordination between CSR and HRM. At the operational level, many CSR activities can be used to develop and implement effective EB and EeB aimed at attaining corporate sustainability through S-HRM. The interest of researchers in finding influencers, enablers, drivers, or determinants of CSR led them to link its outcome with S-HRM. This paper makes an attempt to draw a conceptual construct wherein CSR activities are found to be acting as agents of positive change in and around an organizational sphere including the process of (employer) branding and practice of (employee-emotional) bonding and both of these determine the length, breadth, and depth called sustainability of HRM system.

Variables of the Study Sustainable HRM (S-HRM) Researchers have interpreted S-HRM as an intersection of multiple functions emphasizing upon creating competitive advantage and value in a sustained manner. In one of the earliest definitions, the concept of S-HRM had been defined as a long-term oriented approach aimed at achieving ‘socially responsible and economically appropriate’ HR practices (Ehnert 2009). Others have explained S-HRM in terms of present and future, as activities which support organizations in achieving today’s success ‘without compromising the needs of the future’ (Boudreau and Ramstad 2005). According to the analysis performed by Macke and Genari (2019), the concept of S-HRM consists of several levels, dimensions, and perspectives. Arguments in support of the relevance of sustainability as a concept for HRM can be categorized as ‘inter’ and ‘intra’ organizational where under the former comes the economic and social aspects of organizations, whereas under the latter is included the relevance and importance of S-HRM for the very survival of the organization itself (Zivile and Asta 2013). Referring to the existing literature, organizations are primarily identifying methods to attract and retain talent in a long run (Docherty et al. 2008; Zaugg 2009).

136

S. Budhiraja and S. Yadav

Most of the researchers have explained S-HRM as a multi-dimensional concept which involves a variety of stakeholders, for example, the respect, openness, and continuity (ROC) model suggested by Ehnert (2009) connects the internal stakeholders of the organization with the external counterparts in order to achieve economic and societal objectives. S-HRM activities can be grouped into three spheres, namely (i) engagement with employees to ensure the sustainability of the environment and external stakeholders; (ii) engagement with employees to ensure the sustainability of the organization as a whole; and (iii) engagement with employees to ensure the human resource sustainability within the organization. We call it 3D approach of HRM to sustainability.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) The concept and practice of CSR have come a long way from an act of philanthropy to source of social engagement via the route of ‘means’ to achieve the economic interests of stakeholders through the strategic involvement of corporate in social initiatives. The toll of taxes on the CSR highway is no longer bypassed through countryside lanes and roads (disguised CSR expenditures) but is voluntarily paid for, in the form of social investment, by most of the firms as they have come to realize the real reason for and source of their origin—the society. En route destination of corporate sustainability, the CSR highway is a multi-lane two-way road, i.e., it leads to and led by the strategic involvement of organization (employee engagement) in the social ecosystem, and in turn, derives the reputational dividend (employer branding). Both the EB and EeB—the extended arm of employee engagement—depend upon innumerable tangible and intangible attributes but a few dominate the others. The modern-day practice of social responsibility by corporates is an important means and dominant dimension for creating, developing, and sustaining an effective branding (employer) and efficient bonding (emotional) leading to the much desired and sought after conditions for sustainability of HRM in an organization.

Employer Branding (EB) The terms ‘branding’ and ‘brand management’ are used largely in the marketing discipline. The concept has been adopted and applied in HRM to attract talent and to engage and retain them in the same way as is done by marketing managers to attract and retain or recall their customers. The term ‘employer branding’ or ‘employer brand’ commonly connotes an employer’s image and employees’ value proposition, and it differs from the generally understood ‘brand reputation’ to corporate and ‘value proposition’ to customers. EB as a term initially appeared during early 1990s and

8 Employer Branding and Employee-Emotional Bonding …

137

has since been increasingly used by both researchers and practitioners in the field of management. The concept has also been described as individuals’ perception of an organization by current employees and external stakeholders including prospective candidates, clients, and customers. EB as a process is an attempt to promote a company or an organization, as the ‘Company-to-Join’ or ‘Great-Place-to-Work’ or ‘Employer-of-Choice’ to both internal group of employees—in order to retain them—and to external group of prospective employees—in order to attract them to be able to recruit the desired talent. It helps the company to attract, recruit, and retain the ideal employee called the ‘top talent’ besides ensuring the achievement of business plan and organizational objectives. EB has the potential to impact success of an enterprise as it affects both the internal—the talent within—and the external—the talent available outside—pool of people capable of propelling and sustaining the system. For the successful EB, HR team needs to work in tandem with branding and marketing team to ensure appropriate alignment of value, vision, and mission of the organization with the strategy to achieve the objectives. EB, while still relatively new, is constantly evolving. It is a space that promotes innovation and creativity. The importance of employer branding is on the rise as the very existence or sustainability of organizations depends upon their ability and capacity to draw (attract), induct (recruit), develop, and retain (nurture) the talent— the required manpower with desired skills, qualifications, experiences, and above all, the attitude. EB is thus a set of distinctive attributes an organization possesses to showcase its strength (attractiveness) to people who get pulled and perform par excellence. The successful employer is one who is able to create an affirmative and effective image by providing conducive working environment and innovative workplace practices besides communicating the same to all stakeholders within and outside the organization. To achieve such an employer’s status (‘Company-to-Join’ or ‘Employer-of-Choice’), organizations need to place EB at the center of their HRM strategy to help them achieve the higher goal of S-HRM.

Employee-Emotional Bonding (EeB) Emotional bonding is an essential element of an effective and productive working environment because it uplifts the morale of the employees and shifts their perspective from ‘I, Me, Myself’ to ‘We, Us, Ourselves.’ The concept of employee-emotional bonding (EeB) is different from employee bonding where the later has been suggested as a contract which safeguards organizations from unethical behavior of employees including theft and dishonesty (Peterson 2015). This concept of EeB has its roots in marketing function where emotional bonding has been associated with brand relationship where a customer who exhibits greater emotional bonding with product or service is termed as a loyal customer (Mattila 2001). Similarly, from the HRM perspective, employee-emotional bonding with supervisor and co-workers accounts for greater commitment and employee performance (Wang 2008).

138

S. Budhiraja and S. Yadav

To frame the concept in employees’ behavior and attitude, authors look at EeB as an extended arm of employee engagement (EE). To understand it better, one needs to put both concepts in perspective of theory and practice being followed. Employee engagement, as a management concept, came into its theoretical existence during early 1990s and found widespread practical platform in the 2000s. In spite of it nearly three decades of usage and practice, the consensus on its meaning and definition remains contested or elusive even today. For the purpose of this paper, employee engagement is defined as the degree or level of enthusiasm and dedication an employee feels and displays toward his or her job (Mone et al. 2011). EE can thus be considered as ‘workplace approach’ which provides a conducive environment to all employees of a company enabling them to give their best consistently, commit themselves to company’s goals and objectives, be motivated enough to make an effective contribution to company’s success beside achieving ‘an enhanced sense of their own well-being.’ This leads to a feeling of ‘connect’ and belief of their ‘importance’ resulting into an increased effort on the part of ‘engaged’ employees. EE can thus be termed as both—an internal state of mind and an external state of body, involving physical, mental, and emotional interactions of an individual in his or her committed efforts to achieve company’s goals and values and self-satisfaction as well as employee well-being. The concept of employee-emotional bonding goes a step further by creating the cohesiveness and belongingness among employees themselves and between them and the organization. It is like a spiral binding holding all pages (of employee engagement) together. EE is a performance or productivity-related concept, whereas EeB is a team or group-related approach. May it, however, be known and understood that putting people together in a group and assigning them a task or work does not necessarily bind them to undertake their work but for enhanced zeal, enthusiasm, passion, loyalty, commitment, morale, and finally the sense of belonging and feeling of camaraderie. All these are essential ingredients for a perfect recipe which is termed as EeB. Though it is difficult to describe as to what exactly ‘emotional bonding’ bears yet, it is equally simple to state when it exactly exists or does not. In simple words, its presence leads to a fragrance felt all around and the absence creates stink everywhere. And thus, the question—How the fragrance of perfume named EeB be ensured and felt at every nook and corner of the workplace? Or, how to let all employees smell the ‘bonded’ rose and breathe the same perfumed air which binds them together through thick and thin? There are many ways and means to achieve certain degree or level of this bonding. A few of the innovative ones which can easily be implemented in an organization are as follows: 1. Let people love their mission, i.e., get them excited about the mission of their organization. 2. Let people socialize, i.e., find opportunities for them to interact off-the-work. 3. Let people lay their desk, i.e., allow them to decide their workplace and ‘spruceup’ the environment. 4. Let people embark on a journey of ‘adventure,’ i.e., allow them to try new things, take risk, and commit mistakes en route.

8 Employer Branding and Employee-Emotional Bonding …

139

5. Let people contribute in hiring, i.e., seek suggestion from them before or during hiring of new intakes. 6. Let people ‘bond’ with the ‘boundary,’ i.e., allow yourself (organization) to bond with them and ultimately immerse in each other. It is no secret to find ‘emotionally bonded’ employees enjoy their work more than others who share no such ‘emotional bond’ with the organization. Creating a team cohesive enough to pull together toward achievement of organizational goals and values requires not only time and experience but also persistent perseverance in preserving the core values of HR across managerial hemisphere. Beside the stated approaches and practices, companies may resort to unplanned outings and retreats which may call for an impromptu leadership and totally informal arrangement of events by all involved leading to bonding of employees at a deeper level and higher degree. Though it is intangible to eyes and ears yet, highly tangible to heart and mind, and thus, it is more than a mere engagement of employee in the work as it develops camaraderie among them beside the raised level of loyalty or commitment to the company.

Research Approach Four electronic databases, viz. Emerald, Elsevier, EBSCO, and ProQuest were explored to identify research articles on employer branding, employee engagement and emotional bonding, sustainable HRM and their relation with overarching corporate social responsibility, and their interrelationships. The immediate aim of such a literature review is to comprehend the importance of sustainable HRM for Indian organizations followed by the development of a theoretical or conceptual model integrating CSR practices with sustainable HRM of organizations.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Practices and Sustainable HRM (S-HRM) For researchers in the field of management, the term ‘sustainability’ had become as important as to be referred as a ‘hot topic’ (Wilkinson 2005) by the end of the twentieth century and ‘another mantra’ (Ehnert 2009) for the twenty-first century. It was, however, felt and observed that sustainability did not draw the sufficient attention of researchers toward its effect on human resource management (HRM) till the first decade of the twenty-first century (Ehnert 2006; Zaugg 2009; Inyang et al. 2011; Zoogah 2011; Kryger et al. 2011).

140

S. Budhiraja and S. Yadav

Analysis of available literature prior to the twenty-first century confirms nonsystematic consideration of possible links or relation between the sustainability and HRM. Even the studies which were carried out across various subfields of HRM interpreted the term ‘sustainability’ differently and hardly tried to establish the relation within or with the HRM itself (Ehnert 2006). Various terms like ‘sustainability,’ ‘sustainable development,’ ‘corporate sustainability,’ ‘corporate social responsibility,’ ‘corporate social development,’ and ‘corporate citizenship’ are quite often used interchangeably by many researchers without going deep into their genesis and possible impacts on other fields of management. Sustainability has, however, embraced every possible part and level of the business and thus being referred as corporate sustainability (Dyllick and Hockerts 2002). Initially, the main emphasis of corporate sustainability was on the effects of businesses on environment but later on, the concept of CSR brought in ‘social’ dimension in the relationship of corporate and sustainability, leading to the convergence of separate streams (Van Marrewijk 2003). The diffusion of CSR (Carroll 1999) during the last decade of the last century has substantially contributed to the increased interest of both researchers and practitioners in establishing the link between sustainability and various HR issues (Ehnert 2009) as HR or employees occupy the center stage and considered to be one of the most important stakeholders of the organization (Preston and Sapienza 1990). Though there is realization among organizations for the need to accept and treat their employees as an important stakeholder yet, the issue is not looked at or approached strategically as the HR sustainability and social responsibility among employees are not yet fully explored or examined if not totally ignored. In this context, this paper attempts to put the intervening issues of EeB and EB in proper perspective of cause and effect on sustainability of HR through CSR. The idea of charity and philanthropy, the precursor to the concept of CSR, is well imbibed and practiced by every segment of society across the globe, and the corporate world has well interpolated. The concept has spread its wing all across the social and corporate life. Today, CSR is well known and widespread (Pedersen 2006). However, in spite of its popularity, there is no unanimity on its definition which remains largely ‘an ambiguous and much debated construct’ (Dahlsrud 2008) as its usage and practice permeate every possible function leading to an ambiguous state in terms of conceptual clarity and deeply debated construct in terms of its applicability and outcome. The present study perceives CSR as a connecting construct between HR and corporate sustainability, whereas CSR enabled EB and EeB as means of achieving sustainability of HR itself. The close relationship between CSR and S-HRM depends on number of factors. The success of CSR largely depends upon HR, or to say, employees of an organization plays an incredibly important role in the success of CSR (Collier and Esteban 2007; Rodrigo and Arenas 2008), and thus, the sustainable management of HR becomes the main task of an HR team in an organization. Based on these arguments, the following proposition is made:

8 Employer Branding and Employee-Emotional Bonding …

141

Proposition 1 CSR practices of an organization significantly contribute in achieving sustainable human resource management.

CSR Practices and Employer Branding The interplay of CSR activities on employer image and reputation is seen, felt, and realized by all companies in the field of both—CSR and EB. CSR practices enhance building of an EB which in turn legitimize and strengthen the former. Employees of an organization can capitalize on the immense opportunities provided by emerging field of CSR to build an employer brand capable of sustaining the capabilities created by the convergence of resources including the human resource itself. Firms increasingly draw upon CSR in their efforts to enhance its employer branding to attract and engage both on-board and potential talent and to ensure consistency in employee brand behaviors (Carlini et al. 2019). The strategic combination of CSR and EB not only helps in the communication of CSR initiatives to the desired stakeholders but also boosts the brand itself, i.e., CSR helps in highlighting the brand value and has the potential to pull or attract and even retain the talent. Further, CSR is both a part of ‘functional’ workplace attributes and an effective influencer of emotions and feelings (Zajonc and Markus 1982), and thus, it shapes attitude of youth toward potential employers. May it, however, be clarified that image or reputation of an employer as a responsible organization does not necessarily proceed parallel to the CSR performance. The survey by CSR Reputation Institute (2013) confirms the differences between the two, as a company with high CSR reputation, e.g., Walt Disney or Google, may not rank as high on CSR performance and vice versa. The CSR led brand image and identity or reputation in such cases differs significantly, and thus, the requirement for adequate attention is to be paid to the aspects of positioning of CSR activities keeping the specific stakeholder in view for accurate employer marketing or branding. And here comes the real corporate champion or the HR which plays an extremely important role of maintaining a fine balance between the two, i.e., CSR image or reputation and EB. The corporate reputation and organizational identity get enhanced by both CSR initiatives and employer image or employer branding strategy. Aggerholm et al. (2011) emphasized that employer branding must be integrated with CSR strategy in order to create sustainable organization. The inserting of social values in the exercise of branding will reinforce this strategy in attracting the potential candidates and retaining of talented employees. The synergetic force between CSR initiatives and EB strategy results in raised reputation and larger legitimacy that leads to higher corporate identification which, in turn, paves the way for enhanced employee commitment and organizational performance. Accordingly, we propose the following: Proposition 2 CSR practices of an organization significantly contribute to employer branding.

142

S. Budhiraja and S. Yadav

CSR Practices and Employee-Emotional Bonding CSR is a multi-dimensional concept and organizational responsibility toward employees is one of its dominant dimensions which has acquired the fast pace among Indian corporates, post the introduction of the amendments in the Companies Act, 2013. Companies are increasingly finding ways and means to emotionally engage their employees and provide them with such ‘experiences that go beyond their regular deliverables and job descriptions’ which act as enablers to imbibe its values and earn their loyalty. CSR laden employee engagement activities undertaken by an organization not only boost the employee morale, and in turn the company’s business but also help them to break the work-related monotony, provide a different job responsibility, raise social consciousness and self-awareness, and finally to move toward attainment of higher purpose of living a human life—service-before-self, that is, for social good. Provision for such an opportunity creates shared values and belongingness, i.e., bonding beyond engagement among employees themselves and with the enterprise. The effect of these and many more benefits of CSR led EeB can be seen while organizations recruit employees through campus hiring or lateral recruitment. Such efforts are, however, made by limited number of companies who foresee their future as market leaders but not without harnessing the potential of CSR. Proposition 3 CSR practices of an organization significantly contribute to employee-emotional bonding.

Employer Branding (EB), Employee-Emotional Bonding (EeB), and Sustainable Human Resource Management (S-HRM): The Trinity It has been claimed in the past that organizational success is better seen through the lens of sustainability rather than focusing on the traditional financial parameters. A study by Mariappanadar (2003) emphasizes the issue of strategy for the sustainable HR where it has been stated that management of human resources must focus on reaching a balance between the need of both—company and community, of today without jeopardizing the similar requirement for the future. The increased interest among academics, practitioners, and researchers in sustainability of human resource is because of its all-encompassing positive influence, impacts, and consequences on the organization, society, economy, nation, and environment. It helps in enhancing the longevity of internal HR system and connects them effectively to the ‘triple-bottom-line,’ i.e., profit, people, and planet or the economy,

8 Employer Branding and Employee-Emotional Bonding …

143

society, and environment. The term S-HRM, however, suffers from the same definitional dilemma as other terms like strategic HRM (S-HRM). More than twelve definitions have been proposed with several integration and perspectives (Macke and Genari 2019). EB is, in effect, the employer’s credibility index (ECI) in the eyes of stakeholders. EB is not just employer’s image or reputation restricted to the existing or prospective employees. EB is much more than being ‘Employer-of-Choice.’ It is the result of multiple interactions of internal or external stakeholders. It originates from the ideation of brand itself (vision & values), develops with the spirit of business (ethics), and maintains by ensuring sustained deliverables to all concerned (stakeholders). It is a ‘signboard’ for both—the organization to work upon and stakeholders to look up to for the direction or path being followed by the former. EB and EeB have been referred to as essential components of strategic HRM (Figurska and Matuska 2013). Managerial approach to S-HRM is undergoing a paradigm shift, and the overall policies and practices of people management are aimed at integrating concept of sustainability with HRM. The theory as well as practice on strategic HRM differs to the extent of emphasis on outcomes—internal or external. For a focus on external outcome, it is being referred to as ‘social and human outcomes’ leading to the sustainability by way of contributing to the continuity of the organization or the sustainable organization. To focus on internal outcomes, it is being referred to as HRM activities aimed at enhancing environmental outcomes in a positive way. These HRM activities include processes and practices to strengthen emotional bonding and employer branding. For example, work–life balance practices have been extensively used by employers to attract the employees (Deery and Jago 2015) and are contributing toward S-HRM (Au and Ahmed 2014). EeB is the very base or ground on which the edifice of employer is erected. An organization is organized with the assembly of various resources, put into motion with the help of levers and gears (technology, leadership, etc.), achieves momentum with increased demand and supply of its products or services, and can sustain (only) with the synergy of system and not just the coordination among various functions and functionaries (operations and levels) but the quality of coherence (EeB) facilitating seamless movements of each part of the organizational machinery (corporate). It is this intangible, invisible, and inherent inertia which can make or mar the entrepreneurial spirit and ultimately the organization. Additionally, managerial approach to employee engagement is undergoing a paradigm shift, and the overall policies and practices of people management are aimed at integrating the concept of sustainability with HRM (Benn et al. 2015). Proposition 4 Employer branding and employee-emotional bonding of an organization significantly contribute to S-HRM.

