A dignity-vulnerability approach framework to maximize well-being outcomes by transformative service initiatives (TSIs)

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to explore how service organizations can improve the effectiveness of well-being creation efforts given the pressing societal issues and global crises. In this paper, the authors examine two essential dimensions (dignity and vulnerability approach) to develop a theoretical framework. This framework can be used to increase the effectiveness of well-being outcomes created by transformative service initiatives (TSIs) and minimize their negative unintentional consequences.

Design/methodology/approach

Drawing on social marketing and humanistic management literature, this paper develops a framework for TSIs based on whether human dignity is recognized or ignored and whether a deficit-based or strength-based approach to vulnerability is used. This framework explains different types of TSIs and provides real-life examples.

Findings

The framework developed in this paper discusses four different types of TSIs: (1) exclusionary, a deficit-based approach where dignity is ignored; (2) opportunistic, a strength-based approach where dignity is ignored; (3) paternalistic, a deficit-based approach where dignity is recognized; and (4) humanistic, a strength-based approach where dignity is recognized. The paper also identifies five pathways that service organizations could use to implement these approaches, including two traps (utility and charity) and three opportunities (resourcing, humanizing and full awakening) embedded within these pathways.

Practical implications

This paper provides examples of service industries and specific companies to exemplify the framework developed. Also, it discusses the well-being implications and potential well-being outcomes associated with each type of TSI.

Social implications

This paper offers a novel framework based on two dimensions that are relatively new to the service literature, i.e. dignity and vulnerability approach. This paper also highlights the importance of including these two dimensions in future service research.

Originality/value

This paper offers a novel framework based on two relatively new dimensions to the service literature: dignity and strengths-based approach. This paper also highlights the importance of including these two dimensions in future service research.

Citation

Kabadayi, S., Livne-Tarandach, R. and Pirson, M. (2023), "A dignity-vulnerability approach framework to maximize well-being outcomes by transformative service initiatives (TSIs)", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 9, pp. 1151-1166. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-03-2023-0110

Introduction

We live in a world of extraordinary pain and suffering. While conditions today are less vicious and brutal than they have been for much of human history, the reality remains that billions of people face daily struggles for survival and dignity. In such a world, it is imperative that individually as well as through our organizations, we work toward alleviating the suffering and bringing greater joy.

Worline and Dutton, 2017

Multiple factors have contributed to the deepening of human suffering in recent years. For example, the World Food Program indicates that social and military conflicts, the COVID pandemic, the climate crisis and rising costs have collectively created what they term “a hunger catastrophe,” as 811 million people are affected by hunger (WFB, 2022). The recent World Bank data suggests that more than 8% of the world's population lives in extreme poverty. Additionally, in the past decade, the global refugee population has more than doubled to more than 26 million refugees, the highest number on record (UNHCR, 2021). Considering this growing human suffering and vulnerabilities, the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development urgently called for action to eradicate poverty (SDG1), reduce inequities (SDG10) and promote well-being (SDG3).

With these increasing global challenges, the importance of service organizations in addressing human suffering and improving the well-being of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals and communities has been recognized (Cheung and McColl-Kennedy, 2019; Johns and Davey, 2021). Within the service literature, the concept of transformative service initiatives (TSIs) has been introduced to describe the service organizations’ efforts and initiatives to create positive and lasting changes and subsequent well-being outcomes for individuals, communities and societies at large (Boenigk et al., 2021). TSIs can take different forms and focus on diverse impact areas, such as education, health and poverty alleviation. Private, public and nonprofit service organizations can design and offer them to help individuals experiencing vulnerabilities in different roles, either as consumers, users of services or employees of service organizations. While the outcomes created by such TSIs for different groups of people experiencing vulnerabilities like refugees have been discussed in the literature (Eslami et al., 2023), the question of how service organizations can increase the effectiveness of their TSIs to maximize their well-being creation efforts remains unaddressed (Alkire et al., 2020).

Moreover, although TSIs are designed to enhance the well-being of various stakeholders, these initiatives may also create unintentional negative consequences (i.e. unforeseen outcomes of intended efforts to create positive change (Blocker et al., 2022; Leslie, 2019)). Yet, existing service marketing research offers little insight into the factors that can explain how and why the effectiveness of TSIs in terms of their well-being outcomes may vary (Boenigk et al., 2021; Rosenbaum et al., 2022). This is a significant gap that needs to be addressed, as such understanding can offer guidance to service organizations to design better TSIs to create more effective initiatives and maximize their well-being outcomes while minimizing negative unintended consequences (Blocker et al., 2022; Eslami et al., 2023).

