The Framing of Urban Sustainability Transformations

Transformational change is not always intentional. However, deliberate transformations are imperative to achieve the sustainable visions that future generations deserve. Small, unintentional tweaks will not be enough to overcome persistent and emergent urban challenges. Recent scholarship on sustainability transformations has evolved considerably, but there is no consensus on what qualifies transformational change. We describe variations in current discussions of intentional sustainability transformations in the literature and synthesize strategies from funding institutions’ recent requests for proposals for urban sustainability transformations. Research funding initiatives calling for transformational change are increasingly common and are an important driver of how transformational change is articulated in research-practice in cities. From this synthesis, we present seven criteria for transformational change that provide direction for framing and implementing transformational change initiatives

Does Change Incite Abusive Supervision? The Role of Transformational Change and Hindrance Stress

To remain competitive, organizations tend to change their established ways of working, their strategy, the core values, and the organizational structure. Such thorough changes are referred to as transformational change. Unfortunately, transformational change is often unsuccessful because organizational members do not always welcome the change. Although organizations often expect their supervisors to be successful role-models and change-agents during the transformational change process, we argue that initiating transformational change could increase supervisors\u27 hindrance stress levels, which may result in abusive behaviors towards employees. More specifically, in a multi-source survey and an experimental study, we find evidence that transformational change is associated with supervisors\u27 experienced hindrance stress, which subsequently led to more abusive behaviors towards employees

The path of transformational change

Version of RecordPublishe

Chief Diversity Officers (CDOs): The Relationships Between Organizational Structure, Institutional Commitment to Inclusive Excellence, and CDOs’ Perceptions of Their Performance in Facilitating Transformational Change

The purpose of this qualitative study was to better understand the relationship between the archetypes of vertical structure and chief diversity officers’ (CDOs) perceptions of their performance in facilitating transformational change. This study also sought to examine CDOs’ perceptions of their institutions’ commitment to inclusive excellence and CDOs’ perception of their performance in facilitating transformational change. Semistructured interviews were conducted with nine CDOs, who were employed by the State University of New York system, to identify under which model the CDOs were working, using the archetypes of vertical structure, either collaborative, unit-based, or portfolio-divisional. Data was analyzed by reviewing audio tapes of every interview and coding written transcripts to identify Kouzes and Posner’s five practices of exemplary leadership. Narrative analysis was applied to tell the unique stories of the relationships between the archetypes of vertical structure, institutional commitment to inclusive excellence, and the CDOs’ perceptions of the their performance in facilitating transformational change. The results of this study revealed that CDOs operating in the portfolio-divisional archetype were most likely to facilitate transformational change based on their ability to effectively apply the five practices of exemplary leadership. The findings also indicate that the CDOs functioning in the portfolio-divisional model received higher levels of institutional commitment based on consistently implementing five of the seven indicators of inclusive excellence. The researcher concluded that all CDOs, regardless of type or size of their institutions, would be more likely to facilitate transformational change if they were operating within the portfolio-divisional model with a high level of institutional commitment

Resilient livelihoods and food security in coastal aquatic agricultural systems: Investing in transformational change

Aquatic agricultural systems (AAS) are diverse production and livelihood systems where families cultivate a range of crops, raise livestock, farm or catch fish, gather fruits and other tree crops, and harness natural resources such as timber, reeds, and wildlife. Aquatic agricultural systems occur along freshwater floodplains, coastal deltas, and inshore marine waters, and are characterized by dependence on seasonal changes in productivity, driven by seasonal variation in rainfall, river flow, and/or coastal and marine processes. Despite this natural productivity, the farming, fishing, and herding communities who live in these systems are among the poorest and most vulnerable in their countries and regions. This report provides an overview of the scale and scope of development challenges in coastal aquatic agricultural systems, their significance for poor and vulnerable communities, and the opportunities for partnership and investment that support efforts of these communities to secure resilient livelihoods in the face of multiple risks