144

S. Budhiraja and S. Yadav Employer Branding (EB)

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Sustainable HRM (S-HRM) Employee Engagement (EE) and Employee-EmoƟonal Bonding (EeB)

Fig. 8.1 Direct and indirect linkages between CSR and S-HRM. Source: Authors’ Proposed Framework

Direct and Indirect Linkages—CSR, EB, EeB, and S-HRM It is not only hard to state but also harder to establish as to which construct leads or follows others except for the fact that HR holds them together and pushes to perform and excel. The sustainability of HR is a prerequisite for the perpetuity of the business organization. The ultimate objective of organizational sustainability is, in turn, achieved not with HR alone but with the help of its different derivatives like CSR, EE, EeB, EB, advertising, sales and marketing, finance, etc., and finally, through the highly differential, innovative, and quality products or services. The success of social initiatives depends not only on top management’s commitment and its ability to articulate the principles of CSR but also on active involvement of the strategic groups created for the purpose. EE and their consequent contributions are a prerequisite to ensure success of CSR practices and, participation in CSR activities, in turn, assures an effective EeB through informal behavioral engagement and enhanced emotional identification. Such a practice provides sustainability to HRM and creates a strong foundation for ‘long-term sustainability’ to the organization. As for the direct linkage, CSR is a way of EE and EB. EE helps in and leads to EeB which contributes substantially to HR sustainability and thus, the corporate continuum called corporate sustainability. To conclude, there appear three aspects essentially related to S-HRM viz., (i) uninterrupted flow of talent or the sustained supply of employees, (ii) fair treatment and engagement of employees, and (iii) employee connect with CSR practices. A conceptual model (Fig. 8.1) has been drawn based on the above discussion.

Conclusion CSR is a modern-day concept of ways and means to connect organization with society and environment. This integration is incomplete without having employees support and emotional bond with organization as human resources are the very source of

8 Employer Branding and Employee-Emotional Bonding …

145

corporate’s existence and sustenance. CSR is a function performed by the corporates for the society as its responsibility which is to be performed by its employees and to be steered by HR policies and practices. An organization without emotionally committed individuals is like a skeleton; individuals without self (consciousness) are not human; human without society is like a herd in a forest; and a forest without its flora and fauna is an environmental catastrophe, and thus, only a woman or man with inner self-consciousness contributes to the formation of a meaningful society and, in turn, creates a sustainable ecosystem and ultimately the environment. Formation, development, and sustainable existence of a corporate largely depend upon its human resources drawn from the very society in which it operates, and the society, in turn, influences and gets influenced by the environment supporting its growth and development. Corporates, thus, need to be responsive to the ‘needs’ of society to the extent of maintaining a sustainable equilibrium, i.e., achieving a physical, social, and economic balance. Sustainable HRM is both the ‘means’ and an ‘end’ in itself as the human resource or simply the human being is both at the starting and finishing points of sustainability race. Survival of humanity depends upon the sustainability of environment which, in turn, gets affected by the humanistic interactions within the social setup including the corporates where sustainability of HR or HRM is emphasized and realized for the environmental impact it leaves on both internal and external stakeholders, leading to a snowball effect on corporate’s concerns—social, economic, and technology. HR sustainability has a multiplier effect on corporate resources as it helps in their optimized utilization leading to enhancing sustainability, and thus, creating a vicious circle of sustainability with HR at its center.

Recommendations Sustainability has evolved and is here to stay. The only way to create sustainable business organizations and society is by strengthening the linkages among various factors contributing to sustainability. For example, the sustainability of HR practices or HRM only depends on one or other specific process or practice, but also on the very sustenance of that process or practice which, in turn, requires the sustainability of aspects affecting such process or practice. To put it in simple terms, ‘sustainability’ is not an independent construct, but a dependent one. As a concept, it is not exclusive but inclusive as it needs to be identified with or related to a process or practice to drive home its meaning and importance. At the same time, practitioners of ‘sustainability’ in every field of their operations—society, government, or corporate—must again not treat ‘sustainability’ as sacrosanct on its own but weigh its all-inclusive influence by input and upon output. For example, the comparative costs and advantages of input processes or practices to generate solar power must not outweigh its resultant benefits (output) as the process to use sustainable source of energy (solar) may require

146

S. Budhiraja and S. Yadav

extensive use of lithium batteries, production of which in itself may not achieve the ultimate aim of ‘sustainability’ as input to such production is exploitation of scarce resources, and their disposal after use causes irreparable loss or damage to the environment. Thus, sustainability needs to be integrated with the pre and post-processes and practices so as to sustain the very concept and purpose of ‘sustainability’—be it in the domain of social justice, economic equity, or environmental stability. All aspects are related to and depend on each other irrespective of their linkages—direct or indirect. Corporates are not immune to social and environmental influence, and thus, have the higher responsibility as it possesses the all-powerful resources of men and material to put in effect for the social good, and this, in turn, requires the sustainability of its HRM which to an extent calls for the need to engage and bond with the employee. The exact meaning of ‘sustainability,’ in the absence of unanimity, is the ‘ability-to-sustain,’ i.e., the ability of humanity to ensure its perpetuity and so applies the concept to an organization where its sustainability depends upon the ability of human resources to use its resources (including HR itself) in a manner supportive of drawing maximum output with minimum input—the simplest and all-time relevant explanation of the term ‘management,’ equally applicable to the sustainable human resource management (S-HRM).

Limitations and Directions for Future Research The extensive review of literature has highlighted that there exist many perspectives of sustainable HRM and yet no construct which is scientifically proven. Therefore, further clarity can be achieved in S-HRM, and the current study explores the indirect linkages proposed. The strength of this paper is establishing the framework and linkages among variables. However, these relationships have to be empirically tested by future researchers. The future research based on progress in theory and practice, i.e., development in systems and practice and the application of ideas in research will decide on its relevance and utility. Boudreau and Ramstad (2005) rightly stated ‘sustainability is not just good ethics; it is potentially good long-term economics.’

References Au, W. C., & Ahmed, P. K. (2014). Sustainable people management through work-life balance: A study of the Malaysian Chinese context. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 6(3), 262–280. Aggerholm, H. K., Andersen, S. E., & Thomsen, C. (2011). Conceptualising employer branding in sustainable organisations. Corporate Communications: An International Journal. Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 197–218.

8 Employer Branding and Employee-Emotional Bonding …

147

Benn, S., Teo, S. T., & Martin, A. (2015). Employee participation and engagement in working for the environment. Personnel Review, 44(4), 492–510. Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2005). Talentship, talent segmentation, and sustainability: A new HR decision science paradigm for a new strategy definition. Human Resource Management, 44(2), 129–136. Carlini, J., Grace, D., France, C., & Lo Iacono, J. (2019). The corporate social responsibility (CSR) employer brand process: Integrative review and comprehensive model. Journal of Marketing Management, 1–24. Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business and Society, 38(3), 268–295. Cohen, E., Taylor, S., & Muller-Camen, M. (2012). HRM’s role in corporate social and environmental sustainability. SHRM Report. SHRM, https://www.shrm.org. Collier, J., & Esteban, R. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and employee commitment. Business Ethics: A European Review, 16(1), 19–33. CSR Reputation Institute. (2013). The best CSR in the world reputation study with consumers in 15 countries. Global CSR Report. Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1–13. De Stefano, F., Bagdadli, S., & Camuffo, A. (2018). The HR role in corporate social responsibility and sustainability: A boundary-shifting literature review. Human Resource Management, 57(2), 549–566. Deery, M., & Jago, L. (2015). Revisiting talent management, work-life balance and retention strategies. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(3), 453–472. Docherty, P., Kira, M., & Shani, A. R. (Eds.). (2008). Creating sustainable work systems: Developing social sustainability. Abingdon: Routledge. Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141. Ehnert, I. (2006). Sustainability issues in human resource management: Linkages, theoretical approaches, and outlines for an emerging field. In 21st EIASM Workshop on SHRM (pp. 30–31). Ehnert, I. (2009). Sustainable human resource management: A conceptual and exploratory analysis from a paradox perspective. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag. Ehnert, I., & Harry, W. (2012). Recent developments and future prospects on sustainable human resource management: Introduction to the special issue. Management Revue, 23(3), 221–238. Ehnert, I., Harry, W., & Zink, K. J. (2013). Sustainability and human resource management: Developing sustainable business organizations. Germany: Springer Science & Business Media. Figurska, I., & Matuska, E. (2013). Employer branding as a human resources management strategy. Human Resources Management & Ergonomics, 7(2). Gollan, P. J. (2000). Human resources, capabilities and sustainability. In D. Dunphy, J. Benveniste, A. Griffiths, & P. Sutton (Eds.), Sustainability: The corporate challenge of the 21st century (pp. 55–77). Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Guerci, M., & Pedrini, M. (2014). The consensus between Italian HR and sustainability managers on HR management for sustainability-driven change–towards a ‘strong’ HR management system. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(13), 1787–1814. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09585192.2013.860388. Hahn, T., & Figge, F. (2011). Beyond the bounded instrumentality in current corporate sustainability research: Toward an inclusive notion of profitability. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 325–345. Inyang, B. J., Awa, H. O., & Enuoh, R. O. (2011). CSR-HRM nexus: Defining the role engagement of the human resources professionals. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(5), 118–126. Jackson, S. E., Renwick, D. W., Jabbour, C. J., & Muller-Camen, M. (2011). State-of-the-art and future directions for green human resource management: Introduction to the special issue. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(2), 99–116.

148

S. Budhiraja and S. Yadav

Kryger, A. H., Esmann, A. S., & Thomsen, C. (2011). Conceptualising employer branding in sustainable organisations. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16(2), 105– 123. Lindholm, L. (2018). The use of corporate social responsibility in employer branding. In Developing insights on branding in the B2B context: Case studies from business practice (pp. 73–93). Emerald Publishing Limited. Macke, J., & Genari, D. (2019). Systematic literature review on sustainable human resource management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 208, 806–815. Mariappanadar, S. (2003). Sustainable human resource strategy: The sustainable and unsustainable dilemmas of retrenchment. International Journal of Social Economics, 30(8), 906–923. Mattila, A. S. (2001). Emotional bonding and restaurant loyalty. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(6), 73–79. Mone, E., Eisinger, C., Guggenheim, K., Price, B., & Stine, C. (2011). Performance management at the wheel: Driving employee engagement in organizations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(2), 205–212. Müller-Christ, G., & Remer, A. (1999). Environmental economy or economic ecology? Preliminary thoughts on a theory of resource management. In Operational Environmental Management in the 21st Century (pp. 69–87). Berlin: Springer. Pedersen, E. R. (2006). Making corporate social responsibility (CSR) operable: How companies translate stakeholder dialogue into practice. Business and Society Review, 111(2), 137–163. Peterson, J. R. (2015). Employee bonding and turnover efficiency. Available at SSRN 2630497. Pfeffer, J. (2010). Building sustainable organizations: The human factor. Academy of Management Perspectives, 2, 34–45. Preston, L. E., & Sapienza, H. J. (1990). Stakeholder management and corporate performance. Journal of behavioral Economics, 19(4), 361–375. Rodrigo, P., & Arenas, D. (2008). Do employees care about CSR programs? A typology of employees according to their attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 265–283. Van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2–3), 95–105. Wang, Y. (2008). Emotional bonds with supervisor and co-workers: Relationship to organizational commitment in China’s foreign-invested companies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(5), 916–931. Wilkinson, A. (2005). Downsizing, rightsizing or dumbsizing? Quality, human resources and the management of sustainability. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 16(8–9), 1079–1088. Wilkinson, A., Hill, M., & Gollan, P. (2001). The sustainability debate. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(12), 1492–1502. https://doi.org/10.1108/014435701 10410865. Zajonc, R. B., & Markus, H. (1982). Affective and cognitive factors in preferences. Journal of consumer research, 9(2), 123–131. Zaugg, R. J. (2009). Sustainable human resource management: A new perspective and empirical exploration of human resource management. Berlin: Springer. Zaugg, R. J., Blum, A., & Thom, N. (2001). Sustainability in human resource management. Working paper No. 51, Institute for Organisation und Personel. Bern: University of Bern.

8 Employer Branding and Employee-Emotional Bonding …

149

Zaugg, R., & Thom, N. (2002). Excellence through implicit competencies: Human resource management—Organisational development–knowledge creation. Journal of Change Management, 3(3), 199–211. Zivile, S., & Asta, S. (2013). Sustainability as a concept for human resource management. Economics and Management, 18(4), 837–846. Zoogah, D. B. (2011). The dynamics of Green HRM behaviors: A cognitive social information processing approach. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(2), 117–139.

Chapter 9

Impact of Sustainable Leadership on Organizational Transformation Madhurima Basu and Kumkum Mukherjee

Abstract Leadership since the ancient times is considered to be an inherently moral endeavour. The conventional leadership theories considered leadership to be an innate talent, and the later theories suggested leadership can be adapted or learnt. A vital strand of leadership research deals with leadership in the organizational context. Ever since the advent of the global financial crisis, stalwarts in the field of leadership research are calling for a new kind of leadership which will ensure organizations become sufficiently resilient and be well prepared to deal with any sort of unforeseen adversities. Sustainable leadership assumes significance in this context. Sustainable leadership is based on the humanistic approach towards management, which takes into account the human factor in the organizational settings as the facilitator establish the overall well-being of the business firm. Such leadership practices create a self-reinforcing leadership system that enhances the organizational performance and longevity. Visser and Courtice (2011) developed a model on sustainable leadership precisely known as the Cambridge Sustainability Leadership (CSL) Model. The model was developed on the basis of the diverse tenants of sustainable leadership. The study attempts to evaluate the effectiveness of the CSL leadership model based on the qualitative data. It is a single-subject study based on qualitative research and case study research methodology. The study is based on an intensive interview of a senior male executive working in a department under the central government of India to understand the significance of the ‘individual leader’ factor as illustrated in the CSL model. An effort has also been made to understand the perception of the subordinates towards the male executive. It appears to emerge from the interview data of the male executive that he embodies a blend of the diverse components of the ‘individual leader’ factor as described in the Visser and Courtice’s (2011) CSL model. The interview data of the subordinates seems to suggest the male executive is perceived to exhibit the various characteristics of the ‘individual leader’ dimension. More specifically, the interview data of the subordinates appears to suggest that the male executive demonstrates sustainable leadership behaviour. Therefore, proactive M. Basu (B) · K. Mukherjee Indian Institute of Social Welfare & Business Management (Affiliated to the University of Calcutta), Kolkata, West Bengal, India e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. Vanka et al. (eds.), Sustainable Human Resource Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5656-2_9

151

152

M. Basu and K. Mukherjee

measures by global business firms embracing sustainable leadership at the workplace will ensure overall organizational growth. Keywords Leadership · Organizations · Organizational leadership · Sustainable leadership · Cambridge sustainability leadership (CSL) model

Introduction Leadership as a field of study has been the focus since ancient times. One such ancient Indian text which can be considered to be the guiding light for shaping the leaders is the Bhagavad Gita. In the Western context too, the scholars have attempted to describe leadership in a number of ways. According to Plato (380 BCE/2007), societies can be compared to the ships which requires to be steered towards the right direction (Kociatkiewicz and Kostera 2012). Plato (380 BCE/2007) described the ideal leader as the head of a state who has the ability to perceive the real goals and accordingly guide his followers on the right track (Kociatkiewicz and Kostera 2012). Initially, leadership skills were considered to be embedded in the exhibited traits of an individual leader (Stogdill 1974). With the passage of time, researchers explored leadership from a wide range of aspects which lead to the emergence of the different leadership theories. Later on, theories considered the characteristics of a leader to be the amalgamation of the communication skills and adaptability to any situation (Lewin et al. 1939), the ability to endorse to individual styles that are intrinsic to the situation such as the kind of assigned tasks, group dynamics and the work environment at large (Hersey et al. 1996/2007). Initially, leadership was considered to be an innate talent, while the theories later on suggested leadership qualities can be imbibed over a period of time. Leadership may be interpreted as a way of influencing the esteemed associates of the organization (Yukl 2006). Theories on organizational leadership are based on the collaborative practice that is intrinsically rooted within dimensions of the society (Gronn 2002; Raelin 2003; Kociatkiewicz and Kostera 2012). Leadership in a way is all about investing in the concerted effort by both the leader and his/her followers to achieve the preset objectives. An in depth insight into the situational context by the entire team will yield fruitful outcomes, else it may result in drastic failure of the organization (Kociatkiewicz and Kostera 2012). Effective leadership is one of the prerequisite to accomplish organizational success. Traditional leadership approaches are based on the perception of the leaders or the prevalent environment in their organizations. The contemporary social scenario depicts a clear picture of the profound changes influencing business leadership. The established economic and political structures of the world seem to be failing to protect the ecosystems, managing the resources or taking appropriate measures to prevent the increasing social inequality (Tideman et al. 2013). Organizational leaders need to accept the challenging task of creating sustainable economic framework/s. It is to be noted that the area of organizational theory has witnessed shifts in paradigm before

9 Impact of Sustainable Leadership on Organizational Transformation

153

the emergence of sustainability. Organizations were perceived to be hierarchical in nature (Taylor 1990), and eventually with the passage of time, the perception changed, and currently, organizations are recognized as living framework governed by purpose and values (Tideman et al. 2013). The emergence of the era of globalization has reshaped the entire business environment around the world. Globalization has given way to organizations to venture into the new and unexplored markets. Therefore, much responsibility lies with the leaders to ensure and implement sustainable policies to retain the market share. The global situation thus has given a way to the new paradigm of leadership, i.e., sustainable leadership. Sustainable leadership is a distinctive approach that commences with acknowledging the disruptive and transformational changes that are taking place in the context of the business houses and society at large. There is a need for total paradigm shift and different take on leadership approach for sustainability of the corporate houses so as to transform the prevalent business practices (Suriyankietkaew 2016). Sustainability involves the school of thought which focuses on integrative, holistic and ecological approach. The need for holistic perspective is valuable as because the existing leadership literatures are mostly fragmented and simplified from the viewpoint of exploring the systematic leadership approaches and practices (Boal and Hooijberg 2001). Sustainable leadership practice is a new age approach towards leadership. It does differ from the traditional views of leadership approaches. The theory of sustainable leadership is based on the basic principle of sustainability (Gerard et al. 2017). This particular leadership approach enables a rapid resilient response to the stakeholders in the competitive business environment (Avery and Bergsteiner 2011b). The theory of sustainable leadership garnered interest among researchers ever since the fall out of the economic turmoil in the past decade. The current social scenario is marked by uncertainty in the business environment. Sustainable leadership is a stable and unified course for development in the long run (Svensson and Wood 2006). A considerable amount of research shows that sustainable practices tend to enhance organizational performance (Avery and Bergsteiner 2011b). In recent times, researchers have shown interest in the field of sustainability leadership, which aims to nurture leadership for ecologically sustainable industries and society in the larger context (Cosby 2014; Ferdig 2007; Hind et al. 2009; Metcalf and Benn 2013; Heizmann and Liu 2017). Sustainable leadership is based on integrative leadership dynamics. The ultimate objective of sustainable leadership is to strike a perfect balance among individuals, business gains and the environment to ensure long-term survival of businesses (Avery and Bergsteiner 2010, 2011a; Suriyankietkaew 2016). Therefore, the emerging literature in this field appears to suggest that incorporating sustainable leadership in the organizational environment may lead to long-term growth of the organizations.