Following Alkire et al. (2020) and Blocker et al. (2022) calls for multidisciplinary research to address the complexity inherent in TSI design for well-being outcomes, we weave together insights from social marketing and humanistic management (HM) as generative theoretical lenses that have focused on critical dimensions contributing to well-being creation. First, we turn to transformative service research (TSR) research and emerging insights from social marketing (Raciti et al., 2022; Russell-Bennett et al., 2023) to illuminate vulnerability as a critical organizational dimension that can enhance TSI effectiveness. While prior TSR research has highlighted the importance of consumer vulnerability and link to well-being creation efforts (Basu et al., 2023; Khare and Jain, 2022), TSR tends to treat vulnerability as a unified concept and fails to illuminate the variance in how vulnerability is viewed and conceptualized. This distinction is essential as a new stream of research has recently emphasized that how vulnerabilities are viewed (deficit-based vs. strength-based) is an important factor that contributes to the creation of well-being outcomes (Russell-Bennett et al., 2023; Fisk et al., 2023). A deficit-based approach to vulnerability focuses on the powerlessness of the targeted TSI population, ignoring contextual factors causing the vulnerability and failing to acknowledge or aim to leverage targets' inherent strengths and capabilities (Raciti et al., 2022). As such, deficit-based initiatives tend to assume targets of TSIs are passive, non-agentic entities, which limits TSIs attempts to meet the needs of customers experiencing vulnerability, which can unintentionally harm TSI targets.

In contrast, based on the capability approach (Sen, 1999), social marketing literature and recent TSR literature (see Fisk et al., 2023) propose a different perspective on vulnerability, focusing on the strengths of individuals, communities and/or organizations. This approach promotes well-being by identifying and expanding strengths and capabilities of actors in the service ecosystem to address vulnerabilities (Fisk et al., 2023; Raciti et al., 2022; Russell-Bennett et al., 2020). The research on a strength-based approach to vulnerabilities suggests that how organizations approach vulnerabilities and define individuals experiencing such vulnerabilities directly impacts the effectiveness of their well-being outcomes (Mollard et al., 2020). Therefore, we propose that the type of approach to vulnerabilities (e.g. deficit- or strength-based) should be considered when designing TSIs to increase effectiveness, create well-being and minimize unintended negative consequences.

Second, to unpack the dimensions that can enhance the effectiveness of TSIs, we incorporate insights from HM. HM is “people-oriented” management that reflects a concern for persons and human aspects in managing organizations and studies the relationship between dignity-centered management, well-being and human flourishing (Melé, 2016; Pirson et al., 2016). This approach focuses on dignity, defined as the intrinsic value (Pirson, 2019) or inherent sense of worth (Hicks, 2011; Livne-Tarandach et al., 2021). HM scholars emphasize the importance of recognizing and protecting the dignity of individuals in organizational efforts to promote the well-being of all individuals (Pirson, 2019; Pless et al., 2017). To a large extent, existing TSR studies have ignored the role of individual dignity in creating well-being for those individuals (Kabadayi, 2019). This is a significant omission, as without recognizing and respecting individuals' dignity, well-being creation efforts would not be complete and may lead to unintended consequences (Pirson, 2019).

We suggest that the organizational approach to vulnerabilities (deficit-based vs. strength-based) and dignity (ignoring vs. recognizing) both play important roles in maximizing the effectiveness of TSIs' in creating well-being outcomes while minimizing possible negative unintended consequences of such initiatives. Using these two concepts from emerging literature streams, we propose a novel dignity-vulnerability approach framework for service organizations to use in designing and delivering their TSIs. Based on this framework, we offer four different types of TSIs with varying levels of effectiveness in well-being creation and unintended consequences. We assert that by either recognizing, instead of ignoring, dignity or adopting a strength-based, instead of a deficit-based, approach to vulnerabilities, TSIs would still fall short in creating optimal well-being outcomes for individuals experiencing vulnerabilities and introduce unintended negative consequences. We propose that for service organizations to maximize the effectiveness of their TSIs and thus create optimal well-being outcomes and minimize their potential negative impact, they need to adopt a strength-based approach to vulnerability and dignity recognition in their TSIs. Moreover, we suggest that service organizations may change the type of TSIs they offer and thus increase the effectiveness of their well-being creation efforts.

This paper aims to contribute in several ways to the overall TSR literature and newly emerging literature on TSIs. First, given service organizations' increasing efforts to create well-being to address and alleviate vulnerabilities through various TSIs, we provide a better understanding of the nexus between an organizational approach to vulnerability and dignity and the effectiveness of those initiatives to maximize such well-being outcomes. Second, while the growing TSR literature highlights the role of service organizations in creating well-being outcomes for multiple stakeholders (Fisk et al., 2020), most studies do not explicitly offer any specific organizing guidelines for how those well-being outcomes can be created, nor do they address the role of dignity or the approach to vulnerabilities in such initiatives. We offer guidance in designing TSIs by service organizations to maximize well-being outcomes for individuals experiencing vulnerabilities.

Additionally, we respond to a recent call to study the unintended consequences of TSIs to minimize, if not avoid, the negative consequences of such initiatives (Blocker et al., 2022). Furthermore, this paper introduces these two important concepts that should be considered in designing TSIs to reduce suffering and improve well-being and be included in future TSR studies. Finally, as not all TSIs have the same characteristics, their effectiveness in creating well-being outcomes could vary (Boenigk et al., 2021). Even though it has been recognized that different types of TSI could lead to different outcomes, only public vs. private vs. nonprofit distinction has been identified (Eslami et al., 2023), while other possible classifications and types of TSI have yet to be addressed. This paper identifies different types of TSIs based on the proposed framework and compares their effectiveness in creating well-being outcomes. Given the increasing vulnerabilities individuals and communities face worldwide, such understanding would help service organizations provide much-needed assistance and relief to ease their suffering.

