This section reports on the qualitative results for the individual-interior integral domain (Wilber, 2001), which is the personal development domain of the Cassandra model. The personal development domain was repositioned as semiotic development since the essence of personal development was found to be associated with shifting the perception of what is considered personally meaningful to agents. The domain addresses individual-interior aspects of
organisations, namely the personal development of agents in the system. This section covers both the dimensions of coherence and the conditions that enable emergence for the domain.
Dimensions of coherence
Coherence was found to operate at two levels, which together created conditions in which sustainability was enacted in the firm. Semiotic symbiosis was the dimension identified at the embedded level, and semiotic embodiment was identified as a dimension operating at the embodied level. Both dimensions are displayed in Table 4.7.
Level Label Definition Embedded
dimension
Semiotic symbiosis
The extent to which what is considered as personally meaningful is enriched by symbiotic interaction with the containing system.
Embodied dimension
Semiotic embodiment
The extent to which sustainability is personally meaningful and implicit.
Table 4.7: Semiotic dimensions
The dimension of semiotic symbiosis describes the extent to which what is considered as personally meaningful is enriched by symbiotic interaction with the containing system.
Positioning meaning-making semiotically, as a system of signs, acknowledges that semiotics is in itself a complex system (Cilliers, 1998). Charles Sanders Peirce explained a sign within a triadic relationship between sign, object and interpretant:
“I define a sign as anything which is so determined by something else, called its Object, and so determines an effect upon a person, which effect I call its interpretant, that the latter is thereby mediately determined by the former” (Peirce, 1998, p. 478).
The interpretant is key in reaching an understanding of or translating the sign/object relation. In the case of semiotic symbiosis, the translation of signs and meaning can be seen in the
context of the agent being embedded in symbiotic relations with the containing system. When agents interact in a symbiotic manner, they create long-term relationships with diverse agents, stakeholders and the containing system.
The term symbiosis was originally coined by Anton de Bary in 1879 to describe associations between different species, and can be defined as a “persistent mutualism” (Douglas, 2010, p.
6). Whilst there are different types of symbiotic relationships, all types allow for organisms to evolve together. Symbiosis is thus a useful concept to describe embedded system interactions in this domain. This dimension is located within the personal development domain of the Cassandra model at the level of embedded coherence.
Semiotic symbiosis came through strongly in the Group’s ethos (axiological signification). As one executive remarked, “we see ourselves as connectors of positive change. What that means is that we see that we connect people with opportunities at a very individual level”
(AN15). It is interesting that the axiological signification emphasises semiotic symbiosis, encouraging meaningful engagement with stakeholders as opposed to transactional exchanges. However, several respondents noted that this was still aspirational.
Whilst the quantitative data showed the majority of respondents rated the organisation highly with regard to sustainability, the interview data suggested that whilst sustainability frameworks and policies were well-developed, a lot of work still needed to be done to support
implementation (AB3, AN5, AN6, AB10). One senior manager noted:
“The last couple of years they’ve started to change, to look at the human side as well as the business side and as well as the environment that we operate in. And currently we’re going through the process of trying to change people’s attitudes and culture to make them see that there are different ways of getting to be connectors of positive change. I don’t think we’re there yet” (AN18).
There was a similar view in the Botswana operation, in which progress was perceived to be restricted to the Namibian entities. A regional manager commented:
“Personally I think that on paper it’s good, but the practical experience and
implementation is falling short. Sustainable growth is still a paper-based idea - it’s nicely contained in a little booklet, defined and I think going that route and
implementing it is still something that needs a lot of work, from my perspective. I think the Group, itself, will say they’re quite far advanced - maybe so, in terms of planning, but if you go to a retail branch and you ask them what makes you sustainable? What is necessary? What do you need to deal with or change to be sustainable then, on
average, very few people will be able to give you an answer or indicate what has actually been implemented or done” (AB10).
Whilst the capacity to act symbiotically is well supported by the axiological signification, how this is implemented within the semiotic structures of agents was less evident to agents both in the parent company and subsidiaries.
The dimension of semiotic embodiment describes the extent to which sustainability is personally meaningful and implicit. At a biological level, all creatures can be described as semiotic systems with genetic codes (Barbieri, 2008), yet at the level of meaning-making, Peirce suggests that “concepts are mental habits, habits formed by exercise of imagination”
(as cited in Nöth, 2016, p. 41). Habits, according to Peirce, are either physical, mental or a combination of both, and there are also habits of feeling (Nöth, 2016).