154

M. Basu and K. Mukherjee

Review of Literature Leadership in the Organizational Context Leadership is considered to be a one of the deciding factors in achieving organizational success. The diverse approaches related to leadership have evolved over time. Earlier, leadership activities mostly focussed on the development of individuals, while incorporating the organizational strategies were considered to be part of the leadership development programmes (Hayward 2011). Leadership may be described as a way of influencing the direction and the predefined vision of the organization that takes place through the collaborative relation between individual leaders and their followers (Taylor et al. 2011; Opoku et al. 2015). Leaders are generally described as those individuals who has the ability to inspire, share vision, develop consensus, furnish direction and bring about changes in the belief system (Opoku et al. 2015) and deeds among followers required to attain the objectives of the community or that of organizations (Ferdig 2007) at large. Organizational leaders need to execute actions that can enhance staff engagement and commitment along with managing their subordinates as part of a diversified group of stakeholders. Effective leadership remains one of the key factors to deal with the turbulent business environment and accomplish organizational success for the years to come. Researchers have suggested that successful management practices influence the relationship between the organizational performance and effectiveness of the leadership quotient (Fayol 1923/1937; Blake and Mouton 1964; Fielder 1967; Mott 1972; Bennis and Nanus 1985; Alchian 1986; Hogan et al. 1994; Yukl 1998; Svensson and Wood 2006). Studies in the field of leadership development highlights that nurturing of leaders who will help organizations overcome the crisis period by focusing on long-term profits rather than short-term benefits at the same time (Hayward 2011). Leadership behaviour is found to have association with the degree of employees’ job satisfaction (McNeeseSmith 1997; Avery 2004). Previous studies seem to suggest leadership and prevalent management practices to have varying degrees of influence on consumer satisfaction (Ahearne et al. 2005; Pantouvakis and Patsiouras 2016; Suriyankietkaew 2016). Customer satisfaction plays a significant role in shaping sustainability of the corporates in the long run (Suriyankietkaew 2016; Avery and Bergsteiner 2010; Avery and Bergsteiner 2011a). Advanced technology has benefited and redefined the paradigms of organizational management. Effective human resource management of every organization would contribute to organizational success. The responsibility of effectively managing the human assets of every business house is the responsibility of the efficient leaders at the workplace. Thus, the current turbulent business environment around the globe requires effective leadership as one of the prerequisites for the long-term survival of the organizations.

9 Impact of Sustainable Leadership on Organizational Transformation

155

Sustainable Leadership Since the aftermath of the global financial crisis which took place more than a decade ago, researchers are on the lookout for diverse kinds of leadership that will help organizations to become adequately resilient and sustainable to deal with any unforeseen crisis (Avery and Bergsteiner 2010, 2011b; Kantabutra 2011, 2012; Suriyankietkaew and Avery 2014a). The traditional norm of business practices revolves around the notion of short-term financial gains of the stakeholders. Currently, such an approach is no longer a feasible option for the long-term survival of the organization. In the recent past, leading businesses have taken into account the sustainability factor as the upcoming business ‘mega-trend’, much like the globalization wave, IT and quality movement, which played the role of deciding factors for survival and vitality of the organizations (Senge 2008; Lubin and Esty 2010). As Tideman et al. (2013) aptly described the new era business, practice is all about an amalgamation of business practices, economy, environment and society. A number of researchers like Albert (1992), Avery (2005), Avery and Bergsteiner (2010, 2011a), Bennis and Nanus (2003), Kantabutra (2014), Robert (2007) and Suriyankietkaew (2016) have pointed out that there is an immediate need to have a new age leadership approach to combat with the macro-level factors of sustainability practices in businesses to generate and conserve sustainable industries. Sustainability deals with the various ways of how specific initiatives can be developed by taking up a balanced approach without affecting the surroundings at the present and in the near future (Hargreaves and Fink 2000). The concept of sustainable leadership examines the preconceived notion of who can be considered as a leader and put forward that any individual who shoulders the burden of taking up initiatives and work on sustainability challenges may be considered as a sustainable leader irrespective of the formal designation (Ferdig 2007). In other words, sustainable leadership may be described through three core processes: learning through experience, having a clear understanding of personal goals and effective management of work environment stress (Casserley and Critchley 2010). Having farsightedness and ensuring sustainability seem to be the key characteristics of sustainable leaders in every industry. Researchers have tried to identify the possible causes as to why the leaders of the multinational organizations can face downfall so easily or why the otherwise skilled and intelligent leaders may fail to deliver during global crisis (Casserley and Critchley 2010). One of the possible answers to such a scenario can be seen as leaders may be lacking the requisite skills to implement sustainable practices at the organizations. Interestingly, Avery and Bergsteiner (2011b) stated sustainable leadership takes into consideration the long-term perspective of the different organizational dynamics (Gerard et al. 2017). Sustainable leadership is termed to be the human way of understanding leadership (Avery and Bergsteiner 2011a). Therefore, the theory gives much emphasis on the leader and the leader’s role within the organization as more significant than the actual perceived qualities of the individual leader helming at the top leadership positions (Hargreaves and Fink 2006; Davies 2007) in the organization. While Kantabutra and

156

M. Basu and K. Mukherjee

Saratun (2013) observed effective implementation of sustainable leadership, practices leads to cost reduction and enhances the brand image. Additionally, it can be said that sustainable leadership promotes organizational decision-making by taking into account long-term planning. Casserley and Critchley (2010) suggest that individual sustainable leader works at the different zones of workplace settings. The first step towards inculcating the qualities of a sustainable leader is at the personal level (Casserley and Critchley 2010). An individual sustainable leader is required to maintain decent personal, physical and psychological well-being in order to ensure she/he is able to lead effectively. This is followed by the second level of sustainable leadership which is also known as the organizational level (Casserley and Critchley 2010). The organization’s work environment should be sustainability friendly. To be more specific, it deals with valuing the organizational workforce, recognizing and appreciating their contribution, empowering the employees to contribute in designing the organizational goals and most importantly making them aware of their hidden potential. The third stage of sustainability as put forward by Casserley and Critchley (2010) is at the societal level. Organizations are expected to evaluate its impact on the society in the broader sense and take various measures to have a positive association with the society. Finally, the fourth level of sustainability is ecological sustainability as put forward by Casserley and Critchley (2010). Ecological sustainability encompasses nurturing awareness of how business organizations interact not just with the society but with the world at large. As many as twenty-three sustainable leadership practices have been noted to have contributed in shaping long-term strategies of the organizations and organizational performance as contrasted with existing neoliberal approaches to lead organizations (Avery and Bergsteiner 2010). Sustainability leaders inevitably embrace the fact that the bouts of change creates dissonance, and it further contributes in fuelling innovative thinking that can revitalize organizations, communities and ultimately the contribution to the societal values (Fredig and Ludema 2005). As pointed out by Ferdig (2007), the striking characteristics of sustainability leaders are that they are grounded, well aware of the environmental variables and brave optimist that genuinely draws the attention of others to work collectively. Emerging studies related to sustainability leadership has focussed on pointing out the ideal set of competencies and skills that are required for effective sustainability leadership (Heizmann and Liu 2017; Cosby 2014; Hind et al. 2009; Kakabadse et al. 2009). Past studies, thus, report that sustainable leadership practices shape corporate performance and sustainability (Suriyankietkaew and Avery 2014a, b) for the betterment of the industries. In conclusion, literature evidences that sustainable leadership seemingly leads to a self-reinforcing leadership framework leading to the enhancement of organizational performance and effectiveness for the long-term growth.

9 Impact of Sustainable Leadership on Organizational Transformation

157

Sustainable Leadership and Organizational Environment Sustainable leadership practices are the need of the hour. Sustainable leadership practices are found to be linked with corporate sustainability and resilience (Suriyankietkaew 2016). Sustainable leadership practices are observed to have enhanced the overall employee satisfaction in the path towards attaining sustainability with a specific focus on the inter-connections of the organizational framework in developing and maintaining satisfied workforce (Suriyankietkaew and Avery 2014b). The satisfaction level of the workforce is usually found to be associated with productivity and degree of sustainability of the work environment (Suriyankietkaew and Avery 2014a; Avery 2005; Avery and Bergsteiner 2010). Remarkably, sustainability leadership has come forth as a vital factor to facilitate learning environment in the organizational (Heizmann and Liu 2017; Metcalf and Benn 2013; Pearce et al. 2013; Galpin and Lee Whittington 2012; Ferdig 2007) environment. A number of studies have been conducted to explore the significance of sustainable leadership for corporate sustainability in the Western context (Avery and Bergsteiner 2011b; Avery and Bergsteiner 2010; Avery 2005). Organizations embracing sustainable leadership practices tend to be better performers when compared to their counterparts (Kantabutra 2014; Kantabutra and Avery 2013; Kantabutra and Suriyankietkaew 2013; Kantabutra 2012; Avery and Bergsteiner 2011a; Avery and Bergsteiner 2010). Research also evidences that business houses needs to be administered in a transparent and ethical manner alongside show confidence in the esteemed stakeholders to create sustainable organizations (Hilb 2006; Kantabutra and Avery 2013). The following gives a descriptive account of Sustainable Leadership practices emerging from different cross national studies. Studies conducted in India, Thailand, Finland and Germany are given below. India: The growing popularity of sustainability practices can be attributed to the continuously evolving business environment (Huy 2002; Kiefer 2004). Gaan and Mohanty (2019) conducted a study based on the Indian organizations to examine the significance of sustainable leadership practices. They concluded that sustainable leadership moderately mediates between passion and cynicism. Further, it was noted by them that sustainable leadership seemed to play the role of inhibitor towards cynicism (Gaan and Mohanty 2019). Thailand: The findings of a study conducted in Thailand based on samples drawn from diverse sectors suggest that sustainable leadership is remarkably associated with enhanced level of consumer satisfaction (Suriyankietkaew 2016). According to the findings of a study conducted by Kantabutra and Avery (2011), in the cement industry located in Thailand suggests that sustainable leadership has contributed to organizational success. Suriyankietkaew and Avery (2014a) carried out a study to explore the linkage between satisfaction of employees and sustainable leadership practices in an enterprise located in Bangkok, Thailand. The results suggest that sustainable leadership practices have a significant impact on the satisfaction of the labour force (Suriyankietkaew and Avery 2014a).

158

M. Basu and K. Mukherjee

Finland: Researchers across the globe have studied sustainable leadership practices from a broad range of perspectives. Interestingly, Metsämuuronen et al. (2013), studied the role of sustainable leadership as an influencer in the process of making decisions of the educational system in Finland. The findings from the study show that sustainable leadership is a visible component in a number of future-oriented decision-making and actions. For example, developing a uniform system provides quality education to all and offers strategic decisions pertaining to the information society along with some significant political decision-making (Metsämuuronen et al. 2013). Germany: One of the legendary examples of sustainable leadership in organizations is that of the automobile brand BMW. The premium automobile brand BMW is headquartered in Munich, Germany. As noted by Avery and Bergsteiner (2011a), the BMW group successfully implemented sustainable leadership practices in the organization during crisis situations. In the year 2011, the international sustainability rating organization, Oekom, bestowed BMW with an A+ grade on corporate governance and business practices. The study also highlighted practices like independence of board members and effectiveness, democratic approach towards their shareholders, executive compensation, shareholder framework and ethical business practices (Avery and Bergsteiner 2011a). In summary, these studies prove the significance of sustainable leadership for a good work environment and organizational success.

The Cambridge Sustainability Leadership Model The Cambridge Sustainability Leadership Model was developed by Visser and Courtice in the year 2011. The model is a part of the study conducted by the University of Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership (CPSL). They attempted to address and find solutions to critical issues pertaining to the global environment. Visser and Courtice’s (2011) model is fundamentally based on three components. The components are leadership context, individual leader and leadership actions. The first component, i.e., the context of leadership, elaborates the prevalent external and internal conditions of the environment in which the leaders operate that in a way that has direct or indirect impact on their decision-making style and their organization in the long run. Visser and Courtice in their model (2011) further illustrated the meaning of the external and internal leadership context factor. External factor of leadership context comprises the ecology, economic, political and cultural scenario. Precisely, the internal factor of leadership context comprises of the following sub arenas viz industries, organizational culture and responsibilities of the leaders along with the structure of governance. The second component is the ‘individual leader’. The sub-component of the individual leader factor as put forward by Visser and Courtice in their model (2011) comprises of the traits, styles, skills and level of knowledge of the leader. The traits of individual leader/s takes into account ‘caring/morally driven, systemic/holistic thinker, enquiring/open-minded,

9 Impact of Sustainable Leadership on Organizational Transformation

159

self-aware/empathetic, visionary/courageous’, etc. (Visser and Courtice 2011). The leadership ‘styles’ exhibited by the leaders include the diverse exhibited leadership behaviour such as inclusion, vision, creativity, altruistic and radicalism (Visser and Courtice 2011). Another sub-component of the individual leader factor is ‘skills’. The skills factor as elaborated in the model encompasses the following parameters— ability to manage complexity, ability to communicate vision, analytical skills, take up challenges and indulge into innovative way of thinking for the long-term goals (Visser and Courtice 2011). The last factor of the individual leader component in the model is ‘knowledge’. The various dimensions of knowledge in the model states that individual leaders must have the requisite expertise in dealing with the challenges at the global level, ability to understand interdisciplinary connections and dimensions of change management that influences perception of the different stakeholders (Visser and Courtice 2011). Interestingly, to expect that sustainable leaders will exhibit all the subsections of traits, styles, skills and kind of knowledge, it is unlikely. More specifically, based on their own personality and the environment, the individual leaders will have an insight of the essentials needed to address the sustainability challenges. The last component of the model is ‘leadership actions’. This factor elaborates how the individual leader plans for the due course of action needed to be taken and executed based on the leadership context. This factor comprises of the internal and external actions. The internal actions as explained in the model include taking wellinformed decisions, taking appropriate strategic direction, granting incentives related to management performance, taking the responsibility of the performance credentials, empowering people and taking interest in learning and innovation. The external actions as illustrated by Visser and Courtice’s (2011) in the model takes into account collaborative measures from the diverse sectors, offering sustainable products and services, creating awareness regarding sustainability, transformation of prevalent context and encouraging transparency of the esteemed stakeholders.

Objective of the Study Cambridge Sustainability Leadership Model developed by Visser and Courtice (2011) gives a vivid account of sustainability leadership. The fundamental components of the model are: leadership context, individual leader and leadership actions (Visser and Courtice 2011). This paper is an attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of the CSL leadership model based on the qualitative data of a senior male executive working with a department under the central government of India.

Methodology The paper is a single-subject study, based on qualitative research and case study research (Eriksson and Kovalainen 2014; Thomas 2010). The study is based on an

160

M. Basu and K. Mukherjee

intensive interview of the senior male executive working in a department of the Government of India. An effort has also been made to understand the perception of the subordinates towards the executive. For this purpose, the subordinates (5) of the executive were interviewed with the help of a structured agenda in order to get an insight into the demonstrated administrative style of the executive, as perceived by his followers. The personal interview of the male executive ranged around 45 minutes, while the subordinates interview ranged from 10 to 15 minutes. The interviews of both the male executive and his subordinates were transcribed for futher analysis.

Findings and Discussion Profile of the Male Executive Exhibit 1: Demographic Profile of the Male Executive Age

Educational qualification

Years in profession

Job description

60 years

M.Sc., Diploma in Industrial Relation and Personnel Management

35 years

Administration

The profile of the male executive suggests that he is well-educated. His core area is economics. He is an alumnus of one of the best institutions in India. He has also formally earned expertise in the area of industrial relations and personnel management. The executive works with the administrative department of the organization and has more than thirty-five years of work experience. He believes in taking a balanced approach towards life and considers it as his greatest asset. He described himself as an honest and empathetic individual who dislikes the causal approach towards life. His motto in life is to never give up this attitude.

Family Background The executive hails from the eastern part of India. His father was a civil engineer who also happens to be an alumnus of one of the top engineering institutions in India. His mother was a homemaker. The executive’s only younger female sibling has earned her doctorate in the field of biochemistry. She is presently associated with a college in the eastern part of India. He specifically emphasized on how his parents played a significant role in shaping his behaviour. He profusely acknowledged his parents’ contributions in shaping his personality. He also gave vivid narrative accounts of the significant contribution of his teachers/professors in nurturing his world view.

9 Impact of Sustainable Leadership on Organizational Transformation

161

Career Choice The executive explained how a number of individuals influenced his career choice which ultimately lead towards assuming the role of an administrator of a deparment under the Government of India.

Profession Compassionate Recruitment The executive shared interesting incidents relating to his professional career which reflected traits like empathy. To support this, the executive narrated an incident of having helped a needy woman to get a job on compassionate grounds. Humanitarian Approach The executive also mentioned an intriguing situation he encountered during his early years of profession. He also elaborated how he took an honest and ethical stand to help a citizen in distress by arranging transport facility for a medical emergency. Dealing with Corruption An episode of dealing with corruption and cracking down the corrupt activities in the organization was also narrated in support of the personal ethics that is an integral component in his personality.

Profile of the Subordinates Exhibit 2: Profile of the Subordinates Mean age of the subordinates Mean duration of service with Mean duration of service under the present organization the male executive 52.2 Years

24 Years

1 year 8 months

Exhibit 2 suggests that the mean age of the subordinates working under the male executive was 52.2 years. Their average duration of service was 24 years and working with the executive was averaged at 1 year 8 months. Exhibit 3: Educational Qualification of the Subordinates Educational qualification

School dropouts

Graduates

Postgraduates

Subordinates

Nil

80%

20%

Exhibit 3 reveals that 80% of the subordinates were graduates and 20% of them were postgraduates.

162

M. Basu and K. Mukherjee

Narrative—Subordinates The executive was perceived to be a leader by the subordinates. They also considered him to be knowledgeable and looked up to him for his advice for work-related issues. The working style of the executive is found to be deeply admired by his subordinates. More specifically, the subordinates expressed their admiration for the manner in which the leader applied his subject knowledge in his day to day decision making and policy formulation in the organizational settings. The honesty and ethical conduct of the executive was also acknowledged by the subordinates through their appreciation for his hardwork and effort at the workplace. They also revealed that he demonstrated the leadership traits of motivating the subordinates and unbiased treatment of his entire team. Based on the traits he displayed in his official conduct, the subordinates described him as an ideal mentor.

The Model Leadership Context The leadership model states that leadership takes place at a situational backdrop, which is termed as the leadership context factor in the Visser and Courtice’s (2011) CSLM model. The leadership context comprises of two sub-parts related to the external and the internal leadership context. The study evidenced the internal factors of leadership context. More particularly, the present study corroborates to the blend of ‘organizational reach’ and ‘leadership role’ which are the components of the internal factor of the leadership context in the model. Individual Leader Individual leader factor in the Cambridge Sustainability Leadership Model comprises of four other sub-components. They are the exhibited traits, styles, skills and the level of knowledge of the leader. 1. Traits The narrative account shared by the executive appears to reveal that his demonstrated working style comprises of a balance of the following qualities: compassion, empathy and courage. The broad range of descriptive incidents narrated by the male executive along with his subordinates seems to indicate the executive’s behavioural traits as holistic working style, ethical practices and honest approach along with assuming the role of an ideal mentor. The different characteristics emerging from the self-perception of the executive and his perceived behavioural attributes seem to authenticate a large number of the specified traits of the individual leader in the CSL model. More specifically, the traits in the context to the current study appears to

9 Impact of Sustainable Leadership on Organizational Transformation

163

be the amalgamation of the following qualities like compassion, ethics and integrity, holistic thinking, empathy, courage, self-awareness, visionary and open minded. 2. Styles Visser and Courtice (2011) pointed out in their model that ‘leadership style’ is one of the sub-components of the individual leader factor in the CSL Model. It appears to emerge from the narrative accounts that the executive exhibited a combination of ‘inclusive’ and ‘visionary’ leadership style. The specified leadership styles are sub-components of the style parameter of the individual leader factor as illustrated in the Visser and Courtice’s (2011) Cambridge Sustainability Leadership Model. 3. Skills The different work-related incidents shared by the executive appears to suggest that he has earned relevant expertise in his professional field which in turn gets reflected in his working style. It seems to emerge from the descriptive accounts of the executive that he takes an analytical approach and deals with complex situations with ease at the workplace. The findings from the narrative of the subordinates indicate that the executive demonstrated noteworthy analytical quality, communication skills and vision to plan for the future. The diverse incidents shared by the executive and his subordinates appear to authenticate the ‘skills’ component of the individual leader factor in the CSL Model. More specifically, a combination of the different sub-components of the skill factor like handling complexity at the work environment, ability to communicate vision, administering analytical qualities, taking up challenges at the workplace and the vision to plan for the future was observed. 4. Knowledge The executive’s educational profile along with the vivid account/s of the workplace incidents suggests that he is indeed a knowledgeable individual. Further, it is corroborated by the narratives of the subordinates. This endorses the ‘knowledge’ factor of the individual leader factor of the model. Precisely, the sub-components of the knowledge factor as observed in the study are a combination of the ‘interdisciplinary/connection’ and ‘organizational influence/impacts’ factors as illustrated in the model (Visser and Courtice 2011).