This paper starts with a brief discussion of different approaches to vulnerability and dignity. Then, we present a two-dimensional framework and identify different types of TSIs based on the framework. Next, we discuss five pathways that service organizations could use to move their TSIs to different types to improve their effectiveness, including two traps (utility and charity) and three opportunities (resourcing, humanizing and full awakening) embedded within these pathways. The paper concludes with a discussion of the proposed framework's theoretical and managerial implications and a presentation of a research agenda.

Transformative service initiatives (TSIs)

As part of the fast-growing TSR literature, the role of TSIs has been studied in improving the overall well-being of individuals experiencing vulnerabilities. TSIs are the activities of public, private or nonprofit organizations aiming to support people suffering for various reasons and improve their well-being by providing access to essential services such as education, employment and public services (Boenigk et al., 2021). The emerging literature discusses different TSIs ranging from governmental initiatives and agencies offering various support systems or relief programs (Kabadayi, 2019) provided by public, private or nonprofit organizations like higher education institutions or healthcare organizations (Boenigk et al., 2021) that, by their nature, provide transformative services anyway (Alkire et al., 2020).

While the early work on TSIs focused on such initiatives offered by governmental agencies or nonprofit organizations, more recent work also recognizes the market-based TSIs offered through for-profit service organizations like retailers that do not traditionally provide TSIs (Eslami et al., 2023). Such market-based TSIs could provide additional resources and scaling opportunities to help individuals and communities experiencing vulnerabilities and increase their well-being. In addition to the positive impact of TSIs on specific groups such as refugees that has already been evidenced in the literature (Boenigk et al., 2021), the impact of market-based TSIs can be broader than just benefiting one such specific group (Leino et al., 2021). Eslami et al. (2023) provide empirical support that TSIs could also offer mutual benefits to the other stakeholders in a service ecosystem.

While TSIs are being studied in different service contexts, the question of how service organizations can increase the effectiveness of their initiatives to maximize their well-being creation efforts and thus help individuals experiencing vulnerabilities still needs to be explored (Alkire et al., 2020). Similarly, even though there is a possibility that such initiatives may stimulate unintended consequences for both the target groups that they are designed to help and other stakeholders (Anderson et al., 2013), what service organizations can do to minimize such a possibility is rarely addressed in the existing literature. Addressing this omission is vital, as TSIs may be even more susceptible to creating unintended consequences than other traditional service initiatives due to their relative novelty and complexity (Blocker et al., 2022). The fact that similar initiatives like those that aim to increase diversity led to some unintended consequences, both negative and positive, has been discussed in recent literature (Leslie, 2019). In their recent editorial for a special issue, Blocker et al. (2022) discussed similar unintended consequences that may undermine the effectiveness of TSIs in creating their intended well-being outcomes and called for more research to help service organizations mitigate such negative consequences and thus avoid harm while trying to help those in need. In this paper, we argue that organizational approach to vulnerabilities (deficit-based vs. strength-based) and dignity (ignoring vs. recognizing) are essential and relevant factors that guide service organizations to create well-being outcomes.

Different conceptualizations of vulnerability

The word “vulnerability” comes from the Latin “vulnus,” which means “wound,” and, in a broad sense, describes the inherent frailty of the human condition (Andorno, 2016). Although there is no agreement on what vulnerability means, it is a “common sense” moral imperative to protect individuals facing or enduring vulnerabilities (Goodin, 1985, p. 109). Vulnerability affects all people at some point in their life (Raciti et al., 2022). For some, an experience is temporary, such as divorce; for others, the experience is permanent, such as physical disability (Baker et al., 2005). Some conceptualizations of vulnerability focus on characteristics or limitations within the individual (e.g. race or physical capabilities) (Virokannas et al., 2020); others focus on external conditions like social interactions (e.g. stereotypes or prejudices) or some interaction between those internal and external factors (Kirby, 2006; Vikstrom, 2006). Earlier conceptualizations of vulnerability were based on demographic characteristics, suggesting that vulnerability is a status and that all people within particular social categories (e.g. women, African Americans, older adults) are vulnerable (Lee et al., 1999). Although demographic conceptualization helps identify social groups that might be likely to have vulnerabilities, the premise behind equating vulnerability to demographic groups has been criticized for being fundamentally flawed (Cardona, 2004; Baker, 2009). It has been argued that focusing on only demographic factors in vulnerability analysis reduces people to a “homogenized, culturally undifferentiated mass of humanity variously associated with powerlessness, passivity, ignorance, hunger, illiteracy, neediness, oppression, and inertia” (Bankoff, 2001, p. 23). An alternative conceptualization of vulnerability suggests that people or social groups are not inherently vulnerable but are placed in situations that make them vulnerable (Pulla, 2017; Raciti et al., 2022). Scholars with this view treat vulnerability as a multidimensional and dynamic concept and not a static state (Baker et al., 2007). From this view, vulnerability depends on a specific context or situation, the person's characteristics and the situation's characteristics. Vulnerability is regarded not as a property of groups but as an outcome of interactions between individual factors and economic, social and environmental conditions (Wisner, 2004). The situational conceptualization also recognizes that vulnerability can be a temporary state (Baker, 2009). In other words, scholars with this perspective view vulnerability not as fixed and objective but as fluid and socially constructed (Cardona, 2004).