Embodiment recognises that the mind emerges from multiple interconnects between brain, body and environment (Thompson, 2007). For sustainability to be enacted, capacity needs to be developed through “changes in cognitive mechanisms mediating how the brain and nervous system control performance and in the degree of adaption of physiological systems of the body. The principle challenge (is) to induce stable specific changes that allow the performance to be incrementally improved” (Ericsson, 2006, p. 700). What is considered as meaningful therefore becomes embodied in the organism through ongoing habits and practices that enable a suitable performative capacity to be developed.
This view was presented by interviewees. An executive based in Namibia illustrated it by discussing the limitations of an approach based on sustainability training:
“In my view, teaching people about sustainability as a theory does not pay off. I believe one has to start within the organisation with the basic practices of caring, caring about the environment in simple practices, recycling, caring about water. It starts with that and once that takes root in the individual then sustainability becomes real throughout the whole organisation. So it has to eventually become an inside out approach - and you have to teach that to people. If you’ve never learnt what caring for the environment is about, that’s the basics you have to start within the organisation” (AN15).
The semiotic embodiment of sustainability was positioned in a holistic manner. There was a recognition of the need for embodiment across multiple roles agents play, both in their work and personal contexts. An executive based in Namibia stated that “we’re not going to change the light bulbs, we’re rather going to change the minds” and then elaborated:
“We can put on motion sensors, we can put in LED lights, we can have water efficient toilets and solar panels on the roof and from a Group perspective we can decrease our carbon footprint and it would be nice to show. But we wouldn’t really have impacted
the world at large because once our staff leave they don’t implement the same type of things at their homes, so you don’t get the same saving there so it’s not sustainable.
You don’t entrench the idea of why these types of things are important, so they don’t influence their friends and family to do similar types of things” (AN13).
This conceptualisation of semiotic embodiment of sustainability is valuable since it considers agents as they operate across multiple systems, thereby creating a wider sphere of influence.
A similar view was put forward by interviewees in the Botswanan entity, yet several
interviewees commented about a general lack of awareness of sustainability amongst staff.
One executive in Botswana discussed the importance of a conscious approach:
“The (Group) Way in a round-about way is actually contributing towards it
(sustainability) but the inhibitor for me would maybe be the lack of clarity, that is for everyone. So that it’s an unconscious thing we are doing where you end up in a place that you don’t really plan to be in. It might be a good place, but this was not your plan, so it needs to be conscious. So even when I’m doing what I’m doing, I’m consciously doing it and I know that I’m contributing towards sustainability” (AB5).
The dimension of semiotic embodiment was emphasised by interviewees across the group and has been integrated into the axiological framework and overall ethos of the business. However, it remains somewhat aspirational in the Group, and particularly so in the subsidiaries.
Condition and mode of emergence
This section discusses the semiotic condition that enables the emergence of sustainability, and then goes on to consider the semiotic mode by which sustainability is enacted. Both the
condition and mode refer to the semiotic enactment of sustainability and are displayed in Table 4.8.
Level Label Definition Enactment
condition
Semiotic intention
Semiotic intention is the extent to which active engagement in sustainability is driven by a sense of personal
meaningfulness.
Mode of enactment
Semiotic refraction
Semiotic refraction is the process of perceiving a differentiated view of a multiple object using a sign.
Table 4.8: Semiotic enactment
Semiotic intention is a condition of emergence in which agents are driven to engage in sustainability initiatives because of a sense of personal meaningfulness associated with these activities. This brings together the embedded and embodied dimensions in this domain where the semiotic structure of interpretation used by agents has been enriched by interaction with the containing system and embodied through refining habits of thinking, feeling and practice.
The condition of semiotic intention leaves the agent poised to identify opportunities to enact sustainability, propelled by a sense of meaningfulness and recognition of the inherent value in the activities. Whilst recognised by interviewees, this condition remains an issue in the Group, and pointed out by a senior manager based in Namibia:
“What I think we’re missing is where we take sustainability, and we don’t focus so much on the word, we focus more on the intent behind the word. It’s hard to explain, but I think sustainability has become this big thing and no-one wants to hold it or carry it, because they don’t actually know what to do” (AN5).
Several interviewees commented that all too often there is an absence of intent to address sustainability. A manager in the branch network in Namibia demonstrated why a semiotic basis for intent is important:
“I think it’s easier for people to put their heads in the sand as long as their lives and their self and their position is safe and they’re carrying on, they’re just too comfortable to want to change. If it’s not physically or directly affecting them, they’ve got so much going on in their lives that they just couldn’t be bothered” (AN18).