Leadership Actions As explained in the model, the ‘individual leader’ plans for the long-term strategies based on the ‘leadership context’. The data of the present study reveals that the executive believes in rational decision-making while dealing with complex situations. Further his working style, according to the subordinates, empowered them in their official engagements at the workplace.

164

M. Basu and K. Mukherjee

The narrative accounts of both the male executive and his subordinates seem to endorse Visser and Courtice’s (2011) ‘leadership actions’ factor. The different kinds of leadership initiatives taken up and implemented by the male executive appears to be the combination of well-informed decisions, strategic approach, performance responsibility and empowerment of the subordinates. All these aforesaid factors are the components of the internal leadership actions of the model. The present study focussed on the organizational perspective of leadership. This in a way is the merger of the ‘organizational reach’ and ‘leadership role’ factors of the leadership context, thus exhibiting the sustainable leadership behaviour.

Conclusion Leadership has been researched in management literature, still it remains an elusive concept. Literature on leadership evidences a wide range of leadership theories. Past studies suggest that organizations led by efficient leaders perform much better as compared to their not so well-led organizational counterparts. The current uncertain and volatile organizational environment has forced researchers and practitioners to look for diverse types of leadership skills and styles to create organizations that will be resilient enough to deal with any kind of adverse situation/s. The perspective of sustainable leadership is developed on the humanistic approach of organizational management that includes valuing humans as irreplaceable assets of the firms and considering organizations to be the key contributors for the betterment of the society. It emerges from previous studies that sustainable leadership practice is beneficial for the business organization/s. The present study recommends that leadership must be embedded in the hearts and minds of the potential future leaders and not just rest on the shoulders of the leaders currently leading the organizations. An integrated leadership approach is required for the long-term growth and survival of the organizations in the globalized era. The essence of the holistic approach of management practice revolves around sustainable leadership. In conclusion, business firms embracing sustainable leadership practices in the organizational dynamics are in a better position to pave the way towards accomplishing long-term organizational growth.

References Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 945–955. Albert, M. (1992). The Rhine model of capitalism: An investigation. European Business Journal, 4(3), 8–22. Alchian, A. A. (1986). Evolutionary theory: Questioning managerial impact on firm performance. In J. B. Barrey & W. G. Ouchi (Eds.), Organizational economics (pp. 305–319). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

9 Impact of Sustainable Leadership on Organizational Transformation

165

Avery, G. C. (2004). Understanding leadership. London: Sage. Avery, G. C. (2005). Leadership for sustainable futures: Achieving success in a competitive world. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Avery, G. C., & Bergsteiner, H. (2010). Honeybees and locust: The business case for sustainable leadership. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Avery, G. C., & Bergsteiner, H. (2011a). How BMW successfully practices sustainable leadership principles. Strategy & Leadership, 39(6), 11–18. Avery, G. C., & Bergsteiner, H. (2011b). Sustainable leadership practices for enhancing business resilience and performance. Strategy & Leadership, 39(3), 5–15. Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (2003). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins. Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. Boal, K. B., & Hooijberg, R. (2001). Strategic leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 515–549. Casserley, T., & Critchley, B. (2010). A new paradigm of leadership development. Industrial and Commercial Training, 42(6), 287–295. Cosby, D. (2014). Sustainability program leadership for human resource development professionals: A competency model. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflicts, 18(2), 79–86. Davies, B. (2007). Developing sustainable leadership. London: Sage Publications. Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2014). Qualitative methods in business research. London: Sage. Fayol, H. (1923/1937). The administrative theory of the state. In L. Gulick & L. Urwick (Eds.), Papers on the science of administration (pp. 99–114). New York, NY: Institute of Public Administration. Ferdig, M. A. (2007). Sustainability leadership: Co-creating a sustainable future. Journal of Change Management, 7(1), 25–35. Fielder, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: Mc-Graw-Hill. Fredig, M. A., & Ludema, J. D. (2005). Transformative interactions: Qualities of conversation that heighten the vitality of self-organizing change. In W. Pasmore & R. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development. Stamford: JAI Press Inc. Gaan, N., & Mohanty, P. (2019). On passion & sustainable leadership: Personal & organizational outcomes in India. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 54(3), 541–552. Galpin, T., & Lee Whittington, J. (2012). Sustainability leadership: From strategy to results. Journal of Business Strategy, 33(4), 40–48. Gerard, L., McMillan, J., & D’Annunzio-Green, N. (2017). Conceptualising sustainable leadership. Industrial and Commercial Training, 49(3), 116–126. Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 423–451. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2000, April). The three dimensions of reform. Educational Leadership, 440–463. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Hayward, S. (2011). Connecting leadership development to bottom line benefits. Strategic HR Review, 10(1), 28–34. Heizmann, H., & Liu, H. (2017). Becoming green, becoming leaders: Identity narratives in sustainability leadership development. Management Learning, 49(1), 40–58. Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (1996/2007). Management of organizational behaviour: Leading human resources. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Hilb, M. (2006). New corporate governance: Successful board management tools. Berlin: Springer. Hind, P., Wilson, A., & Lenssen, G. (2009). Developing leaders for sustainable business. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 9(1), 7–20.

166

M. Basu and K. Mukherjee

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49(6), 493–504. Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 31–69. Kakabadse, N. K., Kakabadse, A. P., & Lee-Davies, L. (2009). CSR leaders road-map. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 9(1), 50–57. Kantabutra, S. (2011). Sustainable leadership in a Thai healthcare services provider. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 24(1), 67–80. Kantabutra, S. (2012). Putting Rhineland principles into practice in Thailand: Sustainable leadership at Bathroom Design Company. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 31(5), 6–19. Kantabutra, S. (2014). Measuring corporate sustainability: A Thai approach. Measuring Business Excellence, 18(2), 73–88. Kantabutra, S., & Avery, G. C. (2011). Sustainable leadership at Siam Cement Group. Journal of Business Strategy, 32(4), 32–41. Kantabutra, S., & Avery, G. (2013). Sustainable leadership: Honeybee practices at a leading Asian industrial conglomerate. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 5(1), 36–56. Kantabutra, S., & Saratun, M. (2013). Sustainable leadership: Honeybee practices at Thailand’s oldest university. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(4), 356–376. Kantabutra, S., & Suriyankietkaew, S. (2013). Sustainable leadership: Rhineland practices at a Thai small enterprise. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 19(1), 77–94. Kiefer, T. (2004). Towards an integrated model for understanding antecedents and consequences of negative emotions in ongoing change. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Emotions in Organizational Life. UK: London. Kociatkiewicz, J., & Kostera, M. (2012). The good manager: An archetypical quest for morally sustainable leadership. Organization Studies, 33(7), 861–878. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates”. The Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 269–299. Lubin, D. A., & Esty, D. E. (2010, May). The sustainability imperative. Harvard Business Review. McNeese-Smith, D. K. (1997). The influence of manager behavior on Nurses’ job satisfaction, productivity, and commitment. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 27(9), 47–55. Metcalf, L., & Benn, S. (2013). Leadership for sustainability: An evolution of leadership ability. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(3), 369–384. Metsämuuronen, J., Kuosa, T., & Laukkanen, R. (2013). Sustainable leadership and future-oriented decision making in the educational governance—A Finnish case. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(4), 402–424. Mott, P. E. (1972). The characteristics of effective organizations. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Opoku, A., Ahmed, V., & Cruickshank, H. (2015). Leadership style of sustainability professionals in the UK construction industry. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 5(2), 184–201. Pantouvakis, A., & Patsiouras, C. (2016). Exploring the role of leadership style on the service quality-customer satisfaction link. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 8(1), 88–101. Pearce, C. L., Manz, C. C., & Akanno, S. (2013). Searching for the holy grail of management development and sustainability. Journal of Management Development, 32(3), 247–257. Plato (380 BCE/2007). The republic. London: Penguin. Raelin, J. A. (2003). Creating leaderful organizations: How to bring out leadership in everyone. San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler. Robert, K. (2007). Strategic leadership for sustainability. Karlshamn: Blekinge Institute of Technology. Senge, P. M. (2008). The necessary revolution: How individuals and organizations are working together to create a sustainable world. New York, NY: Doubleday. Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of the literature. New York: Free Press. Suriyankietkaew, S. (2016). Effects of sustainable leadership on customer satisfaction: Evidence from Thailand. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 8(3), 245–259.

9 Impact of Sustainable Leadership on Organizational Transformation

167

Suriyankietkaew, S., & Avery, G. C. (2014a). Leadership practices influencing stakeholder satisfaction in Thai SMEs. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 6(3), 247–261. Suriyankietkaew, S., & Avery, G. C. (2014b). Employee satisfaction and sustainable leadership practices in Thai SMEs. Journal of Global Responsibility, 5(1), 160–173. Svensson, G., & Wood, G. (2006). Sustainable components of leadership effectiveness in organizational performance. Journal of Management Development, 25(6), 522–534. Taylor, F. (1990). The principles of scientific management. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers. Taylor, A., Cocklin, C., Brown, R., & Wilson-Evered, E. (2011). An investigation of championdriven leadership processes. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(2), 412–433. Thomas, G. (2010). How to do your case study. London: Sage. Tideman, S. G., Arts, M. C., & Zandee, D. P. (2013). Sustainable leadership: Towards a workable definition. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2013(49), 17–33. Visser, W., & Courtice, P. (2011). Sustainability leadership: Linking theory and practice. SSRN Working Paper Series, October 21, 2011. http://www.waynevisser.com/papers/sustainability-lea dership. Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall. Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations. New York, NY: Elsevier.

Chapter 10

Culture, Climate and Sustainability in Organizations Vinitha Nair and Veena Vohra

Abstract This study provides a close examination of the link between the cultural and climate orientations of an organization and the role of HR in inculcating a culture of sustainability in organizations, to promote more ‘responsible organizations’. Many scholars suggest that the pathway for the adoption of sustainability principles is because of the adoption of a sustainability-oriented organizational culture. Previous research also highlights the critical role of the HR function but has not elaborated on the dimensions of this role. Additionally, very few studies, especially in the Indian scenario, seem to have brought together sustainability, role of HR and organizational culture, linking the three and examining them from an organizational context. Climate, as a construct is studied with culture, as research supports their simultaneous study. A constructivist grounded theory approach has been used. Primary research findings based on interviews conducted reveal that key stakeholders are yet to grasp the benefits of sustainability. Human Resources could play a key role here in educating the stakeholders on the benefits of sustainability and inculcating a ‘sense of ownership’ towards the concept. This study helps us to realise that the traditional business organizations need to focus more on sustainability awareness. Focus on the ‘local context’ has been identified as a crucial factor for maintaining sustainability in organizations, especially in emerging economies. This study helps to understand the dimensions of the HR function to build a culture of sustainability and also identifies focus areas to build a sustainable culture within organizations. Keywords Human resource management · Sustainability · Organizational culture · Organizational climate · Culture change

V. Nair (B) · V. Vohra School of Business Management, NMIMS, Mumbai, India e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. Vanka et al. (eds.), Sustainable Human Resource Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5656-2_10

169

170

V. Nair and V. Vohra

Introduction The 2030 Agenda of the United Nations for Sustainable Development aims at attaining all the seventeen Sustainable Development Goals and one hundred and sixty nine targets and is based on an agenda for people, planet and prosperity, to eradicate poverty and bring about a balanced, integrated and indivisible development on the economic, social and environmental front. Heading the world’s largest Corporate Sustainability initiative, UN Global Compacts CEO and Executive Director Lise Kingo has in one of her interviews stressed the significance of the role of CEOs and other Senior Management in making this 2030 agenda a reality. She further states that these Sustainable Developmental Goals (SDGs) are driving a very strategic business agenda of creating ‘responsible’ companies focussed on innovation and efficient at converting risks into business opportunities. The Global Compact 100 index companies which are all part of the UN Global Compact that runs on the business model based on sustainability are more profitable than the companies with other major indexes, clearly indicating that the ‘Sustainability Model’ to be more profitable than a business model based only on profit. Much has been written and talked about the principles of sustainability and how significant it is for organizations to uphold and pursue them. Sustainability as a concept was introduced at a global level through the report ‘Our Common Future’. This report also known as the Brundtland Report was published in 1987 by the United Nation’s entity, World Commission on Environment and Development. According to the WCED, sustainable development can be defined as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising on the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs. The three pillars of sustainability in any organization are environment, economy and society. Adding ‘culture’ as a fourth pillar has been proposed and advocated gradually by the proponents of the concept of sustainable development. However, the sad truth remains that the role of the cultural aspect in sustainability in organizations is frequently overlooked. Sustainability is defined as meeting the needs of a firm’s direct and indirect stakeholders without compromising on its ability to meet the needs of the future stakeholders (Dyllick and Hockerts 2002). The three levels of sustainability are: individual, organizational and societal. These three levels are interdependent. An effective sustainability system ensures balance between the sustainability goals and the stakeholder needs at various levels simultaneously. Sustainability as a concept has started becoming relevant in both organizational theory and practice in the recent years. A lot of ambiguity still exists on what exactly constitutes the concept of sustainability and how best it can be achieved. The role of organizational culture in the attainment of sustainability has been advocated and vouched for by many scholars in previous research studies. Over the past three decades, the concept of sustainability has undergone a lot of change in its evolution (Dyllick and Hockerts 2002). Even though ‘sustainability’ is one of the most popular concepts in the scientific field (Leal Filho 2000), further exploration of various dimensions of this concept needs to be done to bring out its full potential. Till recently,

10 Culture, Climate and Sustainability in Organizations

171

external factors like governmental rules and regulations, pressure from customers and other environmental regulations were considered to be the primary drivers of sustainability in organizations, but recent studies have identified internal factors like support from senior management and Human Resources, empowering employees, reward systems, team work and environmental training as significant factors for attaining sustainability in organizations. Research has also stressed the necessity to bring about further impactful changes in the values and underlying assumptions of the employees to truly attain corporate sustainability (Crane 2000; Purser1994). Hence, it seems appropriate to say that organizational change and adaptation at various levels is a requirement to promote this multifaceted concept of sustainability. In order to minimize pollution, promote effective and efficient utilization of resources and improve the stakeholder and community relations, changing existing policies, products and processes are all various steps taken up by organizations. However, contrary to promoting an environment conducive for sustainable organizations, such initiatives have been largely insufficient and superficial. Organizations will need to go through a significant cultural change and transformation to completely respond positively to social and environmental challenges (Post and Altman 1994; Stead and Stead 1992; Welford 1995). This further goes on to highlight the requirement for organizations to develop a sustainability-oriented culture to facilitate progress towards sustainability (Crane 1995). Although culture and climate have originated from different disciplines and have been studied from different scholarly traditions, both concepts are about comprehending the psychological phenomenon in organizations. Both culture and climate are based on a shared understanding of certain aspects in an organizational context. Climate as a construct was explored and studied much ahead of culture. The concept of climate was introduced formally in the 1960s. This had its foundation on the theoretical concepts proposed by Kurt Lewin ( Lewin et al. (1939) and empirical research (Litwin and Stringer 1968; Stern 1970). The 1930s marked the beginning of studies on organizations based on a cultural perspective (Trice and Beyer 1993). However, organizational culture became popular in management literature by the 1980s. Traditionally, research on climate has been largely based on quantitative methods and surveys incorporating questions on employee’s perception of the organizational context whereas culture has been studied using qualitative methods like case studies. It has become extremely difficult to differentiate the empirical culture studies done in the recent past from the traditional climate studies (Boggs and Fields 2010). It is imperative that we understand the different aspects of the shared meanings and perceptions as well as the social contexts of organizational life. This would enable in maintaining a distinction between culture and climate in spite of the fact that they are similar in their focus on the creation and impacts of social contexts. Each construct needs to be studied separately. The relationship between the two constructs is also a subject worthy of study. Organizational behaviour as a subject highly benefits from exploration and studies conducted on both climate and culture. Therefore, it is highly essential to continue the studies on these two constructs. That is, turnover, job satisfaction, job performance, citizenship, safety, customer satisfaction, service quality and organizational level indicators of effectiveness are

172

V. Nair and V. Vohra

all individual and group behaviours that are influenced by the symbolic and social processes associated with organizational culture and climate (Schneider et al. 2011). A description of people’s experiences in an organizational setting can be termed as climate (James and Jones 1974; Schneider 2000). People’s perceptions on rewards, routines, procedures, policies and practices constitute climate. The link to ‘situation’ and ‘perception’ is significant here. This can be subjective, temporal and also could be subject to manipulation (Denison and Neale 1996). Thus, while climate is about perceptions and experiential description, culture helps to define why these things happen (Schein 2000; Schneider 2000). Being a property of the collective (Martin 2002), culture reflects deeper phenomena encompassing symbolic meanings (Hatch 2011) and shared meanings on beliefs, core values, assumptions and underlying ideologies (Schein 2010; Trice and Beyer 1993). Scholars have identified both culture and climates as having significant impact on both organizational and individual behaviours and outcomes, both generally (Hartnell et al. 2011; Schneider et al. 2013) and with regard to sustainability (Norton et al. 2014; Russel and McIntosh 2011). Sustainable organizations aim at attaining their goals and maximizing positive outcomes with minimum harm to natural environment (Starik and Marcus 2000). Creating an organizational context which gives emphasis on the values pertaining to environment (culture) in such a way that the employees have shared perceptions of those values (climate) is therefore an imperative (Norton et al. 2014). In this context, there is a large body of research that demonstrates the significant role of both climate and culture in the attainment of organizational goals (for reviews, Ashkanasy et al. (2011); Schneider et al. 2013) In order to avoid entanglement between these two constructs, at different levels of analysis, practitioners, researchers and theorists need to be cautious. They need to clearly indicate whether they mean climate or culture in their references in studies involving these constructs. They also should make clear if they intend to use these unpredictable perceptions or constructs of climate and culture at a higher level. At the same time, instead of considering each as a distinct entity or body of literature, a lot more can be achieved by studying the two research streams simultaneously, as in the case of this study. Hence, both the concepts, culture and climate, are a part of this study. There is less conjecture regarding the definition of organizational climate as compared to its multidisciplinary sister construct culture. Climate is employee’s perceptions of the procedures, policies and the practices based on these procedures and policies (Schneider and Reichers (1983) Although Schein (1990) views the policies, procedures and the practices as artifacts, literature also considers them to be the foundations for perceptions regarding climate, thus providing a linking mechanism between the two constructs (Ostroff and Kinicki 2013) We therefore conceptualize climate in terms of perceptions of cultural artifacts. Emerging economies need to give extra focus on promoting this concept of ‘sustainability’ in their organizations. Antoine W. Van Agtamael of the International Finance Corporation of World Bank had first used the term ‘Emerging Market Economy’ in 1981. Twenty-four developing countries, including India, qualify as emerging markets according to the Morgan Stanley Capital International Emerging

10 Culture, Climate and Sustainability in Organizations

173

Market Index. These countries are more disciplined economically and on their road to advancement. Their fiscal policies are transparent. They are open to foreign investment and focus on setting up regulatory bodies and increased production. Here, we therefore seek to specifically understand and explore the role of HR in being the most effective function to inculcate this culture of sustainability in organizations. The most poignant question that we are trying to deliberate in this paper would be whether culture change would be the most effective means of initiating sustainability in organizations and how and whether HR would be the most ‘eligible’ to take up the initiative and push it forward. This study explores the possibility of more organizations becoming more sustainable through culture change and to understand the role of organizational leadership in driving this agenda.