In many definitions and studies of vulnerability, lack of access to resources, control over one's life and lack of ability to function are usually considered reasons for individuals' lack of power, dependence on others and subsequent vulnerability (Hill and Sharma, 2020). This focus on the powerlessness of individuals and their lack of resources and control is a deficit-based approach to studying vulnerabilities (Fogarty et al., 2018; Russell-Bennett et al., 2023). An alternative view is a strength-based approach that highlights resilience and agency (Maton et al., 2004; Mollard et al., 2020).

Deficit-based approach to vulnerabilities

The deficit-based approach positions vulnerability as powerlessness or a lack of control/resources and describes individuals or groups in terms of their deficiencies (Fogarty et al., 2018). Widely adopted in disciplines like education, medicine and social services, a deficit-based approach is grounded in the idea that individuals are responsible for challenges and vulnerabilities, as their own defects or deficits are the sources of their vulnerabilities (Patton Davis and Museus, 2019) and pathologize the vulnerability. This view holds that not having the resources or traits of normative societal standards or not fitting into the societal norms creates deficits for those individuals and groups, and those deficits from the well-established standards and norms put people in vulnerable positions (Aikman et al., 2016).

In other words, this approach (unintentionally) adopts a “blame the victim” perspective that attributes vulnerabilities to individuals’ own family or community traits as those individuals have “less than needed” and thus deficits due to those traits (Patton Davis and Museus, 2019). This deficit-based view perpetuates the idea that individuals and communities experiencing vulnerability need to be fixed as they cannot help themselves (Ford, 2014; Raciti et al., 2022). Focusing too much on individuals and narrowly situating responsibility with the individuals or communities, this deficit-based view often ignores systemic influences and how institutions and inequitable systems create disparities and subsequent vulnerabilities (Carales and Lopez, 2020). In some cases, this approach even suggests and reinforces that dominant societal structures provide short-term fixes and primary solutions to existing disparities and vulnerabilities rather than focusing on dismantling the same systems and structures contributing to those vulnerabilities (Vass, 2012). Deficit thinking prevents policymakers and other decisionmakers from focusing on the root causes of vulnerabilities and offering sustainable solutions.

Theoretical support for this deficit-based approach comes from self-determination theory that suggests individuals with low levels of autonomy (i.e. access to and control over resources) and competence (i.e. capability and skills) feel powerless and are more susceptible to harm and thus experience lower levels of well-being (Engström and Elg, 2015). Having no or little access to resources is a primary source of an individual's vulnerability, and such vulnerability deepens when control is “not in that individual's hands.” Thus, they rely on the support of others (Baker et al., 2015).

However, scholars in various academic fields have criticized this deficit-based approach to vulnerabilities, including recent concerns raised in the marketing field (Raciti et al., 2022). Labeling people as vulnerable can make them more vulnerable as they are often excluded in the resource distribution process (Hilhorst and Bankoff, 2004). This deficit-based approach to vulnerability fails to recognize the strengths or innate resources actors in the service ecosystem may have and the ways they can be active agents as they endure vulnerabilities caused by dire environmental circumstances (Fisk et al., 2023; Raciti et al., 2022). To sum up, such a deficit-based view restricts the likelihood of successful interventions and solutions for those same vulnerabilities (Fisk et al., 2023; Raciti et al., 2022; Russell-Bennett et al., 2023).

Strength-based approach to vulnerability

In contrast to the deficit-based approach, a strength-based approach perceives individuals and other actors as resourceful in the face of adversity and inherently agentic and resilient because of their own strengths and capabilities (Pulla and Francis, 2014; Warburton and Bredin, 2017). This approach assumes that all people can leverage their strengths to change, grow and solve their problems using their skills and expertise (Fisk et al., 2023; Pulla, 2017). In the face of adversity or vulnerability, people typically do not lose their ability to develop ideas and rebuild their capacities. They can develop strategies that eventually serve them well (Pulla, 2014). In other words, every individual can cope and become resilient, and all human beings have an innate capacity for well-being and self-righting, which is life force that can heal and transform (Saleebey, 2009).

The strength-based approach, in simple terms, promotes agency and resilience as opposed to deficits (Pulla, 2006). Rather than frame the person as the problem, the individual is viewed as affected by or robbed of opportunities by the problem. Focusing on strengths does not ignore challenges or spin struggles into strengths (Pattoni, 2012). A strength-based view values capacity, skills, knowledge, connections and potential (Saleebey, 2009). Thus, we adopt the strength-based approach to consumer/customer vulnerability of:

Experiences of vulnerability are subjective perceptions of susceptibility, which are part of the human condition that may come to pass with the passage of time, prompt introspection and give rise to greater strength and resilience (Raciti et al., 2022, p. 1151).

When used to study vulnerability, the intention of identifying strengths is not to minimize problems that stem from disadvantages faced by individuals but rather to focus on the capabilities, resources and opportunities of an individual and other actors (Mollard et al., 2020). Thus, this view identifies positive adaptation or growth and offers innovative discoveries for new interventions that may be more individualized and contextually appropriate (Mollard et al., 2020). Those who embrace a strength-based view believe that individuals and their families have the strength, resources and ability to recover from adversity. Such an approach addressed barriers that prevent individuals from achieving their goals and improving well-being by leveraging social and cultural capital (Raciti et al., 2022). Therefore, while a deficit-based view often leads to “simplistic and narrow solutions that rarely address the real issues in the long term” (Hammond and Zimmerman, 2018, p. 3), adopting such a strength-based view leads to empowering solutions that provide opportunities and hope for individuals experiencing vulnerabilities (Pulla and Francis, 2014). To sum up, a strength-based approach separates the problem from the person experiencing vulnerability and allows that person to contribute to the solution; thus, it can offer more effective solutions to vulnerabilities in many cases (Fisk et al., 2023; Russell-Bennett et al., 2023).