A branch manager based in Botswana recounted how axiological signification in the business prompted a holistic personal reflection, which supports the development of semiotic
intentionality:
“The statement (‘connector of positive change’) made me reflect a bit because the moment that you talk about being a ‘connector of positive change’ then you have to think about - What are my goals? What do I want to do? What do I want to reach? And what I want to reach - is that going to make me a connector of change? And if I do that and I do it in my personal life and in every aspect of my being - is that going to
contribute to my own happiness, as well as those around me? It’s opened up a lot of thoughts in my head and I think it’s a good thing” (AB9).
This illustrates the linkages between the integral quadrants, as well as how a holistic approach has the potential to shift the way in which sustainability is enacted across multiple contexts in which the agents operate. Whilst this is promising, another senior manager in Botswana pointed to a disjuncture between semiotic intentionality and a short-term view in the Botswanan entity:
“I think, at this stage, maybe I put profit above sustainability - it’s a short-term view but that’s the indication you get when you come with innovation and new ideas that may not show immediate financial rewards but long-term it will definitely contribute to sustainability” (AB10).
In this example there is semiotic intentionality that is frustrated due to the axiological or operational context. Perhaps further focus on semiotic symbiosis would have enabled this interviewee to create a different outcome. Another approach would have been to build an axiological coalition.
Semiotic refraction was identified as the mode through which the semiotic domain of sustainability was enacted. Semiotic refraction is the process whereby agents have a
differentiated view of sustainability, as a multiple object, when perceiving it using a sign. The metaphor of semiotic refraction is used as it draws on the triadic relationship between sign, object and interpretant (Nöth, 2016). To enact sustainability, the agent perceives by means of a sign. The sign is used to view the object. Since sustainability as a complex set of phenomena
differentiation offers the potential for novelty to emerge. It must be remembered that the systems of signs, objects and agents are all complex systems which recursively interact (Cilliers, 1998; Morin, 2008).
There was an example of semiotic refraction from an executive based in Namibia who reflected a nuanced understanding of the implementation of corporate sustainability. He drew on a cultivation metaphor which illuminated the process of emergence in a complex adaptive
system. This shows how a more traditional mechanistic view of change is refracted and seen in a more dynamic and emergent way:
“One can see this as planting the seed– cultivating a new topic (of sustainability in the business), is not like building a house, it’s more like cultivating a garden. When you build a house, you can build according to that plan, and manufacture to specification.
Cultivation of new ideas doesn’t work like that. You need to be dynamic and patient, working with people’s thinking. If a branch doesn’t grow out exactly how you wanted to, you can’t cut it off completely, you have to plan how bend it in the right way. It’s a fluid process of establishing new ideas. You have to be very fluid” (AN15).
The similarity between scores across the axes, that is, the lack of a differentiated view in the quantitative dataset, perhaps suggests a need for greater semiotic refraction. It was clear from the interviews that there is a perception in Namibia that working for the Group, being the largest Namibian-owned financial services company, is linked to a sense of national pride.
There is, however, too little differentiation between axes to provide clear evidence of the active use of semiotic refraction; this may be due to the relatively recent introduction of corporate sustainability initiatives in the Group.
An executive reflected on previous work experience in the Zambian entity which implemented extensive solar solutions in response to protracted interruptions in electricity in the country.
This quote illustrates the local and contextual nature of semiotic refraction, and how this supports emergence:
“So there’s definitely a big opportunity in the various countries to operate and make it happen and we’ve implemented a lot of things in (the Zambian entity) that Group was learning from us and that’s the thing the important part - that we’re not puppets, we’ve got a brain, we’ve got energy, we’ve innovation, we’ve got all the capabilities around us
and we must make it work ourselves, as well, and not wait for (the Namibian entity) to come up with a project or framework” (AB7).
Semiotic refraction represents a key advantage in that it provides insights that enable co-evolution by sharpening perception and encouraging novelty. Notice that this example
emerges in a subsidiary and is not associated with centralised planned change. There is a link between the cultivation metaphor and the Zambian example which demonstrates semiotic development.
In summary, the semiotic domain was recognised both in the holding companies and in the subsidiaries. The embedded and embodied dimensions were evident; the enacted condition and mode were recognised but not as evident in the business.