Literature Review Stankeviciute and Savaneviciene (2013) have provided insights on the different meanings of sustainability (normative, efficiency oriented and substance oriented). The study states that sustainable HRM tries to balance simultaneously, economic rationality and social responsibility. However, not much has been mentioned on the role of HRM in implementing this idea of sustainability in organizations. This warrants further studies. Felix (2012), in his paper, has explored the significance and the role of sustainable culture on society in order to create a viable society. Again, how to attain sustainability through culture change and how this could be implemented in organizations were yet to be explored here. Mishra et al. (2013), in their paper, unfold the best practices in HR for sustainability. It reflects the initiatives that can be taken by corporates to promote a culture of sustainability. The research paper by Harmon et al. (2010) discusses the role of HR in assisting businesses in its pursuit of sustainability. The paper has suggested further study with greater depth, the practices of HR leaders that have become influential over sustainability strategy so that we know what is likely to be most effective. The study by Guerci and Pedrini (2014), explores the levels of consensus between the HR and sustainability managers through a survey on 89 sustainability managers from select Italian companies. This paper focusses on the ‘consensus’ between HR and the sustainability managers. Minimum research has been undertaken on the initiatives by HR in promoting sustainability-driven change. Sustainability is rarely included in strategic plans by HR. Its implications on strategic HR management have not yet received the due attention. Recent Development and Future Prospects on Sustainable HRM, a study by Ehnert and Harry (2012), discusses the research on the role of HRM in initialising and implementing sustainability strategies and practices. The study revealed that several authors have argued that both sustainability and CSR initiatives in organizations do have direct relevance for HRM field and should be considered both in HRM practice and research. Although views on how to rethink HRM discipline from the perspective of sustainability has been explored here, exactly how this can be done

174

V. Nair and V. Vohra

and more importantly, how employment can be designed so that the people are not exploited but instead are supported in fostering a healthy work practice and lifestyle are areas which can still be explored. Gupta (2017), again states that promotion of sustainability practices by the HR is necessary for a successful business model. This study highlights the usage of CSR by various corporations to strengthen their relationships among various stakeholders such as investors, customers, employees and government. The paper analyses the influence of CSR practices of Reliance Industries limited on Human Resources. Again, the article by Oruh (2013) discusses the challenges of applying HRIS to sustainability in the new media age which seem to be becoming extremely cumbersome and calls for furthering the competitive edge, productivity and organizational learning in the Nigerian Banking Sector. A sustainability approach anchored in HRIS is suggested and discussed here. The role of new media in fostering and developing sustainable development in the Nigerian Banking Sector is the major focus of discussion in this study. Another article by Ehnert et al. (2016) has focussed their study on few of the world’s largest companies, conducting analysis of the reports on sustainability concepts in relation to Human Resources Management. They have been further compared to the environmental aspects of sustainable management with special focus on whether organizational attributes like the country of origin has any influence on such practices getting reported. This study definitely has its own share of limitations—the small sample size focussing on companies that have adopted only GRI reporting guidelines which could have accounted for the surprisingly limited international differences in sustainable HRM practices. Again, not much is discussed on how Human Resources Management and Sustainability departments deal with the various challenges of collaboration to manage people in organizations and the impact this would be having on the Human Resources Management roles. The paper by De Prins et al. (2014) explores relevant questions concerning the identification of the socio-economic and strategic context in which strategic HRM can be studied well. The paper nudges towards further research involving assessing whether organizations with strong CSR profiles are more inclined to apply sustainable practices. The study also paves the way for new questions like the role of HRM in this regard, whether sustainable HRM requires competences other than those associated with mainstream as well as the role of Trade unions and other stakeholders. The study by John (2018) states that unless an organization adapts itself to the inevitable changes in the environment, its propensity to serve the needs of its stakeholders will diminish finally leading to a point of zero sustainability in the organization. This paper explores the possibility of adopting organizational culture as a new tool for introducing change in the organization which in turn could introduce sustainability! Although the concept of sustainability has been largely studied by many researchers, very few of them, especially in the Indian scenario seem to have brought together sustainability, HR and organizational culture, linking the three and studying them from an organizational context.

10 Culture, Climate and Sustainability in Organizations

175

The existence of subcultures throughout an organization can pose a major limitation to sustainability initiation and maintenance in the organization. Each subculture can have members with attitudes unique to that subculture and different from other subcultures. Also, rigidity in existing culture and the reluctance to change can also become a critical constraint here. This will definitely require further in-depth study, and in all probability, a separate study in itself. Further, in future, research could also be done to explore whether certain types of company cultures lead to more successful sustainability initiatives. This study limits its primary research to the Indian scenario.

Methodology Qualitative method of study has been adopted here as previous research studies have indicated this method as the most ideal method to be used when the phenomenon to be studied is too complex or delicate to be captured fully through a statistical enquiry. Early work by Glaser and Strauss (1967) perceived grounded theory as a qualitative methodology. Here, data is collected through probing open-ended questions unravelling the participant’s experiences. The study uses a constructivist grounded theory approach to understand the role of HR in inculcating a sustainability culture and climate in organizations and to explore the possibility of organizations becoming more sustainable through culture and climate change. Purposive sampling method has been used here. A sample size of 6 interviewees in the middle/senior level management team from different organizations spread across various employment sectors like finance, commerce and education could ideally be interviewed. Through these questions, one could understand how the stakeholders in the selected organizations perceive and experience the sustainability culture in their organizations. Here, data was collected through face-to-face interviews. Questions were formulated to understand and directly and indirectly derive information on Integration, Engagement, Transparency, Collaboration and Resilience measures adopted in organizations which would provide a fair overview on the status of sustainability in these organizations. Interviews were done with the Senior Management Executives of three major Multi National Companies across various cities in India. Questions were based on the factors the organization considers a part of sustainability. They were focussed on checking whether there is unanimous awareness and agreement in the organization on pursuing sustainability-related strategies and practices, whether the business model has changed in any way after implementing sustainability practices if any, what exact role the HR could or is playing to bring about sustainability in the organizations, how the stakeholders can contribute and their views on the same, whether both the HR as well as stakeholders consider sustainability practices an important factor to be competitive and so on. These questions were framed in such a manner that one would understand the exact status of sustainability on the agenda of the organization’s senior management. The duration of each interview was approximately 45 min. Open-ended questions were used during the interviews such as:

176

V. Nair and V. Vohra

• What factors does the organization associate with sustainability? • How are the organization’s sustainability strategies communicated throughout the organization? • What has been the impact of implementing sustainability practices in the organization? • What is the role of HR professionals/department in implementing a culture of sustainability in organizations?

Findings The first interview was with the Co-Founder of an 8-year-old Fintech company engaged in providing digital gift-card solutions. The company has been proactively working on driving sustainability by pioneering a business category that was new in India and conducting awareness programmes on the same. This responsibility was primarily handed over to the HR and the impact was overwhelming, They worked with over 1000+ brands, corporates and institutions to introduce the concept of digital gifting instead of physical gifting which had resulted in over 1.5 billion transactions in the last three years from a fiscal to a digital eco-system enabling savings on time for merchandise shipping, cost savings on logistics and reducing the volume of physical gifts being shifted from one place to another. Within the organization, this young Fintech drives sustainability with soft, but, effective measures such as encouraging employees to carpool, encouraging people to work from home at least 3 days a month to help save on commute time and fuel consumption while simultaneously saving on office infrastructure. Lastly, employees are encouraged to finish work by 7 pm to reduce wastage of electricity! In the second company, a fifteen-year-old software solutions and consulting company, the HR Director was keenly aware of sustainability as a concept. However, he felt that the concept of sustainability was clearly something that was driven largely by the CSR team in the organization and was only slowly making its way into the HR philosophy of the organization. In the third organization, a thirty-five-year-old multinational in the financial services space, it was clear that the HR head for the Asia Pacific Region had very little understanding of the concept of sustainability and provided a sketchy response to the question. Thus, based on the limited primary research done so far, we can conclude that it is a very possible reality that the new age Fintechs engaged in providing new technology solutions and disrupting the world’s tradiitonal businesses are probably more aware of sustainability when compared to the older companies engaged in traditional businesses. These interviews lead us to understand the probable primary reasons why sustainability is not yet embedded in many organizations:

10 Culture, Climate and Sustainability in Organizations

177

• Key stakeholders have yet to grasp the benefits of sustainability. • HR could therefore play a significant role in educating the stakeholders of the company on the benefits of sustainability. The most effective step would be to inculcate a ‘sense’ of ownership towards the concept of sustainability among the stakeholders. • The ‘Sustainability Leaders’ must then be prepared to engage in dialogue and collaborate with independent parties outside the organization on the concept of sustainability. • Sustainability practices seem to be more prevalent in the new businesses. This study so far helps to realize that the traditional business organizations need to focus more in creating sustainability awareness in the organizations. Besides, these findings, secondary data has made it clear that the drive to build a sustainability culture comes from a much bigger social agenda which extends beyond the organization, which is sometimes external to the organization. Here, sustainability drivers or leaders would be required to adopt paradigm—breaking business models or approaches. These companies refuse to or rather have been unable to comprehend the benefits of their stakeholders owning sustainability. In other words, in successful companies, where sustainability is concerned, the onus rests on the stakeholders of the company. This is where HR could play a significant role—Inculcating this feeling of ownership among the stakeholders to uphold a culture of sustainability could be done to a large extent by the HR of every organization. These sustainability leaders must be prepared to engage in dialogue and collaborate with independent parties outside their organizations.

Discussion The first Fintech gift-card solutions company which was interviewed was already heavily into promoting sustainability and they were proactively pursuing a business strategy to ensure this. This was getting implemented effectively through the organization’s culture, thus, very strongly supporting the positive role of culture in initiating and promoting sustainability in organizations. Again, as the interviews revealed, they had entrusted this task to HR. The company was running very successfully. The organization had undergone a mercurial rise over the last six years. On the other hand, both the other organizations performances were mediocre, the interviews clearly revealing their apathy in pursuing sustainability let alone incorporating the process into their culture. Even awareness seemed limited in the third organization. Literature review has already revealed senior management support, employee empowerment, reward systems, teamwork and environmental training as significant factors in promoting organizational sustainability. The first Fintech organization clearly was found to be actively pursuing and incorporating all these factors into their sustainability initiatives, even taking measures to ensure minimum pollution, still a very superficial factor in many organizations even today, as revealed by primary and

178

V. Nair and V. Vohra

secondary data. Very clearly, this study reveals the need for many organizations to better their efforts in promoting and retaining sustainability strategies and measures. Also, it throws light on the reluctance on the part of traditional organizations to adopt sustainability initiatives. Previous studies reveal that minimum research has been conducted on how HR could promote sustainability driven change in organizations. This study throws light on the importance of creating an employment design where people have a healthy work practice and lifestyle. The significant role which HR can play in inculcating a sense of ownership among the stakeholders to initiate and promote a culture of sustainability has been revealed through the study. More importantly, as mentioned earlier not many studies have explored Human Resources, Organizational Culture and Sustainability under a single lens. Previous studies on sustainability along with the contributions have also had its own set of limitations. This study also has its limitations, some which were there in previous studies too. Organizational rigidity, the existence of organizational subcultures, organizational conservatism as well as established assumptions within and across the organizations are some of them. It is very difficult to change the organization’s underlying assumptions even through any amount of control from any of the higher authorities (Beer et al. 1990; Molinsky 1999).

Conclusion The significance of culture change in initiating and promoting sustainability and the role of HR in taking up this initiative have been examined here. This study contributes to the existing literature on sustainability in organizations highlighting the requirement for concrete procedures and practices and means of communicating these practices and procedures to all the stakeholders of the organization in a way that facilitates a unanimous perception that the organization authentically values sustainability. These findings and research considerations can be utilized to further guide future research and inform practice on how organizations can engage with sustainability. Through the proposed methodology, further research could be conducted on the benefits of creating a feeling of ownership among the stakeholders. In addition, they could abandon their bureaucratic styles, lower internal process values and become high on their open system values. How best one can delve deeper into the organization’s hardcore underlying assumptions that could be difficult to access could also be a significant area for future research. Various training programmes for stakeholders, publication of corporate sustainability reports providing valuable feedback, etc., can all go a long way in facilitating and creating an atmosphere conducive to a culture change in organizations Feelings of organizational ownership leads to greater job satisfaction, engagement, productivity and thus profits. This makes ownership a powerful concept for those seeking to galvanize a company around sustainability. Stakeholders thus become

10 Culture, Climate and Sustainability in Organizations

179

not just bystanders, but, responsible owners who would play a more involved and judicious role to gain competitive advantage. The HR could work on various angles and target the employees, management as well as all the stakeholders and where the shell is hard to crack, they could resort to economic reasoning! Indigenous and customized training programmes could be made mandatory for organizations with initiatives from the HR. The idea of sustainability should be drilled into all the stakeholders and made a part of their routine. Periodical evaluations and feedback on sustainability targets could go a long way to ensure that sustainability is the essence of the organizational culture. Entrenching sustainability into the culture of the organization can go a long way to ensure the success of any organization. Any organization with a vision of contributing to a viable society will need to focus on several more relevant factors and not just abstract goals or political assurances and regulations alone. To bring human needs and lifestyles in alignment with the system requirements of sustainable development poses a challenge to the sustainability culture in any organization. As the Council for Sustainable Development has adviced: Sustainability is really the key to the vision for a just world, a humane, tolerant and solidary society that gives more focus on optimization of interests rather than on maximization and deals very cautiously with their human and natural resources. The more one digs into the material, the more they might become well versed in these topics and the less they would succeed in communicating sustainability as what it really stands for. The same advice is applicable to sustainability in organizations also.

References Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C. P. M., & Peterson, M. F. (2011). Introduction to the handbook of organizational culture and climate. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The handbook of organizational culture and climate (2nd ed., pp. 3–10). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., & Spector, R. (1990, November 1). The critical path to corporate renewal (1st ed.). Harvard Business Review Press. Boggs, W. B., & Fields, D. L. (2010). Exploring organizational culture and performance of christian churches. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 13, 305–334. Crane, A. (1995). Rhetoric and reality in the greening of organizational culture. Greener Management International, 12, 49–62. Crane, A. (2000). Corporate greening as amoralization. Organization Studies, 21(4), 673–696. De Prins, Peggy, Van Beirendonck, Lou, De Vos, Ans, & Segers, Jesse. (2014). Sustainable HRM: Bridging theory & practice through the respect, openness, continuity (ROC)—model. Management Revue, 25(4), 263–284. Denison, D. R., & Neale, W. S. (1996). Denison organizational culture survey. Ann Arbor, MI: Aviat. Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141. Ehnert, I., & Harry, W. (2012). Recent developments and future prospects on sustainable human resources management: Introduction to the special issue. Research Gate Article, January 2012. https://doi.org/10.2307/41783719.

180

V. Nair and V. Vohra

Ehnert, I., Parsa, S., Roper, I., Wagner, M., & Muller-Camen, M. (2016). Reporting on sustainability and HRM: A comparative study of sustainability reporting practices by the world’s largest companies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(1), 88–108. Felix, W. (2012). A culture of sustainability, commentary by Marcus Andreas. In Realizing Utopia: Ecovillage endeavors and academic approaches. RCC Perspectives, 8, 57–72. Leal Filho, W. (2000). Dealing with misconceptions on the concept of sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 1(1), 9–19. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grouded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyter. Guerci, M., & Pedrini, M. (2014). The consensus between Italian HR and sustainability managers on HR management for sustainability-driven change–towards a ‘strong’ HR management system. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(13), 1787–1814. Gupta, M. (2017). Corporate social responsibility: Ensuring sustainable human resource management practices. Review of Professional Management, 15(1), 78–83. Harmon, J., Fairfield, K. D., & Wirtenberg, J. (2010). Missing an opportunity: HR leadership and sustainability. People and Strategy, 33(1), 16. Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational and organizational effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework’s theoretical suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 677–694. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021987. Hatch, M. J. (2011). Material and meaning in the dynamics of organizational culture and identity with implications for the leadership of organizational change. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Hand book of organizational culture and climate (2nd ed., pp. 341–358). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. (1974). Organizational climate: A review of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1096–1112. John, V. (2018, July). The key to organizational sustainability: Nurturing a culture of change. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 35(4). Lewin, K., Lippit, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behaviour in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271–301. Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A., Jr. (1968). Motivation & organizational climate. Harvard University Press. Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mishra, R. K., Sarkar, S., & Singh, P. (2013). Integrating HR functions for sustainability. Drishtikon: A Management Journal, 4(2), 85–99. Molinsky, A. L. (1999). Sanding down the edges: Paradoxical impediments to organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1), 8–24. 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. Oruh, E. S. (2013). Towards sustainable human resource information systems (HRIS) in the Nigerian Banking Sector: The Role of New Media. Economic Insight: Trends and Challenges. Research Gate Article (August 2013), Vol. 11(LXV), Issue 3, 1–8. Ostroff, C., & Kinicki, A. J. (2013). Organizational culture and climate. In Industrial organizational psychology (Vol. 12). Post, J. E., & Altman, B. W. (1994). Managing the environmental change process: Barriers and opportunities. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 7(4), 64–81. Purser, R. E. (1994). Guest editorial: “Shallow” versus “deep” organizational development and environmental sustainability. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 7(4), 4–14. Russel, S. V., & McIntosh, M. (2011). Changing organizational culture for sustainability. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. P. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The Handbook of organizational culture and climate (2nd ed., pp. 393–411). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schein, E. H. (1990). Organisational culture. American Psychologist, 43, 109–119.

10 Culture, Climate and Sustainability in Organizations

181

Schein, E. H. (2000). Sense and nonsense about culture and climate. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderon, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schneider, B. (2000). The psychological life of organizations. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture & climate. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. A. (2011). Organizational climate research: Achievement and the road ahead. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderon, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (2nd ed., pp. 29–49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 361–388. (Volume publication date: January 2013). Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology, 36, 19–39. Stankeviciute, Z., & Savaneviciene, A. (2013). Sustainability as a concept for human resource management. Economics and Management, 18(4), 837–846. Starik, M., & Marcus, A. A. (2000). Introduction to the special research forum on the management of organizations in the natural environment: A field emerging from multiple paths, with many challenges ahead. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 539–547. Stead, W. E., & Stead, J. G. (1992). Management for a small planet: Strategic decision making and the environment. Newberry Park, CA: Sage. Stern, G. C. (1970). People in context: Measuring person—Environment congruence in education and industry. Newyork: John Wiley & Sons, 1970. Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Welford, R. (1995). Environmental strategy and sustainable development. London: Routledge.