Many service scholars have recently adopted this strength-based view of vulnerabilities in their studies. This journal has been the pioneer in promoting and supporting this view in the service literature. In a recent special issue about vulnerabilities, authors of different papers (Azzari et al., 2021; Celik and Yakut, 2021; Leino et al., 2021) all adopted strength-based rather than deficit-based view of consumers in studying various topics related to vulnerabilities.

Human dignity

Scholars frame dignity as an inherent sense of worth or value important for all organizing efforts, from parenting to leading organizations. Hicks (2011) defines dignity as “an internal state of peace that comes with the recognition and acceptance of the value and vulnerability of all living things” (p. 1). Dignity encompasses the notion that every human being is worthy of esteem, honor and respect because of the transcendent value that resides within their essence (Melé, 2015), and it is inherent and unconditional, and all people are entitled to it even when vulnerabilities are present (Gibson et al., 2023; Lucas, 2017; Pirson et al., 2016). Hicks (2018) argues that dignity is the highest common denominator for all human beings and all life. It is deeply intertwined with their sense of self-worth, respect and fulfilling their fundamental rights, so recognizing and upholding human dignity is crucial for individuals' well-being (Hojman and Miranda, 2018). Therefore, including dignity in creating well-being is crucial because dignity is a fundamental aspect of human experience and significantly shapes individuals' overall quality of life (Wein et al., 2023).

Dignity recognized

When recognized and honored, dignity is a source of well-being and, when neglected, can be a source of suffering (Hicks, 2018). Several thought traditions and disciplines, including HM, argue that dignity is the foundation of a workable relationship with oneself, others and the common good (Gibson et al., 2023; Pirson, 2017). On a broader scale, recognizing dignity may have far-reaching societal outcomes like well-being and welfare. For example, business ethics scholars suggest that the protection and promotion of dignity requires businesses to shift their primary focus “away from profit generation toward human welfare and social justice” (Poruthiyil, 2013, p. 736). Using HM theory and practice could lead to more robust well-being and social welfare creation if more emphasis is placed on human dignity (Pirson, 2019).

A person's dignity can be recognized and affirmed by using respectful, polite greetings, forms of address and communication, and by showing civility, kindness and generosity (Lucas, 2017). Recognizing someone's dignity requires us to treat people as human beings rather than objects in interpersonal relations, organizational settings and overall society (Melé, 2016). With the recognition of dignity, individuals feel a higher level of wellness, vitality, joy and happiness (Sisodia and Gelb, 2019). Additionally, when people recognize each other's dignity, they feel their own worth is recognized, leading to more lasting and meaningful interpersonal relationships (Hicks, 2018).

Dignity ignored

Individuals' dignity can also be diminished when people do not feel seen, heard or valued as human beings. “Dignity ignored” refers to a situation where an individual’s inherent dignity is not recognized, respected or upheld. It occurs when individuals or groups are treated in a way that disregards their worth and fundamental rights as human beings (Hojman and Miranda, 2018). In such cases, individuals may feel like tools at the disposal of others, mere human resources or capital. Instead of having inherent value, a person is treated as an object to be used and discarded or a resource to achieve efficiency and effectiveness (Pirson, 2019). When dignity is ignored, interpersonal relationships become dehumanized, and self-esteem and well-being are undermined (Pless et al., 2017). Furthermore, when their dignity is ignored, individuals also feel rejected by others and lose their sense of belonging to their communities (Wein et al., 2023). When dignity is ignored, the damage to individuals' well-being continues until dignity is restored (Hicks, 2011).

The dignity-vulnerability approach framework

In this paper, we bring together two dimensions, approach to vulnerability (deficit-based vs. strength-based) and dignity (recognized vs. ignored), to describe a framework that captures how organizations can design TSIs to respond to individuals experiencing vulnerabilities. The proposed framework offers different types of TSIs regarding their approach to vulnerability and human dignity: exclusionary, opportunistic, paternalistic and humanistic. The characteristics of these types are summarized in Table 1.

Type 1: Exclusionary transformative service initiatives

Exclusionary TSIs have two main characteristics: they ignore the dignity of individuals experiencing vulnerabilities and represent a deficit-based view of such individuals. First, this type of initiative ignores an individual’s inherent, intrinsic value and worth as a human being and the vulnerabilities they may be facing. This indifference to dignity implies that this approach disregards the well-being of individuals with vulnerabilities (Pirson, 2019). Second, in this TSI type, the perception of vulnerabilities is shaped by a deficit discourse (Mollard et al., 2020). It focuses on those individuals' perceived deficiencies in skills, power and control over life events. As a result, service organizations that offer this type of initiative usually blame individuals for their vulnerabilities and assume those vulnerabilities will remain unchanged (Carales and Lopez, 2020).

