Two Roads to Green: A Tale of Bureaucratic versus Distributed Leadership Models of Change

Abstract

Over the past decade there has been a trend in the corporate world for companies to transition their environmental policies and practices from a matter of compliance and risk management to a “source of opportunity, innovation and competitive advantage” (Hoffman & Glancy, 2 006; Porter & Kramer, 2006, p. 80). Leading companies are redesigning products and manufacturing processes to use resources ore wisely, eliminate toxic inputs, and reduce waste by‐products. In so doing, they are learning to anticipate regulations and position themselves competitively. In this study we examine how two well‐known corporate entities, “Alpha” and “Beta,” initiated and advanced company‐wide green initiatives. Alpha is a large multinational company in the business equipment and services industry. Beta is a medium‐sized, multinational company that produces a wide range of high‐end consumer and industrial products. Both are known for being well managed; both have frequently been recognized as “Great Places to Work;” and both have received numerous awards for innovation. Yet Alpha and Beta occupy different positions on the continuum of leadership logics that ranges from “command and control” to “cultivate and coordi nate” (Malone, 2004). (The two ends of the continuum are summarized in Table 1 as ideal type models.) Alpha is trying to pull away from its traditional bureaucratic roots, with varying degrees of success, while Beta is constantly working to improve on its legacy of distributed leadership. These different leadership logics, each driven by a cohrent bundle of core assumptions about leadership authority, role autonomy, and innovation processes, impact the way each company travels the “road to green."