http://www.grist.org/article/griscom-little3
The article I read involved an interview with Wal-Mart’s CEO, Lee Scott. This interview regarded Scott’s attempts and goals for the company to go green. Many people do not have many positive things to say about Wal-Mart; many thoughts come to mind such as “exacerbating suburban sprawl, burning mass quantities of oil, producing mountains of packaging waste, polluting waterways with runoff from its construction sites, and encouraging gratuitous consumption”. These only happen to be a few complaints regarding Wal-Mart’s environmental problems.
CEO Lee Scott announced his goal of transforming Wal-Mart into a company that runs on 100 percent renewable energy and produces zero waste. Since the comment, Lee has made specific statements saying he would like to “cut the corporation's greenhouse-gas emissions by 20 percent over the next seven years, double the fuel efficiency of its truck fleet within 10 years, reduce solid waste from U.S. stores by 25 percent in the next three years, and double offerings of organic foods this spring, selling them at prices more affordable to the masses”. Scott realized that with Wal-Mart being such a large company, this meant the company had quite the large footprint in the environment. Scott realized many benefits of being green, one major benefit being reducing cost. Scott became conscious of many costs that were not necessary throughout the company, such as packaging and energy usage. Cutting costs is important to Scott, he states that Wal-Mart has always prided itself on offering the lowest prices to customers, and cutting costs throughout the company is one way to deliver customers the lowest price possible.
The positive of Wal-Mart being such a large company is it tends to have a large impact on the market and manufacturers. Such a large change in companies such as Wal-Mart, this could cause a “ripple effect” throughout other companies and manufacturers. Scott states that with the size of Wal-Mart, it enables them to create markets for clean technology that exists today, but may not have a fully established market. Scott is interested in the question of, if Wal-Mart decides to sell, or decides to implement a system such as solar panels, what will this do to the cost of solar panels in the market? Will this giant implementation of such a system make this affordable to everyone?
The chapter I could best relate this article to is Northouse’s chapter nine, Transformational Leadership (TL). “[Transformational Leadership] is concerned with emotions, values, ethics, standards, and long-term goals. TL involves an exceptional form of influence that moves followers to accomplish more than what is usually expected of them” (Northouse 2010). Scott is a very transformational leader in the sense that he is hoping that Wal-Mart’s change to better environmental business practices could potentially affect the entire market for green products and processes. Scott is attempting to influence other markets and manufacturers by the actions of Wal-Mart. Going green is definitely an ethical choice that involves many long-term goals. “Going green” is not a choice that can be made, and have change being accomplished overnight. Scott has goals that he hopes to set by 2015, keep in mind the article was written in 2006, making him set a goal 9 years in the future. Values come into play when thinking about the ‘green movement’. Going green is not something that is forced on companies, but rather a change purely to better the environment and world we live in.
In looking at personality characteristics, behaviors, and effects on followers of charismatic leadership in chapter nine, Scott possesses many characteristics and behaviors of a charismatic leader. Scott has a large desire to influence, as well as strong moral values. His behaviors show that he articulates goals by the very specific goals he set for Wal-Mart, and also that he communicates high expectations.
What I pose to my group members is, how would the situation be different if Scott was more of a transactional leader versus a transformational leader? Do you think it takes one or the other to be a successful leader in the green movement, or does a leader need to possess potentially both factors?
I remember hearing about Walmart's green and sustainability initiative in 2006 and studying it in school. I think it's one think for a CEO or "leader" to say something, but it comes down to whether there is proof of actually progress. I feel like at this time Walmart had to do something or say something because they were viewed very negatively and made a substantial environmental impact. I did a little more research and in 2006 they were doing small things like installing skylights, using both sides of receipt paper, and installing green toilets. They were slowly becoming more efficient. Walmart is a retail leader who is known for cutting prices. Their low prices are their core competency. However, when comparing Walmart to other companies they lack in their effort to "go green." I do not see Scott as a transformational leader. I see him as a transactional leader. I think he is concerned with increasing profits, lowering costs, and making their supply chain even more efficient. Transformational leadership is "a process that changes and transforms people." I do not think he is changing or transforming anything yet. When I search this topic in 2010 Walmart "commits to going green." It is almost as if they made little progress between 2006 and 2010. I think that the leader is to blame in this because he is more transactional. For example, it seems that in 2006 he was just jumping on the "green" bandwagon. He wanted people to support Walmart so he said the company would "go green" to make people happy just as a candidate would promise "no new taxes" to get a vote. He is not concerned for the collective good. If he were then he would be concerned with emotions, values, ethics, standards, and long term goals.
ReplyDeleteI also have scene this initiative actually in action and possibly most of us have. The pushcarts and baskets are partly made up of recycled material. That being said, I feel that for a green movement, a leader or CEO needs to be more of a Transformational Leader rather than a Transactional Leader. I believe that to be true because the leader needs to have "a strong set of internal values and ideals"(Northouse) so to effectively reach their employees to motivate them to go along with this movement. Many people change few things in their life to become more "green" but it takes encouragement and motivation to go that extra distance. With a leader preaching this change and inspiring others to join him, the change effort to be more environmentally friendly, in my opinion, would be more smooth.
ReplyDeleteNow as for Transactional Leadership, I believe it would work a lot better if the company was dramatically smaller than say Wal-Mart. Using contingent rewards in a big company would get confusing and would not reach all the employee which in turn could have them become disgruntled.
I agree with Mike in saying that Wal-Mart being such a large company slows down the 'going green' process. "Walmart had sales of $405 billion for its fiscal year in 2010. The retailer has 8,500 stores in 15 countries and employs more than 2 million people" (Daniel, Fran. "Head of Wal-Mart Tells WFU Audience of Plans for Growth over next 20 Years." Winston-Salem Journal 29 Sept. 2010. Print.) To go green in a company of this size takes a lot of time, and also a lot of money. I agree with Stephanie though in saying over the past 5 years, I think Walmart could have made some more drastic changes. I believe a 'green leader' needs to be more of a transformational leader than a transactional leader because the pay-off of being green is not noticeable at first, it's the pay-off in the long-run. And as a leader that is transactional, I cannot see them making drastic changes without seeing quick results.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with all, in the sense that transformation would be best. Transactional involves factors or contingent rewards and management by exception, which may not be the best route for this type of situation. A transformational leader is good at setting a clear vision of the future state of their organization. This is great to help start a new direction such as going green, as people in the organization will learn how they fit with the organization and even in society in general (Northouse). Secondly, these leaders can mobilize people to accept a new group identity or philosophy for the organization. I believe that Lee Scott is and will continue to stand by his position as well as continuously implement his direction to convey trust. This is important for the group to want to follow, understand, and stand for this green movement. I think with these three core strategies identified by Bennis and Nanus, Scott Lee will be a productive and effective transformation leader, rather than following steps of the traditional transactional leader.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Walmart is a larger company, and therefore it will take longer to not only see results, but to get everyone on board. Walmart is known for low prices not green movements. I think a change needs to be made and at least Scott is setting clear goals. I think a transformational leader is needed, but as of now I don't think he has done much to significantly change. I think his objectives are clear, and even his vision for the future is clear. However, is it attractive, realistic, and believable? I think it is attractive and realistic to him and maybe his followers. However is it believable to all of his followers? The vision is clear but I don't know if the people in the organization has learned how they fit with that direction. I do not think Scott is to the point of transformational leadership, but I do believe it could change the company if he goes in this direction.
ReplyDelete