Exclusionary service initiatives perceive those individuals experiencing vulnerabilities as a burden on society, as beneficiaries or free riders of public goods and services that contribute little or nothing to creating goods and services. As a result, those initiatives either reinforce the marginalization of those individuals or try to isolate them from the rest of the communities while offering limited access to services they design and deliver by ignoring them in creating and delivering their services. This type of service initiative is aligned with the immoral entrenchment theory (Welbourne Eleazar, 2021), which suggests that when firms experience threat-rigidity response to a crisis, they are likely to lock into moral disengagement. This leads firms to offer some very disengaged initiatives, doing what they think is appropriate to ease the burden on society rather than helping those individuals. For example, some public housing services can be an example of such initiatives. Unhoused people are examples of a population experiencing vulnerabilities. Historically, they were marginalized, stigmatized and subsequently excluded from housing opportunities because of their inability to provide a permanent source of income. As a result, various central and local governments offered public service initiatives in the form of public housing for those individuals experiencing various vulnerabilities created by a lack of permanent housing. However, in many examples around the world, such public housing initiatives are designed and delivered to those individuals who need them without any input from them or much consideration for their individual needs and lack basic infrastructure and facilities that would enable those individuals to have dignified lives. Moreover, such initiatives fail to offer paths that can empower and enable vulnerable populations to break out of the conditions that placed them in vulnerable conditions. Thus, they lead to boomerang effects (i.e. intended service outcomes display undesirable effects on the intended outcomes', Blocker et al., 2022: p. 5) as they unintentionally negatively impact this population in the long term (Blocker et al., 2022).

As such initiatives ignore human dignity and have a deficit-based approach to vulnerabilities, the well-being outcomes created for those individuals with vulnerabilities are limited. Therefore, because of these two characteristics, while TSIs of this type are designed to create well-being outcomes, they are far from being transformative in nature.

Type 2: Opportunistic transformative service initiatives

Opportunistic TSIs also ignore the dignity of individuals and fail to recognize their intrinsic value as human beings. However, this type of initiative adopts a strength-based view by recognizing the skills and capabilities of individuals experiencing vulnerabilities (Raciti et al., 2022). They consider individuals' vulnerabilities contextual and acknowledge that despite their vulnerabilities, they could still provide value in different contexts and situations (Pulla, 2017). However, they ignore dignity and treat individuals as mere resources or commodities rather than human beings (Islam, 2012). These initiatives may value the physical capabilities of individuals and recognize that, with some training, they can learn new skills and become valuable commodities and resources for those organizations. As a result, such initiatives exploit individuals experiencing vulnerabilities for their own benefit to achieve their organizational goals. This is a common practice in many sectors of the informal service economy. For example, some hospitality organizations offer employment-based initiatives and programs to undocumented immigrants who experience various vulnerabilities by providing them with employment opportunities because of their physical abilities. However, in many cases, such individuals are often treated as disposable commodities and exploited because of the vulnerabilities created by their legal status.

Opportunistic TSIs can still create limited well-being benefits for individuals experiencing vulnerabilities. On the one hand, such individuals may feel a sense of accomplishment as they meet work-related goals or work with others, which may lead to feeling energized due to doing something instead of staying idle. On the other hand, such initiatives also provide financial benefits to their organizations, as they may pay those individuals less-than-market-average wages. Therefore, while some well-being outcomes are created for both parties, well-being creation is imbalanced as service organizations benefit from this type of initiative by creating wealth for themselves. To sum up, this type of TSI is far from achieving its intended outcomes or maximizing the well-being of the intended populations experiencing vulnerabilities. Furthermore, such TSIs can create unintended consequences in the form of a negative spillover effect (i.e. “intended outcomes contributed to indirect, unrelated and negative effects typically for non-targeted consumers,” Blocker et al., 2022, p. 5), as they can create unfavorable perceptions among the mindful consumers about the authenticity of both the TSIs and the service organizations enacting them. In short, while such opportunistic TSIs have limited well-being outcomes, they can even damage the organizations themselves through negative images and perceptions about them.

Type 3: Paternalistic transformative service initiatives

One distinguishing characteristic of the paternalistic type of TSI is that it recognizes human dignity. Regardless of identity, employment or financial status, the paternalistic TSIs acknowledge that all human beings have intrinsic value (Pirson, 2019). This recognition of dignity, especially in the presence of vulnerabilities, implies a moral imperative for those organizations to help and support individuals experiencing vulnerabilities (Pirson et al., 2016). However, this TSI type also reflects a deficit-based approach to individuals experiencing vulnerabilities by focusing on weaknesses or traits that make them vulnerable. It regards people with a specific socioeconomic status – minorities, low-income groups or individuals with different deficiencies or disabilities – as victims needing help and saving by focusing on what they lack or cannot do (Davis, and Museus, 2019). Thus, direct assistance created by TSIs reflects a paternalistic relationship with individuals. This TSI type illustrates, for example, TSIs designed with an approach of domination over (D’Souza and Marti, 2022) or power over (vs. power with) individuals experiencing vulnerabilities (Miller and Stiver, 1988). It reinforces the dependence of those individuals on others and the power imbalance between those individuals and those coming to their aid when organizations care for (rather than care with) others (Tronto, 2013; Johansson and Wickstrom, 2022). Examples of this type often involve TSIs designed around poverty alleviation programs offering financial assistance, donations of supplies and other types of aid to satisfy those individuals' basic and urgent needs. For example, in collaboration with international aid organizations and NGOs, some healthcare or education organizations provide TSIs through free services to refugee camp residents worldwide. Although these TSIs recognize the dignity and existing vulnerabilities of those individuals, they adopt a deficit-based view approach to vulnerabilities and assume those individuals cannot overcome their vulnerabilities; hence, they provide short-term relief to ease suffering and temporarily improve well-being.