Chapter 11

Sustainable HRM Practices - A Drive Towards Sustainability (The case of NLCIL) R. K. Mishra and Shulagna Sarkar

Abstract Sustainable development provides a fresh, invigorating, perspective of the world, which can foster innovative approaches to a variety of business problems. An organisation’s overall strategy as well as its culture, systems and structure to enable sustainable development must encourage individuals to hone their unique skills in areas that essentially contribute to the social and environmental needs. Human resource is considered as the most valuable asset for all organisations. Human resource needs to be aligned to achieve the sustainability goals of the organisations. Sustainable HR activities create value for potential and excite investment for long-term availability and viability of employees ensuring a high-quality work force for the future. The paper attempts to look at the dimension of sustainability and pulls different strings of HRM enabling sustainability. The paper acts as a platform for an understanding of HR functions in establishing sustainability-focused culture. The paper follows a case study-based approach and discusses the best practices in sustainable HRM. The paper shares the sustainable HR approach of NLC India Ltd (NLCIL), a Navratna public sector enterprise, under the Ministry of Coal (MoC), Government of India (GoI). NLCIL has witnessed a sustained growth since its inception in 1956. NLCIL is one of the iconic public sector undertakings in mine-cum-energy sector. The company has diversified and reached greater heights by following unique HR practices. The paper also shares diverse perspectives in terms of the role of HRM for sustainability from culture building practices, employer branding to employee engagement. Keywords Sustainable development · Sustainable HRM · NLCIL · Case study

R. K. Mishra · S. Sarkar (B) Institute of Public Enterprise, Hyderabad, India e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. Vanka et al. (eds.), Sustainable Human Resource Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5656-2_11

183

184

R. K. Mishra and S. Sarkar

Introduction Socrates once said, ‘The highest form of Human Excellence is to question oneself and others’. Organisations exist with a purpose, and human excellence is required to survive and succeed. Human resources (HR) departments in organisations have emerged based on this need. Organisations have to handle different situations, culture and circumstances on some philosophy, and therefore, a proper management of HR systems needs to be addressing significant challenges in the contemporary era. The traditional HR model explains the HR contribution to organisations and enables an understanding of organisation-goal based perspective on integrating the HR policies, practices and platforms. The HR model emphasises compliance with legal regulations combined with traditional financial goals ensuring people satisfaction ultimately leading to client satisfaction. Even though the HR function is contributing for business integration in financial terms, the very expectation of an organisation towards success is changing. This is being questioned by the perspective that organisations should strive for ‘sustainability’. The World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) defines sustainability as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. Sustainability as a concept has been used in various dimensions, and HRM is no exception to this fact. Sustainability of HR practices has been studied from various angles including sustainable HRM practices, sustainability of the HR practices, green HR practices, HR work systems alignment to the triple bottom line, etc., yet there is lack of research questioning the sustainability of the existing practices addressed as sustainable HRM efforts. There is a need to think that whether the existing practices of the organisations can be really defined as sustainable HRM efforts or they need to make continuous shifts and changes to accommodate the external changes happening worldwide like global warming, climate changes, technological advancements, etc. The paper attempts to study the dimension of sustainability and pulls different strings of HRM enabling sustainability from an understanding of HR functions for sustainability to creating sustainable culture. The paper discusses the sustainable HRM practices of NLC India Limited in a case study format. The paper also highlights various perspectives in terms of the role of HRM for sustainability for culture building, employer branding and employee engagement.

Sustainability Researchers in management have questioned the views on existence of sustainability for a long time, yet the relationship between HR issues and encouraging sustainability has gained considerable interest as a part of present-day research. The HR department of an organisation plays an integral role in establishing the sustainability culture of an organisation (Wirtenberg 2010; Wirtenberg et al. 2007).

11 Sustainable HRM Practices - A Drive Towards …

Ethics

185

Values

Transparency

Governance

SUSTAINABILITY

ADDRESSES CONCERNS

Diversity

Social Responsibility

Employee Rights

Community Development

Fig. 11.1 Elements and concerns addressed through sustainability. Source Authors

Sustainability has been majorly researched on two dimensions primarily being environmental concerns and financial concerns ensuring organisational survival. Sustainability is beyond these two dimensions and includes important elements and concerns as given in Fig. 11.1. Issues related to sustainability have become integral not only for business but for global economics and political agenda across the world. The much needed sustainability drive to build a right culture with progressive initiatives internally improves employee morale with enhanced loyalty. It also drives efficient business processes for a sound public image with increased brand recognition externally. HR plays a leading role in integrating sustainability efforts as a part of the organisation culture. HR department is expected to ensure that sustainability is an integral element of all phases of employee life cycle including recruitment and selection of the next generation of tech-savvy front-runners. It also includes managing the learning of future sustainability leaders and building sustainable capital by seizing right business opportunity and undertaking efforts towards sustainability. This leads to maximisation of learning with the required efforts towards sustainability.

186

R. K. Mishra and S. Sarkar

Literature Review An organisation is viewed as a cohesive system. Organisations learn from its environment to either retain old practices or explore newer ways of developing future-aligned practices. It is much debated about what organisations should do to manage the inevitable changes in business. Should businesses change with the changes happening or change its focus to resources like technology, orienting it towards people, planet or profit. Barney (1991) highlighted that the characteristics of resources must be rare and must add value to the organisation. Resources should also be inimitable and non-substitutable to qualify as a basis for sustained competitive advantage. Wright et al. (1994) reflected that the human resources of an organisation qualify Barney’s explanation on characteristics of resources for sustained competitive advantage. On the other hand, Coff (1994) elaborates that human resources still remain to be unique to organisations owing to the nature of systematic information and causal ambiguity of individuals in organisations. Sustainable HRM has multiple perspectives. Thom and Zaugg (2004) popularly explained it as the HR efforts driven with a long-term orientation towards social development with a cost-consciousness, especially towards HR activities of recruitment and selection, development, deployment and downsizing of employees. Ehnert et al. (2015) have defined sustainable HRM a little differently where they emphasised on the acceptance of HR plans and practices that lead to the attaining of the triple bottom-line approach. They also emphasised on long-term internal as well as external impact driven by the HR efforts of an organisation. As Kramar (2014) writes ‘sustainable HRM identifies both undesirable as well as encouraging outcomes of HRM on a variety of stakeholders’. Guerci et al. (2014) consider HRM sustainability from a stakeholder’s perspective and questioned the HR efforts required to integrate and address the needs of varied stakeholders with a sustainability perspective of the company. Making the world a better place to live thus not affecting externalities (Mariappanadar 2012) and also ensuring the survival of related practices in organisation enabling internal processes are the two perspectives that the HR departments need to work in order to align its HR practices towards the sustainability. MüllerChrist and Hülsmann (2003) presented three descriptions to sustainability from a management perspective explained as normative, innovation-oriented and a rational understanding of sustainability explaining the reasons to engage organisations for sustainability. The normative meaning interprets sustainability as a moral, ethical value. An innovation-oriented understanding of sustainability focuses on minimising the impact of company activities on environment. Substance-oriented understanding of sustainability emphasises on sustaining the corporate resource base by accomplishing a balance of resource utilisation and resource generation in the long-term (Müller-Christ and Remer 1999). The innovation-oriented and substance-oriented description to sustainability is based on economic principle. This perspective lays more emphasis on role of HRM towards the sustainable development of organisations. The second perspective recognises that the HRM processes in organisations

11 Sustainable HRM Practices - A Drive Towards …

187

Table 11.1 Focus of previous studies conducted Source Authors Focus of studies

Studies conducted

Initiating sustainability efforts

Mariappanadar (2014), Colbert and Kurucz (2007), Wilkinson et al. (2001)

Sustainable competitive advantage

Schuler and Jackson (2005), Boudreau and Ramstad (2005), Ehnert (2009a)

Organisational sustainability

Ehnert (2014), Jabbour and Santos (2008), Porter and Kramer (2011), Porter and Kramer (2006)

Sustainable HRM practices

Zaugg et al. (2001), Zaugg (2009), De Prins et al. (2013)

Sustainable work systems

Becke (2014), Kira and Forslin (2008), Jackson (2012)

Drivers of sustainable HRM

Kramar (2014), Cohen et al. (2012)

Outcomes of sustainable HRM

Ehnert (2009b), Gollan and Xu (2014), Kramar (2014)

are circumstanced with numerous challenges; questioning the existence due to the technological developments. De Prins (2011) point of view on sustainable HRM explains it as HR practices leading to optimum utilisation of resources also building an organisation culture of mutual respect enabling a distinct association of strategic policies and organisational environment, thus making it necessary for HRM systems to be more sustainable for the long-term viability of organisations (Ehnert and Harry 2012). An effort has been made to understand the focus of previous studies conducted as given in Table 1.

Sustainable HRM—A Drive Towards Future There is a greater need for organisations to focus on business results-led HR measures instead of being quantity oriented (what and how much has been done). It is challenging for key HR officials to develop HR measures-based business case on impact orientation based on contributions to business results. Managers must identify and measure the existing organisational processes and individual capabilities that can envisage the success of corporations in future (Kaplan and Norton 1992). HR measures needs to be forward looking instead of dwelling on what has already happened. A tectonic shift is required from HR efforts driven towards individualism to collectivism focusing on overall HR system considering the synergy existing among all HR practices (Yeung and Berman 1997) (Fig. 11.2).

188

R. K. Mishra and S. Sarkar

Innovative HR practices WHAT?

Forward looking HR practices

Sustainable HR Practices

Business Results Integrated HR systems HOW? Managerial freedom to assess and diagnose HR processes

Fig. 11.2 Model. Source Authors

Attributes of Sustainable HRM Sustainable business management is an inclusive approach driven by sustainable development efforts. Researchers suggest three explanations on sustainable development majorly based on organisational innovation, stakeholder requirements and expectations with a focus on effectiveness of organisational efforts undertaken. Overall, sustainable business management addresses the needs and expectations of all stakeholders through people-centric, environment-centric and business-centric policies as given in Fig. 11.3. The prerequisite for sustainable HRM (SHRM) at the system level is to establish a balance between stakeholders’ needs and expectations with the business, people and environment goals synchronously. SHRM practices should not interpret to be constrained to the environmental dimension alone and involves the amalgamation of business growth, equity among all its people and environment conservation in a long term for the benefit of its people and the overall organisation. This can be achieved with structured HR policies which are not just people centric but aligning towards holistic growth and development of business with a strong focus on environment.

Essential Practices The human resources department plays a vital role in promoting an affirmative behaviour, in workforce engagement and in creating an organisation culture where sustainability is rooted as a part of the overall employee’s lifecycle, from acquisition

11 Sustainable HRM Practices - A Drive Towards …

189

ENVIRONMENT CENTRIC POLICIES

Building Environment focused Employee Attitude & Behaviour

HR Practices alignment to People centric Goals

HR Practices Alignment To Environmental Goals

S H R M

Addressing Environment Concerns In Business Practices

HR Practices alignment to Strategic Goals

PEOPLE BUSINESS

CENTRIC

CENTRIC

POLICIES

POLICIES

Cost Effective & Employee Engaging practices

Fig. 11.3 Key attributes of sustainable HRM. Source Authors

to exit (Weybrecht 2010). Wright et al. (1994) suggests that most HRM practices can be imitated or replaced. This will lead the organisations to no more considering HR as a source of sustained competitive advantage. On the other hand, work of Lado and Wilson (1994) disproved the thought and iterates that HRM practices cannot be copied as they are often organisation and culture specific and are also influenced by specific situations. Instead of duplicating other organisations sustainable effort, the research of Lado and Wilson (1994), Delery and Doty (1996) emphasises on undertaking appropriate HRM practices to build a high-quality workforce. Work practices and processes can be imitated, but the capabilities and unique skills of human resources of an organisation cannot be duplicated or imitated. Social accountability and compliance related to HR practices is an essentiality for commencing the HR efforts. However, organisations will accomplish sustainability

190

R. K. Mishra and S. Sarkar

goals more effectively by embracing decision sciences that helps them to create stronger associations between people and sustainability. Getting rid of unsustainable rules: Organisations should keep looking out for rules in place that limits them from exploring and implementing more sustainable options. Creating policy for improving the economic, environmental and social sustainability performance of the organisation is an important act of HR department (Weybrecht 2010). Integration: The core problem for sustainable HR is not the absence of great vision, technology, people, new markets or brand. The problem lies in with the inability to integrate and re-integrate over time. Most organisations simply do not grow well, and they failed to integrate (Coffman and Gonzalez-Molina 2002). Creating a culture of Sustainability: Embedding sustainability thinking into the organisation involves integrating it as a part of the culture of sustainability. The role of HR department is to initiate effort like communication with its employees in this regard. Sending consistent messages about sustainability across the company will contribute to building a right sustainability culture. Using frameworks: Leading organisations are using frameworks to enhance execution of financial goals. Collective logical decisions-based framework helps in achieving both financial and sustainability goals. Reporting practices: Sustainability reporting increases the need for HRM departments to become active in sustainability management. HRM could increase its strategic importance if it would actively contribute to social and ecological impact. Establishing the Sustainability Council: Sustainability councils are bodies formed to focus on both social programs for the employees and the community along with environmental initiatives. Establishing sustainability council is an effort to encourage sustainability of organisations. Process and Events: HR in not about an isolated activity but about processes that generate sustainable and integrated solutions (Ulrich et al. 2013). Processes and practices of talent engagement, empowerment, health and well-being, employee participation, managing diversity, ageing, work-life balance, ecology, stakeholders, labour market, employability, careers, succession, learning organisations, workplace innovation, etc., need integration. Initiating Sustainability focused HR initiatives: HR till date is never considered to be contributing strategically to business results and is often related to the costcentric function of an organisation. On the other hand, leading HR vocalists like Ulrich (1997) shares that HR officials should contribute in strategic decision-making along with senior management and specially the leading departments of finance and sales in the organisation. Such initiatives lead to better alignment of business and HR goals, ensuring a better implementation of business strategies. HR departments act as an enabler in encouraging sustainability as a part of the organisation goals.

11 Sustainable HRM Practices - A Drive Towards …

191

HRs are expected to ensure that an organisation takes care of its employees in a sustainable way and thus initiate practices like employee well-being, health and safety, work-life balance, diversity and inclusion, gender equality, hiring and firing practices, fair rewards, a living wage, employee learning and growth, positive internal communications, open dialogue and employee involvement in the sustainabilityoriented space. Some HR initiatives of various reputed organisations contributing to sustainability include building a value defined and driven culture encouraging flexibility with a transparent and effective communication system. Continuous monitoring of employee satisfaction with a performance-based recognition and reward systems is a key to promote leadership and vital competencies. Organisations have demonstrated various practices to ensure sustainability in their operations including HR practices. The case of NLC India Limited (NLCIL) illustrates the suitability efforts and its impact on achieving sustainability goals.

NLCIL—A Case NLC India Limited (NLCIL) is one of the largest public sector enterprises of Government of India in the Southern India. The legacy of the previous CMDs ensured that NLCIL is able to not only maintain the leading status but also dream of greater heights. NLCIL has transformed from the traditional business into diversified business in the same line of operation. The new paradigm of diversification enabled NLCIL to thrive in a world of rapid and unpredictable change. It enabled the core senior team, unit and the entire enterprise to nimbly adapt and upgrade its mining activities as well as it energy production to meet rapidly changing environment with quality improvement and efficiency gains. Anticipation of decline in lignite availability and business lead to diversification of NLCIL, permitting the organisation to flourish in a marketplace that is increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous—the so-called VUCA world. NLCIL Vision—To emerge as a leading Mining and Power Company, Continue to be a socially responsible company and strive for operational excellence in Mining and Exploration.

Sustainable HR Strategies @ NLCIL Corporate sustainability is inevitable for building a sustainable world. HR at NLCIL focus on various activities to establish sustainability as a part of organisation, such as: • Developing a social and environmental contract with the varied stakeholders and their respective generations

192

R. K. Mishra and S. Sarkar

• Establishing a system in place to ensure compliance to regulatory requirements covering health and safety, product safety and environmental safety • Aspiring beyond financial returns with the objective of maximisation of profit through collaborations with varied stakeholders • Building the NLCIL culture based on efficiency, effectiveness and welfare involving employees in the regeneration of environmental conservation. Organisations are expected to provide solutions to the global environmental and social problems. It is believed that when business and societal interests overlap, EVERYONE WINS. Some of the sustainable HRM practices of NLCIL are listed below: • Reach employees where they are—Most of the time we want people to come to us. Communicate to employees at their operational location. • Share progress: Continuously sharing company’s results with employees. • Use technology effectively and appropriately—Have an intranet service where employees can participate in discussions and agenda of the organisation. The happiness pulse of the organisation can be measured on such informal online forums. • Synchronisation of HR/Internal Communications/PR—To ensure that all communication is consistent and do not confront to each other. • Set up Internal communication body to monitor and gauge the impact of internal communication. • Initiate competition between departments to ignite healthy enthusiasm. Encourage employees to perform better than each other. • Provide encouraging incentives—Initiate quarterly awards for employees initiating creative ways to environmental conservation at workplace. Incentives can be monetary and non-monetary in nature. • Recognise engagement and creativity—Recognise departments that participate actively in undertaking CSR by initiating innovative efforts making higher social impact. • Thank You initiative—Make it fun and social by always saying thank you to the best and the deserved employee for the week/month. • Participate in Awards in categories like ‘Brand building initiatives’ or ‘Internal Communication initiatives’ (Fig. 11.4). The leaders of NLCIL has always • Linked personal objectives to business which maintains a focus on outcomes such as service delivery and the needs of the customer. • Encouraged people to seek and accept responsibility. • Rewarded excellence and motivates the best. • Encouraged continuous improvement. 6.2 Agility @ NLCIL—Agility is a genesis of a new age—the age of ‘Agile’. It is an exhilarating time, because unprecedented change can happen nearly overnight. NLCIL is a truly ‘agile’ organisation as it connects people and processes at all time.

11 Sustainable HRM Practices - A Drive Towards …

193

Goal Seƫng / Review

Individiual Open Door

Open Forums

Informal

Culture Building for Sustainable Development

Group

MeeƟngs

Formal MeeƟngs

Open sky movie shows

Get Togethers House Journals Mass Videos /Corporate Films

Fig. 11.4 Culture building for sustainable development. Source Mishra and Sarkar (2019)

The revolution is very simple where NLCIL has been able to connect everyone and everything, everywhere, all the time. The company has attempted to enhance its capability of improved delivery with frictionless value on a large scale. The company has witnessed several leadership styles since its inception. The popularity of NLCIL has gained a remarkable speed in the present day as it has made significant change in its approach to operate. Some initiatives as demonstrated by NLCIL are: • There is a shared goal. • Top management takes responsibility for ensuring enthusiasm throughout the organisation. • The firm aspires to be the best at what it does. • Everyone in the organisation has a clear line to work. • The firm ensures that it has accurate and thorough knowledge of the business. • Staff members are empowered to make decisions. • Relationships are interactive, vertically, horizontally, internally and externally. • Back-office functions are aligned to main business of the organisation. Enabling agility at workplace is also an initiative of sustainable HR practices as it not only ensures continuous effort of driving towards business sustainability but also undertaking newer practices towards sustainable development as a whole.

194

R. K. Mishra and S. Sarkar

Conclusion There is a wide acceptance that unique competencies in organisations are an outcome of employee skill development, nurturing organisation culture, existing management processes and systems. Thus, human resources in organisation are regarded as a source of competitive advantage. Sustaining competitive advantage is critical to a corporation’s growth and prosperity. At present, a large number of organisations do recognise the growing importance of their human resources, but only a few organisations actually practice to gain advantage of the full potential of its workforce. Many organisations are unable to seize the opportunity of gaining competitive advantage by initiating the right human resource practices towards a sustainability culture. NLCIL is an organisation where the vision itself shares the phrase ‘Socially responsible organisation’ and ‘leading Mining and Power Company’ which reiterates the sustainability focus of the organisation. The HR practices of NLCIL have not just ensured a sustainability culture but also growth and sustainability of the enterprise in a long run. The effort of undertaking sustainable HR practices is to make the world a better place to live by valuing and concentrating on the externalities as well as initiate HR practices which ensure sustainability of the organisation by strengthening the internal systems.

References Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. Becke, G. (2014). Human-resources mindfulness. Sustainability and human resource management (pp. 83–103). Berlin: Springer. Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2005). Talentship, talent segmentation, and sustainability: A new HR decision science paradigm for a new strategy definition. Human Resource Management, 44(2), 129–136. Coff, R. W. (1994). Human Assets and organization control: implication of the resource-based view. St. Louis: John M. Olin School of Business Washington University. Coffman, C., & Gonzalez-Molina, G. (2002). Follow this path: How the world’s greatest organizations drive growth by unleashing human potential. New York, NY: Warner Business Books. Cohen, E., Taylor, S., & Muller-Camen, M. (2012). HRM’s role in corporate social and environmental sustainability. SHRM Foundation. Available at: http://www.shrm.org/about/founda tion/products/documents/4-12%20csr%20report%20final%20for%20web.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2019. Colbert, B. A., & Kurucz, E. C. (2007). Three conceptions of triple bottom line business sustainability and the role for HRM. People and Strategy, 30(1), 21. De Prins, P. (2011). Duurzaam HRM: Synthetische academische introductie, Retrieved J., cited by: Rompa I., Explorative research on Sustainable Human Resource Management. http://www.inn ovatiefinwerk.nl/sites/.../sustainable_hrm.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2019. De Prins, P., Van Beirendonck, L., De Vos, A. & Segers, J. (2013). Sustainable HRM. Bridging theory and practice trough the R(espect)O(pennes)C(ontinuity)—Model. Paper presented at

11 Sustainable HRM Practices - A Drive Towards …

195

Workshop—Sustainability and Human Resource Management: Developing sustainable business organizations, September 2–3, 2013, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL), Louvain School of Management, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 802–835. Ehnert, I. (2009a). Sustainability and human resource management: Reasoning and applications on corporate websites. European Journal of International Management, 3(4), 419–438. Ehnert, I. (2009b). Sustainable human resource management: A conceptual and exploratory analysis from a paradox perspective. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag. Ehnert, I. (2014). Paradox as a lens for theorizing sustainable HRM. In I. Ehnert et al. (Eds.), Sustainability and human resource management CSR, sustainability, ethics & governance (pp. 247–271). Berlin: Springer. Ehnert, I., & Harry, W. (2012). Recent developments and future prospects on sustainable human resource management: Introduction to the special issue. Management Revue, 23(3), 221–239. Ehnert, I., Parsab, S., Roperc, I., Wagnerd, M., & Muller-Camene, M. (2015). Reporting on sustainability and HRM: A comparative study of sustainability reporting practices by the world’s largest companies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09585192.2015.1024157. Gollan, P. J. & Xu, Y. (2014). Fostering corporate sustainability. Sustainability and HRM. In Ehnert et al. (Eds.), Sustainability and human resource management CSR, sustainability, ethics & governance (pp. 225–245). Berlin: Springer. Guerci, M., Shani, A., & Solari, L. (2014). A stakeholder perspective for ‘Sustainable HRM’. In I. Ehnert, W. Harry, & K. J. Zink (Eds.), Sustainability and human resource management: Developing sustainable business organisations (pp. 205–224). Heidelberg: Springer. Jabbour, C. J. C., & Santos, F. C. A. (2008). The central role of human resource management in the search for sustainable organizations. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(12), 2133–2154. Jackson, K. (2012). An essay on sustainable work systems: Shaping an agenda for future research. Management Revue, 23(3), 296–309. Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1992). The balanced scorecard—Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 79. Kira, M., & Forslin, J. (2008). Seeking regenerative work in the post-bureaucratic transition. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21(1), 76–91. Kramar, R. (2014). Beyond strategic human resource management: Is sustainable human resource management the next approach? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25, 1069–1089. Lado, A. A., & Wilson, M. C. (1994). Human resource systems and sustained competitive advantage: A competency based perspective. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 699–727. Mariappanadar, S. (2012). Harm of efficiency oriented HRM practices on stakeholders: An ethical issue for sustainability. Society and Business Review, 7, 168–184. Mariappanadar, S. (2014). The model of negative externality for sustainable HRM. In Sustainability and Human Resource Management (pp. 181–203). Berlin: Springer. Mishra, & Sarkar, (2019). The journey of Neyveli Lignite Corporation to NLC India—A growth Saga (p. 58). New Delhi: Academic Foundation. Müller-Christ, G., & Hülsmann, M. (2003). Quo vadis Umweltmanagement?: Entwicklungperspektiven einer nachhaltigkeitsorientieren Managementlehre. Die Betriebswirtschaft, 03(3), 257–277. Müller-Christ, G., & Remer, A. (1999). Umweltwirtschaft oder Wirtschaftsoekologie? Vorüberlegung zu einer Theorie des Ressourcenmanagements. In E. Seidel (Ed.), Betriebliches Umweltmanagement im 21. Jahrhundert: Aspekte, Aufgaben, Perspektiven (pp. 69–87). Berlin: Springer. Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review (December).

196

R. K. Mishra and S. Sarkar

Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1–2), 62–77. Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (2005). A quarter-century review of human resource management in the US: The growth in importance of the international perspective. Management Revue, 11–35. The World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Report of the world commission on environment and development: Our common future, United Nations. Available at: https://www.are.admin.ch/are/en/home/sustainable-development/international-cooper ation/2030agenda/un-_-milestones-in-sustainable-development/1987–brundtland-report.html. Thom, N., & Zaugg, R. J. (2004). Nachhaltiges und innovatives Personalmanagement: Spitzengruppenbefragung in europäischen Unternehmungen und Institutionen. [Sustainable and innovative human resource management: A top-level survey of European companies and institutions.] In R. J. Schwarz (Ed.) Nachhaltiges Innovationsmanagemen [Sustainable innovation management] (pp. 215–245). Wiesbaden: Gabler. Ulrich, (1997). Human resource champions: The next agenda for adding value and delivering results (p. 28). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Reviews. Ulrich, et al. (2013). Foreword. In D. Ulrich, W. Brockbank, J. Younger, & M. Ulrich (Eds.), Global HR competencies: Mastering competitive value from the outside in (pp. 5–21). New York: McGraw Hill. Weybrecht, G. (2010). The sustainable MBA: The manager’s guide to green business. New York: Wiley. Wilkinson, A., Hill, M., & Golian, P. (2001). The sustainability debate. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(12), 492. Wirtenberg, J. (2010). Unleashing talent in service of a sustainable future. The talent management handbook. New York: McGraw Hill. Wirtenberg, J., Harmon, J., Russell, W. G., & Fairfield, K. (2007). HR’s role in building a sustainable enterprise. Human Resource Planning, 30(1), 10–20. Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., & McWilliams, A. (1994). Human resources and sustained competitive advantage: A resource-based perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(2), 301–326. Yeung, A. K., & Berman, R. (1997). Adding value through human resources: Reorienting human resources to drive business performance. Human Resource Management, 36(3), 321. Zaugg, R. (2009). Nachhaltiges personal management: Eine neue Perspective und empirische Exploration des Human Resource Management. Berlin: Springer. Zaugg, R., Blum, A., & Thom, N. (2001). Sustainability in human resource management. Evaluation Report. European Association of Personnel Management, University of Berne.

Chapter 12

Effectiveness of an Emotional Intelligence Course in Enhancing and Sustaining the Emotional Competencies of MBA Students R. Deepa and K. Arulrajan Abstract Business graduates are expected to possess a multitude of skill sets to adapt to a challenging business environment in the contemporary context. Emotional intelligence (EI) is one of them which has a significant impact on one’s intrapersonal and interpersonal life. Researchers urge that business schools should incorporate EI training into their curriculum. This study discusses the effectiveness of an EI course offered at a Business School in India. The study was done on a sample of 115 Master of Business Administration (MBA) students. An experimental group and a control group were formed. Pre- and post-assessments and comparisons of EI scores between experimental and control groups showed that the course was effective. The experiences of the students during the course were qualitatively analyzed to substantiate the effectiveness of the course. Data collected after the students had graduated revealed that they were able to sustain and apply their EI competencies. Keywords Emotional intelligence · MBA students · Sustainability · Emotional competencies · EI course

Introduction The business world is constantly evolving with advanced technological developments. McPeak (2017) estimates that 65% of the students will be employed in jobs that do not yet exist. In response to this, institutions are focusing on developing core competencies in students to prepare them for the future workforce. The Master of Business Administration (MBA) students would be graduating into a challenging business environment and hence are expected to possess a multitude of skills to adapt to this environment. According to a Financial Times survey reported by Yang (2014), employers wish that their employees should have interpersonal skills to work with a diverse work force, manage time effectively, have the ability to create and sustain effective networks, understand the impact of digital technologies on business R. Deepa (B) · K. Arulrajan PSG Institute of Management, Coimbatore, India e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. Vanka et al. (eds.), Sustainable Human Resource Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5656-2_12

197

198

R. Deepa and K. Arulrajan

and have good problem-solving skills. Yang (2014) also quotes a New York Times article which suggests that in an automated future, traits such as “creativity, critical thinking, emotional intelligence, adaptability and collaboration” will be in high demand as more industries become automated. According to Ramirez et al. (2016), educational institutions, business consultants and business organizations have started focusing on emotional intelligence because they believe that individuals with high emotional intelligence will be successful in their personal and professional lives. Theorists claim that “driving force of intelligence” will be EI for the twenty-first century. In line with this, researchers have started examining the effect of emotional intelligence at work places. Employers are also looking for graduates who possess high EI (Jameson et al. 2016). Google uses EI as an assessment criteria while recruiting in the belief that individuals with high EI will have good interpersonal skills and will adapt to change effectively (Thygesen 2014). According to Travis Bradberry, President of TalentSmart, emotionally intelligent people are good problem solvers (Thygesen 2014). Studies report that EI has a significant impact on academic achievement and recommended that EI should be included in the curriculum. Holt and Jones (2005) also recommend the inclusion of EI in educational venues. They also state that students can achieve personal and professional success with proper training in EI. Ramirez et al. (2016) suggest that business schools should incorporate EI into their curriculum. They opine that EI training would help students in their future careers. Joyner and Mann (2011) opine that “as business schools engage in rethinking their curriculum… the competencies associated with EI are becoming an increasingly important part of the conversation” (p. 61). Jameson et al. (2016) found that EI training programs had been offered as “whole school” approaches, whereby generic EI programs were delivered to all students in a given college. They further state that “as of yet, no attempt has been made to develop a range of programs aimed at targeting specific populations of students” (p. 517). A few researchers (Jensen et al. 2007; Salami 2010; Lin et al. 2011) revealed the dearth of research related to a detailed training program, especially for university students. There is also lack of reporting regarding effective learning designs with respect to enhancing EI skills that have been empirically tested (Eichmann 2009). This paper addresses these gaps and discusses the incorporation, implementation and effectiveness of a tailor-made emotional intelligence course into the MBA curriculum, in order to better prepare its graduates for their challenging career ahead.

Literature Review Salovey and Mayer (1990) defined EI as “the ability to monitor one’s own and other’s feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and action” (p. 189). Goleman (1995) and Bar-On (1997) later expanded the notion of EI to include an array of skills and traits (Joyner and Mann 2011). EI is defined as the ability of an individual to perceive various emotional

12 Effectiveness of an Emotional Intelligence Course …

199

stimuli associated with his/her self and his/her environment, appraise and regulate them, in order to produce appropriate behavioral responses, resulting in improved intrapersonal and interpersonal outcomes. This ability is said to have a significant impact on the personal and professional lives of individuals (Krishnaveni and Deepa 2011). EI was widely researched in the organizational context and was found to have a significant impact on several entities of the personal and professional lives of individuals. EI had a significant influence over organizational politics and affected employees’ work attitudes and behavior (Meisler and Vigoda-Gadit 2014). Vratskikh et al. (2016) reported that EI had a significant positive correlation with job performance and job satisfaction. Emotionally intelligent people evaluate situations as less stressful which results in a higher satisfaction with life and happiness (Ruiz-Aranda et al. 2014). EI was found to play a crucial role in the ability of individuals to manage stress and adapt to change (Sharma et al. 2016). Individuals with high EI were found to possess good interpersonal communication skills (Petrovici and Dobrescu 2014) and manage conflicts effectively (Hopkins and Yonker 2015). EI had a significant impact on the well-being of respondents (Krishnaveni and Deepa 2013; SanchezAlvarez et al. 2016). Hopkins and Deepa (2018) found that EI has a significant impact on ethical decision making. It is evident from the literature review that EI has a significant impact on many entities of the personal and professional environment of individuals as shown in Fig. 12.1. Against this background, one of the key questions that arise is whether EI can be developed. The findings from the field of psychotherapy (Barlow 1985) and training programs (Marrow et al. 1997) have shown that people can improve their emotional competence with sustained efforts and systematic training programs. Jdaitawi and colleagues (Jdaitawi et al. 2011) had examined many studies that showed evidence for the development of EI among individuals in organizations. Boyatzis (2001) revealed success in the improvement of emotional intelligence competencies among MBA students. In addition to this, the findings in the field of affective neuroscience have shown that the brain circuitry of emotion exhibits a fair degree of plasticity even in adulthood (Davidson et al. 2000). The review of previous research has shown that EI competencies can be developed through systematic training programs and that this development would result in several benefits in the intrapersonal and interpersonal domains. Against this background, this study attempts to discuss the design, implementation and effectiveness of an EI course (“Emotional Intelligence for Managers” incorporated in the MBA curriculum of a Business School) in enhancing the emotional competencies of MBA students.

200

R. Deepa and K. Arulrajan

Fig. 12.1 Importance of EI

Methodology Sample The study was conducted in a Business School in South India, and the sample consisted of all the 115 students who chose the “Emotional Intelligence for Managers” course under the choice-based credit system during that semester. Out of the 115, the total sample was 102 with 51 male and 51 female students. The study was conducted with the permission of the research committee of the business school. The 115 students were divided into two groups, two third of them (n = 76) were assigned to the experimental group and one third (n = 39) to control group. Out of the 115 students, this study included only 69 students from experimental group and 33 students from control group as they were the ones who completed both the pre- and post-assessments of emotional intelligence. The demographics of the respondents are presented in Table 12.1.

12 Effectiveness of an Emotional Intelligence Course …

201

Table 12.1 Demographics of respondents Group

Male

Female

Total (N)

N

P(%)

N

P(%)

Experimental

38

55

31

40

Control

13

40

20

60

33

Total

51

100

51

100

102

69

N Number of respondents; P Percentage of respondents

Measures Emotional intelligence was measured using a self-report questionnaire adopted from an EI instrument designed by Weisinger (2006). This instrument was chosen because it aligned well with the definition of EI based on which the course was designed. The original instrument had 45 statements that measured EI across five dimensions namely self-awareness, managing emotions, relating well, self-motivation and emotional mentoring. The “self-motivation” dimension was omitted as it did not fit into the course content. After careful consideration, 41 statements that contributed to the other four dimensions were chosen. This instrument was piloted on a sample of 35 students who were pursuing their I year MBA at the school. The piloted instrument had 41 statements and a reliability of 0.89 (p < 0.05) and hence was found reliable and valid to be used on the study sample. In the EI self-assessment measure, respondents were asked to judge their ability pertaining to EI related aspects on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = Low ability; 5 = High ability). For example, they were asked to judge their ability “to act productively when angry” and “accurately reflect people’s feelings back to them.” These 41 statements contributed to the four dimensions of self-awareness, managing emotions, relating well and emotional mentoring. The EI instrument had two levels namely low (55– 165) and high (166–275). Researchers had expressed concern that self-report measures allow a lot of room for response biases and validity issues (Moskowitz 1986) and that the respondents might not have the ability to assess themselves (McDonald 2008). However, this does not undermine the importance and usefulness of self-report measures (Ericsson and Simon 1993). Barker and colleagues (Barker et al. 2005) advise that researchers should support self-report data with observational data. Based on this, the study aimed to strengthen the post self-assessments of students by examining the lived experiences of students, collected at the end of the course. Finlay (2009) stated that to understand the common experiences of several individuals about a phenomenon, a phenomenological approach is appropriate. This approach describes the meaning of several individuals of their lived experiences of a concept or phenomenon. Data can be collected from persons who experienced the phenomenon, and a composite description of the essence of their experience can be developed (Creswell 2013). In

202

R. Deepa and K. Arulrajan

this study, the students who underwent the course were asked to share their experiences (lived experiences), an interpretation of which was used to substantiate the effectiveness of the course.

Data Collection The pre-assessment and post-assessment were administered to the experimental and control group as per the flow diagram given below.

The pre-assessment was administered to both the experimental group and the control group on the first day of the semester, after informing them about the postassessment and the objective behind the pre- and post-assessments. The control group was informed that they would be taking the course only after the experimental group finishes theirs. The experimental group started their EI course immediately after the pre-assessment. The control group also underwent the course after the post-assessments were done for both the groups. Paper versions of the test were administered in the classroom for both pre- and post-assessments.

An Overview of the Course The course was designed based on the definition that EI is the ability of an individual to perceive various emotional stimuli associated with his/her self and his/her environment, appraise and regulate them, in order to produce appropriate behavioral

12 Effectiveness of an Emotional Intelligence Course …

203

responses, resulting in improved intrapersonal and interpersonal outcomes. It had the following objectives. • To create an awareness of the emotional intelligence concept among students. • To develop their emotional intelligence competencies • To enable them to use their emotional intelligence skills for personal and professional success. The course had five broad units namely (1) evolution and conceptualization of EI, (2) developing self-awareness, (3) understanding others, (4) managing self and (5) applying EI for better intrapersonal and interpersonal outcomes. The content was sent to a few academicians (national and international level) who were doing research on EI and finalized with their inputs. The course was designed for three credits and was offered as an elective during the fourth semester of the MBA program, under the “Choice Based Credit System”. The students were free to choose electives of their choice. The course is being offered since 2016 at the business school. This study was done during the academic year 2017. The course had a duration of 45 h and was interspersed with activities, lectures, videos, introspections, discussions and assignments. All the students were requested to maintain a journal in which they recorded their emotional experiences during the entire period of the course. Students were offered sessions on the process of emotion generation and the role of intelligence in regulating emotions for better outcomes. Devoted sessions were allotted for improving self-awareness, understanding others and developing empathy. Real-life examples were used to make the students understand the importance of developing self-awareness and empathy. They were also taught to manage emotions like anger, fear and stress and were given sessions on improving their interpersonal skills and leadership abilities. At the end of the semester, a session was devoted for experience sharing in which students shared their experiences with respect to the course. On the last day of the semester, postassessments were done, and feedback was sought on the effectiveness of the course. The results are discussed in the next section.

Results and Discussion Pre-assessment of EI—Experimental Group and Control Group On the first day of the course, the EI test was administered to both the groups. The pre-assessments showed that out of the 102 students, 98 were in the low level of EI and only 4 students were in the high level. This is in line with the concern expressed by employers who frequently believe that students lack in EI abilities (National Association of Colleges and Employers 2008). Hence, it is evident that students

204

R. Deepa and K. Arulrajan

Table 12.2 Comparison of EI scores—Exp Gp and Control Gp Prior to the course EI components

Mean of Exp Gp (prior to course)

Mean of control Gp (prior to course)

Sig level

N = 69

N = 33

SA

42.10

40.52

0.19

ME

32.94

31.88

0.29

RW

71.75

67.73

0.03*

EM

46.88

44.79

0.11

EI

142.09

135.64

0.06

*Significant at p 0.05), the group variances can be treated as equal and the first line of the table is taken. However, if p < 0.05, unequal variances are assumed and the second line is considered as the assumption of homogeneity of variances is violated. Here, equal variances are assumed as the p =0.472 > 0.05. There was a significant difference in the scores of males (M = 4.20 SD = .393) and female (M = 4.17, SD = .376) conditions; t (96) = 0.353, p = 0.752. The results suggest that there is really no significant difference of gender on sustainable HRM.