This type of TSI may create well-being outcomes for individuals and communities experiencing vulnerabilities, but those outcomes may be limited and far from their full potential. For example, individuals may feel secure and emotionally stable as their immediate needs are met, but such well-being efforts require ongoing support from the TSIs. Therefore, since such assistance and related efforts may not be sustainable, TSIs of this type may not be able to provide long-term, scalable solutions to the vulnerabilities experienced by different populations. We propose that what is missing from this type of TSI is the recognition of those individuals' strengths and capabilities and the proactive role they can play in solving systemic issues that impede them from accessing resources and resource integration to create sustained well-being. Additionally, such TSIs may unintentionally undermine the outcomes they seek to promote, thus creating a boomerang effect (Blocker et al., 2022). Rather than alleviating suffering, they deepen the dependency of those individuals experiencing vulnerabilities and demand more resources that may not be sustainable.

Type 4: Humanistic transformative service initiatives

Finally, the humanistic TSIs recognize the dignity of the individuals and demonstrate a strength-based approach to their vulnerabilities. This TSI type reflects the belief that all individuals have intrinsic value and acknowledges the competencies, resilience and agency of individuals experiencing vulnerabilities (Pulla, 2017). TSIs of this type do not define those individuals by what they are missing or do not have. Instead, such TSIs view individuals experiencing vulnerability as capable and resourceful in the face of hardship and adversity (Raciti et al., 2022). TSIs of this type highlight and nurture the strengths of individuals even though they experience vulnerabilities and have confidence in their ability to learn, grow and contribute to themselves and others. Therefore, when TSIs adopt these characteristics, they demonstrate an inclusive approach toward individuals with vulnerabilities, engage with them in meaningful activities and relationships and empower them to thrive and reach their full potential.

Moreover, they also involve those same individuals they try to support in designing those initiatives so they can create better targeted and design offerings for them. In other words, they treat them as partners in developing and delivering solutions for their own vulnerabilities. These TSIs collaborate with those individuals as they share power with, rather than power over (Miller and Stiver, 1988), and care with, rather than care for (Johansson and Wickstrom, 2022) such individuals. For example, some service organizations offer youth mentoring initiatives and programs that pair volunteers with young individuals experiencing different vulnerabilities who can benefit from positive role models. Mentors in such programs do not only recognize the dignity of the participants in their programs but also emphasize their strengths and skills, helping them build self-esteem and resilience and thus achieve their goals in life.

Similarly, by recognizing dignity and believing in their strengths, organizations like Greyston Bakery and The Migrant Kitchen offer various employment-related TSIs where they partner with individuals experiencing vulnerabilities by providing employment opportunities, thus empowering those individuals through professional growth and development opportunities so they can escape from the vicious circle of poverty. Greyston Bakery, for example, uses the “open hiring” practice, a well-designed TSI – a novel hiring process that is designed to lower the barrier to employment and “unlock human potential through inclusive employment.” (greyston.org). With this practice, Greyston refrains from using interviews, background checks, resumes or recommendation letters and offers employment to motivated individuals, many of whom have been previously incarcerated. Using this inclusive hiring practice, Greyston has created jobs for more than 2,000 individuals who otherwise may not have been given such an opportunity (www.greyston.org/employers), creating long-lasting well-being outcomes for those individuals. Similarly, The Migrant Kitchen, a New York City-based restaurant and catering company, focuses on “providing meaningful opportunities for immigrants to showcase the cuisines and cultures of their home countries while earning more than just minimum wages.” (www.themigrantkitchennyc.com/). With its “eat well, do good” motto, the company not only employs individuals who would not easily find jobs because of the vulnerabilities created by their immigrant background but also supports local communities with their food programs and cultural events. This would be a great example of a positive unintended consequence or positive spillover effect (i.e. “the intended service outcomes demonstrate spillover into unrelated positive effects, typically for non-targeted consumers”), as such TSIs create additional unintended desirable outcomes for other stakeholders (Blocker et al., 2022 p. 5; Leslie, 2019).

We assert that humanistic TSIs that treat individuals experiencing vulnerability as partners have the potential to increase well-being and would be more sustainable, synergetic and mutually beneficial for individuals and organizations that offer such TSIs. For example, by recognizing refugees as dignified individuals and acknowledging their diplomas, experiences and backgrounds, many healthcare organizations hired Syrian doctors and nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic. They not only created job opportunities for those refugees and helped with their economic and social integration in their new host countries but also provided relief and solutions for the healthcare crisis created by the pandemic. TSIs of this type of approach not only create well-being outcomes for individuals in different ways but also maximize the effectiveness of their efforts. For example, humanistic TSIs allow individuals experiencing vulnerability to find meaning in the efforts that support their well-being and feel more positive and valuable about themselves, thus improving their self-esteem. Such TSIs can also lead to additional positive outcomes for communities and the larger society. For example, as shown in many cases during the pandemic, healthcare organizations could provide much-needed emergency services to refugees and local communities by employing refugee doctors and nurses through various TSIs that they designed and delivered. Therefore, such humanistic TSIs create a broader spectrum of well-being for individuals, organizations and communities. This paper normatively suggests that this type of TSI presents the ideal opportunity for service organizations to create mutual well-being for multiple stakeholders and individuals with vulnerabilities.