Result: The H0 7 is accepted and H1 7 is not accepted suggesting gender has no significant impact on sustainable HRM. The research also sought to study the effect of star rating of the organization on its sustainable HRM. To do this, a one-way ANOVA was conducted, the results of which are as follows (Tables 14.20, 14.21 and 14.22): To compare the effect of 5 star, 4 star and 3 star organizations on sustainable HRM, a one-way between subjects ANOVA was conducted. There was a significant effect of the independent variable (star rating of the organization) on the dependent variable sustainable HRM (SUSHRM) at the p < 0.05 level for the three conditions [F (2, 94) = 20.499, p = 0.000]. Since a significant result was found in the ANOVA test, a post hoc test using Tukey’s HSD was done to analyze the difference in conditions. Tukey HSD test results indicated that the mean score for the 5 star organizations (M

Assumption (non-equal variance)

Assumption (equal variance)

0.521

0.472 0.353

0.353 94.822

95

df

0.725

0.725

Sig. (2-tailed)

t

F

Sig.

t-test for equality of means

Levene’s test for equality of variances

Bold indicates the values that test the hypothesis

SUSHRM

Table 14.19 Independent samples t-test

0.027

0.027

Mean difference

0.078

0.078

Std. Error difference

Upper 0.183 0.183

Lower −0.128 −0.128

95% confidence interval of the difference

14 Sustainable Human Resource Management in the Hospitality … 241

242

S. Hameed et al.

Table 14.20 Descriptives N

Mean

Standard Dev.

Std. Error

95% Lower

Upper

Minimum

Maximum

1

60

4.36

0.353

0.045

4.27

4.43

3.77

4.94

2

22

3.89

0.323

0.069

3.75

4.03

3.55

4.27

3

15

3.98

0.189

0.048

3.87

4.08

3.77

4.22

Total

97

4.19

0.387

0.039

4.11

4.27

3.55

4.94

Table 14.21 ANOVA SUSHRM Sum of squares

Mean square

F

Sig.

4.388

2

2.194

20.499

0.000

Within groups

10.062

94

0.107

Total

14.450

96

Between groups

Degree of freedom

Table 14.22 Post hoc multiple comparisons Dependent Variable: SUSHRM Tukey HSD (A) What star rating is given to your organization?

(B) What star rating is given to your organization?

1

2

0.469*

0.081

0.000

0.275

0.664

3

0.382*

0.094

0.000

0.157

0.607

1

−0.469*

0.081

0.000 −0.664 −0.275

3

−0.087

0.109

0.704 −0.348

1

−0.382*

0.094

0.000 −0.607 −0.157

2

0.087

0.109

0.704 −0.173

2 3

Mean Stand. Sig. difference Err. (A-B)

95% Lower

Upper

0.173 0.348

*The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level

= 0.469, SE = 0.081) was not significantly different than the 4 star organization (M = −0.469, SE = 0.81). However, the 3 star organizations (M = 0.384, SE = 0.094) significantly differed from 4 star and 5 star organizations.

Discussion and Conclusion The hospitality industry in Rajasthan is a resource generator with every third tourist in India being a tourist to Rajasthan. Tourism accounts for “2.7% (5.2% after adding

14 Sustainable Human Resource Management in the Hospitality …

243

indirect tax) in gross state domestic product and 1.9% (7.2% after adding indirect effect) in state employment” (Yadav 2017). For the hospitality industry, this throws open avenues of employment generation and sustainable human resource management. The study was conducted to measure the effects of selected variables on the sustainable HRM practices in different organizations in the State of Rajasthan. The following findings emerge from this study. The latent variables used in the study were derived from the SHRM report on the role of HR in corporate, social and environmental sustainability. The variables were values and ethics, recruitment, compensation, well-being, development and engagement. High positive correlations were observed among all variables except well-being to recruitment (0.129) and engagement to recruitment (0.195). The study shows that recruitment has a minimal impact on both well-being as well as engagement in organizations in Rajasthan. This finding is concurrent with (Nieves and Quintana Déniz 2016) who states that “recruitment/selection practices may attract individuals with talent to work in specific positions, but they do not improve the overall level of human capital in the organization.” The findings are also concurrent with the studies by Gonsalves and Neves (2012), where they have argued that there are positive outcomes of sustainable HRM on both well-being and engagement. Amor (2001) states that “organizations should continue to be responsible for designing recruitment systems that meet their unique needs of sustainable HRM.” The study also reveals that there is a significant effect of values and ethics, recruitment, well-being, development and engagement on sustainable HRM. Sustainable HRM incorporates ethics as an effective delivery mechanism that will propel employees into incorporating ethics in their daily working (Foley 2014). HR helps in aligning business with strategic outcomes by using ethics to the effect. Evidences from previous literature suggest that there is a negative impact on the organization if sustainable HR management is not followed. Ehnert (2006) concurs that “work-related stress symptoms, workdependent psychosomatic reactions, burnout, self-exploitation tendencies, increased pressure of time and work pace, increased pressure to perform, eroding trust in employment relations, and blurring boundaries between work and private life are the examples of these negative side effects.” Sustainable HRM is a key driver for engaging employees to deliver greater benefits that will result in strategic advantages to the organization (Cohen 2012). Engagement as a sustainable HRM variable is positively used instead of a negative connotation of “burnout.” This reflects the emergence of commitment rather than control approaches to HRM (Wood 2005). Significant implementation of sustainable HR practices was also related to “higher satisfaction with the current employability of employees, and to increased productivity of the organization” (Ybema 2017). This research study has certain limitations and noteworthy contribution. One of the notable points is that the research studied specific variables and its effects on sustainable HRM and is a first of its kind in the state of Rajasthan. All the variables showed that they had an effect on sustainable HRM. The organizations who participated in the study were institutions that had a sizeable number of tourists visiting and the employees who had active participation and awareness of sustainable HRM and practices. This contributes to a better understanding of the hospitality industry.

244

S. Hameed et al.

However, the findings of the study need to be treated with caution as they cannot be generalized. Since the sample consisted of many newly inducted employees, it is highly probable that the responses could be biased. The study contributes to the academic field by adding knowledge of sustainable HRM in the hospitality industry in Rajasthan. The study could be used for further research in the hospitality sector of other Indian states that focus on augmenting their sustainable HRM practices. In addition, future research could incorporate other variables from literature like participation, training or empowerment to study their contribution and effect on sustainable HRM.

References Aghazadeh, S. M. (2003). The future of human resource management. Work Study, 52(4), 201–207. Amor, M. B. (2001). A framework for human resource management. International Civil Service Commission. Baum, T. (2016). Sustainability and the Tourism and Hospitality. MDPI Sustainability, 21. Butler, F. (1991). Strategy and human resource management. South Western Publishing Company. Cohen, T. M.-C. (2012). HRM’s role in corporate social and environmental sustainability. VA: SHRM Foundation. Ehnert I. (2006). Sustainability issues in human resource management: Linkages, theoretical approaches, and outlines for an emerging field, Paper presented at 21st EIASM Workshop on SHRM, March 30–31 2006, Birmingham. Fairfield, K. D., Harmon, J., & Behson, S. J. (2011). Influences on the organizational implementation of sustainability: An integrative model. Organization Management Journal, 8(1), 4–20. Foley, P. (2014). Ethics and HR Departments need to work together. Ethical Corporation. Garg, B. (2014). Human resource—driving force of sustainable business practices. International Journal of Innovative Research and Development, 3(7), 378–382. Gonçalves, S.P., & Neves, J. (2012). The link between perceptions of human resource management practices and employee well-being at work. Advances in Psychology Study, 1(1), 31–39. Hair Jr., J. F. et al. (1998). Multivariate data analysis with readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Kokkranikal, J., & Baum, T. (2000). Human resources development and sustainability: The case of Indian tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research, 2(6), 403–421. Kusluvan, S., Kusluvan, Z., Ilhan, I., & Buyruk, L. (2010). The human dimension: A review of human resource management issues in the tourism and hospitality industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 171–214. Maps of India. (2018). Retrieved July 2018, from https://www.mapsofindia.com/lat_long/rajast han/. Mazur, B. (2012). Religious diversity in the companies of the Podlasie region. Journal of Intercultural Management, 4(1), 51–65. Nieves, J. & Quintana Déniz, A. (2016). Human resource practices and innovation in the hotel industry: The mediating role of human capital. Tourism and Hospitality Research. Sage Publication. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). An Overview of Psychological Measurement. In B. B. Wolman (eds.), Clinical Diagnosis of Mental Disorders. Boston, MA: Springer. Pfeffer. (2010). Building sustainable organiations: The Human Factor. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(1), 34–45.

14 Sustainable Human Resource Management in the Hospitality …

245

Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (2005). A quarter-century review of human resource management in the U.S.: The growth in importance of the international perspective. Management Revue, 16(1), 11–35. Unnithan-Kumar, M. (2000). The state, Rajput identity and women’s agency in 19th and 20th century Rajasthan. Indianl Journal of Gender Studies, 49–70. Wood, W. (2005). The romance of human resource, high performance. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yadav, M. (2017). Rajasthan tourism: Problems and government policies. International Journal of Advanced Research and Development, 68–72. Ybema, V. D. (2017). HR practices for enhancing sustainable employability: implementation, use, and outcomes. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. Zaugg, R., Bulm A., & Thom, N. (2011). Sustainability in human resource management. IOP Press.

Chapter 15

Employee Engagement—A Driving Force for Sustaining Employees B. Aiswarya and G. Ramasundaram

Abstract Human resources are a dynamic, volatile (resource) available (to an) organisation which (results in) a significant advantage or disadvantage. There are two sets of employees, engaged and the disengaged to their organisations. The first set of employees is highly committed and give higher productivity and low turnover which becomes a basis of competitive advantage, while the other is not so committed and hence becomes a liability with low productivity and high cost to the organisation. Sustainability thus has become the strategic imperative of the new millennium. This is true of every sector including the health care sector. This paper attempts to study the role of the engagement practices on employee sustainability in organisations. It was conducted among the health care professionals namely nurses in hospitals since the studies show the attrition rate among nurses is very high. Primary data was collected from the respondents using the survey method through a structured questionnaire. A detailed analysis of the dimension of the engagement namely the cognitive and the emotional component was studied for its relationship and impact on the employee sustainability. The employee sustainability is studied using the measures of job satisfaction, staying intention and the organisational identification. The study reveals that organisations would benefit from understanding and measuring employee engagement, decide on the standards which can serve as a basis for reward system, staying intention, turnover and to calculate the cost involved in the recruitment, training and retaining employees. Keywords Employee sustainability · Employee engagement · Health care · Organisational HR practices

B. Aiswarya (B) Loyola Institute of Business Administration, Chennai, India e-mail: [email protected] G. Ramasundaram PSG Institute of Management Studies, Coimbatore, India e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. Vanka et al. (eds.), Sustainable Human Resource Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5656-2_15

247

248

B. Aiswarya and G. Ramasundaram

Introduction Human resources are considered to be the dynamic, volatile source in the organisation which becomes a significant advantage or disadvantage. Be it is a service or manufacturing organisation, employees are the main concern for the management in any organisation. There is also a growing alarm with sustainability of employee with the current globalisation trend in the Indian economy which has led to substantial revolution in organisations. Sustainability as an area of research is growing, not only in academia, but also is being embraced by corporations (Aguinis and Glavas 2012). Organisations seeking to integrate employee sustainability need a better understanding of the elements (job satisfaction, organisational identification and turnover intention) that drive a sustainable climate. Gaining an understanding of employee sustainable factors and their differences across organisations is necessary in assisting organisations to become sustainable. This understanding of elements is necessary to ensure that current sustainable organisations remain sustainable over the long term. (Agarwal 1993). Employers today have begun to realise that engagement is a significant construct linked to employee job satisfaction, organisational identification and turnover intention. Employee engagement is an idea rooted in behavioural science and also a reflection of the human condition (Rothbard 2001). Employee engagement has also developed into a practitioner-driven concept that can be modified over time (Lockwood 2007; Wilson 2004).

Industry Profile The Indian health care sector is a rapidly growing. The market rate spending on health care is exorbitantly high which accounts to $65 billion Tapas (2014). The health care industry is likely to find its fastest growth by 2020 Tapas (2014). There is a huge shortage of nurses, and hence, whenever an experienced nurse leaves, it becomes difficult for the hospital to find a replacement immediately (Rajan 2013). Studies in several countries including India suggest that high turnover of nurses creates greater challenges in the hospitals. (Rajan 2013). Apart from hampering patient care, nursing turnover is costly. Bakker et al. (2003) opined that hospital where nurse turnover is high suffers from poor fiscal health. Krausz et al. (1995) found that the cost to replace a nurse is very high which equalises to her salary. In the overall hospital sector, the attrition rate among the employee is 10%, of which the attrition rate among nurses alone constitutes 35% Gill (2011). This is recorded as the highest among all other professionals in the health care sector. Lephalala (2006) opined that attrition rate is very high among the nurses in India. The percentage is comparatively less in government hospitals than private hospitals, according to Sharma and Kamra (2009).

15 Employee Engagement—A Driving Force for Sustaining Employees

249

Fitzpatrick (2002) suggested that one has to understand the causal mechanisms that lead to high turnover among service workers to resolve the problem of turnover. Some nurses who leave hospitals do not leave profession but may shift from one hospital (Lephalala 2006). Several researchers (Mobley et al. 1979; Van Breukelen et al. 2004) stated behavioural intention as the most significant predictor of actual behaviour, such as turnover. Krausz et al. (1995) have shown turnover model applied in a country may not be readily applicable to the other (Maertz et al. 2003).

Need for the Study Literature evidences that many studies were undertaken in Indian public hospitals to understand causal mechanisms that lead to employee sustainability of nurses. Hence, the study was undertaken to investigate the causal mechanisms which may help private hospitals in employee sustainability. There are several factors which could contribute for nursing turnover. Literature illustrates the reasons why nurses quit their job willingly or against their will. Their services are liable to be terminated at any time. They are less benefited as compared to government employees. For instance, there is no opportunity for nurses to get deputation for higher education, study loan from the organisation. Mostly, low salary is a hurdle for nurses to get advanced professional education at their own, limited chances for professional development (Elangovan 2001). There are many young nurses who have the potential and eagerness to enhance their education, but policy does not allow employees for deputation and scholarship.

The Objectives of the Study 1. To identify the variables influencing the sustainability of the employees specifically nurses in the health care sector. 2. To study the factors contributing to employees (nurses) engagement in hospitals. 3. To analyse the impact of engagement practices on sustaining employees.

250

B. Aiswarya and G. Ramasundaram

Review of Literature Employee Engagement Different definitions of employee engagement are available in the literature. A review evidences four supporting factors of employee engagement: organisational citizenship behaviour, positive psychological behaviour, internal communication and selfefficacy (Macey et al. 2009). Organisations effectively applying employee engagement techniques may have crucial competitive advantages, such as high employee retention and high employee productivity. Vance (2006) indicated that employee engagement drives customer satisfaction and cash flow. In addition, these results suggest that an engaged employee has high self-efficacy and may be expected to have a high degree of career commitment (Bolch 2008). Engagement not only makes employees more vigilant about failures but also gives them a multidimensional stimulus to invest their physical, cognitive and emotional energy to accomplish tasks that yield fruitful outcomes. According to Rasmussen and Jeppesen (2006) and Macey et al. (2009), employee engagement has a positive effect on the employee’s identity and behaviour. Hertel et al. (2005) conducted a review of current empirical research on virtual teams. These studies point out that one’s positive behaviour plays a role in determining his engagement levels at work may be considered as a construct that defines employee engagement. This also supports the selection of positive psychological behaviour as a factor of employee engagement (Shuck and Reio 2014).

Employee Sustainability The concept of employee sustainability helps to concentrate on hiring efficient people and taking care of their well-being. This is called as people-oriented approach where the employees are more happy, satisfied and they in turn care for the clients and customers and act diligently with responsibility (Khan 1990). This could be achieved through effective planning and proper implementation of plan. Sroufe et al. (2000) elaborates the importance of ‘people first’ employer-of-choice culture to encourage the employee involvement for increased effort in protecting environment. The challenges are to encounter the barriers against employee sustainability. It is believed to have a better process in the workplace setting (Longoni et al. 2014). However, many studies had found that engagement practices have a significant impact on the satisfaction in the job among the employees. We can expect therefore that engagement practices will relate affirmatively to employee satisfaction (Shuck and Wollard 2010).

15 Employee Engagement—A Driving Force for Sustaining Employees

251

Organisational Identification Employee engagement may lead to every employee’s sense of self-identification with the organisation, which can be understood as an individual attachment to the organisation (Ashforth and Mael 1989). Researchers have proved that when the employees are satisfied, they will instil identity themselves with the organisation in the society (Eisenberger et al. 2014). Employees must make the employees feel that their personal goals and the organisational goals are affiliated to one another and make them feel more appropriately fit for the job as well as the organisation (Kristof-Brown et al. 2005). Only those employees will identify themselves with the organisation. Many studies have proposed a high impact and positive relationship between employee engagement and organisational identification (Kim et al. 2013). Therefore, there is scope to predict employee engagement can result in organisational identification.

Turnover Intention Several research studies have proved that there is no positive relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intention (Jaramillo et al. 2005). Therefore, we interpret that sustainability is being influenced by job satisfaction. Since the turnover of the employee is directly being influenced by the employee engagement, we can possibly expect him to stay in the organisation and not leave their job as it supports their psychological expectations (Kristof-Brown et al. 2005). Literature supports that the turnover intention has a negative relationship with the employee engagement (Wayne et al. 1997).

Research Methodology Objective: The main aim of the study was to understand and explore the influence of employee engagement practices on the employee sustainability among nurses in hospitals in Chennai, a city in South India. Design: The study is quantitative and non-experimental. Population: The sampled respondents are nurses employed in hospitals (private) in Chennai. Sampling: Hospitals were selected from in and around the Chennai city. Hospitals were selected based on convenience and approachability. Nurses from the selected hospitals were the sample. The study was carried out in 2017. Five hundred questionnaires were distributed, and 478 nurses returned the filled in questionnaires. However,

252

B. Aiswarya and G. Ramasundaram

450 questionnaires were in usable condition. Data were statistically treated using SPSS program. Structural equation modelling (SEM) tool was, used and the impact has been studied.

Analysis Factor Analysis Dimension reduction has been carried out using factor analysis. Five factors have been identified based on the theoretical framework of the study. The employee engagement variable comprised of the cognitive and the emotional factors, and the employee sustainability comprises the job satisfaction, turnover intention and the organisational identification (Fig. 15.1; Tables 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.4, 15.5 and 15.6). The structural equation modelling (SEM) tool was used to clarify and understand the interrelationship among the many independent and dependent variables in the study. It represents the wholesome interrelationship among all the different variables considered for analysis in the study. In this analysis, cognitive and emotional component of employee engagement are considered as the independent variables and its impact on the sustainability of the employees in the organisation was the dependent variable. The model is expressed in the form of an arrow diagram. The arrow depicts the dependence relationship and the impact of the causes on the consequences. In this study, the magnitude of influence of the employee engagement on the employee sustainability is analysed. Engagement is categorised into two dimensions of cognitive and emotional factors already discussed earlier. Employee engagement is

Fig. 15.1 Model for impact of the engagement on the employee sustainability

Table 15.1 Sample adequacy

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin. (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy

0.815

Chi-Square

4388.509

Bartlett’s test for sphericity

190

Significance

0.000

15 Employee Engagement—A Driving Force for Sustaining Employees

253

Table 15.2 Rotated component matrix metric Components 1

2

Turnover Intention

0.795

Turnover Intention

0.750

Turnover Intention

0.730

Turnover Intention

0.707

Turnover Intention

0.677

Turnover Intention

0.642

Org. Identification

0.773

Org. Identification

0.734

Org. Identification

0.732

Org. Identification

0.606

Org. Identification

0.556

3

4

Cognitive

0.855

Cognitive

0.843

Cognitive

0.769

5

Emotional

0.808

Emotional

0.751

Emotional

0.691

Job Satisfaction

0.838

Job Satisfaction

0.751

Job Satisfaction

0.637

Table 15.3 Regression weights for the variables represented in the model Estimates

S.E.

C.R.

P

ES