Alternative organizational pathways: Traps and opportunities

We propose that service organizations can move their TSIs between these four types (1–4) to advance and adopt more active and conscious roles in addressing vulnerabilities and creating well-being outcomes. We offer five possible organizational pathways organizations can use to move from Type 1 to Type 4. However, two of these pathways (A and B, see Figure 1) involve a limited change in either dignity recognition (from ignored to recognized) or in the approach to vulnerability (from deficit-based to strength-based), rather than a change in both. Thus, they have potential traps as they fall short of creating broad well-being outcomes for the populations experiencing vulnerability. Therefore, while organizations are headed in the right direction with their TSIs, those pathways need to be followed by Pathways C or D, or they need to take Pathway E to move to Type 4, which is humanistic and inclusive and creates optimal well-being outcomes. While we see examples of organizations along Pathways A and B, this paper illuminates other possible pathways to enhance efforts at well-being creation for individuals experiencing vulnerability. The five possible pathways between different types in the proposed typology are summarized in Figure 1.

Pathway A: utility trap

This pathway moves TSIs from an exclusionary to an opportunistic type by adopting a strength-based (rather than deficit-based) approach to vulnerability. With this move, TSIs, as offered by service organizations, acknowledge the skills, competencies and capabilities of individuals experiencing vulnerabilities. However, because inherent human value is still ignored, those individuals may be used as tools that create wealth for those organizations, as the focus is still centered on organizational profit instead of balanced well-being creation for both individuals and organizations. For example, hospitality organizations like restaurants employ immigrants without work authorization through various initiatives to address labor shortage problems in “3D” (dirty, dangerous and demeaning) jobs. For organizations offering such initiatives, employees' legal or low socioeconomic status is leveraged as tools for organizational profit, given their low wages with little-to-no benefits. Therefore, moving in this pathway creates a Utility Trap, as service organizations use those individuals' work-related skills in a utilitarian way but do not treat them as valuable humans for their organizations. They are easily disposable and replaceable by those organizations; thus, it is far from the ideal destination for individuals experiencing vulnerabilities.

Pathway B: charity trap

The move along this pathway from exclusionary to paternalistic type of TSIs involves another one-dimensional organizational change from ignoring dignity to recognizing the dignity of the individual experiencing vulnerabilities. Instead of excluding and marginalizing individuals, service organizations recognize in their TSIs that each person has intrinsic value as a human. However, this organizational change creates the Charity Trap for the organization, as they still view those individuals as deficient, powerless and needing saving; their efforts are focused on providing some relief through aid or assistance. Recognizing dignity is a crucial step in the right direction, but a deficit-based view means that organizations treat those individuals as victims who need ongoing help and support. For example, after ignoring various populations in dire need of survival, some organizations began providing humanitarian aid for those people. While some service organizations with their charity functions aim to reduce the suffering of individuals across the board, their efforts, as explained above, create temporary well-being outcomes and may not be sustainable.

Pathway C: opportunity for resourcing

With this pathway, service organizations move their TSIs from a paternalistic to a humanistic type by adopting a strength-based view of their vulnerabilities. We propose that moving from perceiving individuals as victims to perceiving them as partners with skills and capabilities in their operations would create resourcing opportunities for those organizations. In contrast to viewing assets as stable resources, scholars suggest that resourcing is a dynamic, ampliative process that is unlocked when a schema is activated and enables the recognition of the potential embedded in individuals and translated into reframing resources in use (Feldman and Worline, 2012; Livne-Tarandach and Jazaieri, 2020). We argue that moving from a paternalistic to a humanistic type involves acknowledging the skills, competencies and experiences of individuals with vulnerabilities, leading to well-being outcomes for various stakeholders. For example, schools and hospitals hire more refugees with previous training or experience in teaching or medicine (West, 2021). With assistance from initiatives such as Teachers for Teachers or Borderless Higher Education for Refugees programs that provide additional training for refugees and immigrants (Strecker, 2018), such service organizations use the idle resources of those refugees' skills that would otherwise remain unused. In these cases, such a move ends refugees' dependence on charity and assistance from others. It creates job opportunities and social networks needed for full integration into their new host countries. Additionally, such a move creates well-being by offering new resources to the community and freeing up organizational resources that can be used in other areas where assistance is needed, resulting in a win-win situation for all involved.

Pathway D: opportunity for humanizing

This pathway involves service companies moving their TSIs from opportunistic to humanistic type. With this move, organizations unlock the opportunity to humanize their organizational culture and environment by treating everyone with dignity. One example of this pathway is the Barry-Wehmiller (BW) organization, a company with a wide range of businesses, from packaging equipment and solutions to engineering and IT consulting and leadership and culture training, under the leadership of CEO Bob Chapman. As explained in detail in the book, “Everybody Matters,” (Chapman and Sisodia, 2015), the BW organization adopted a humanistic type for their employees and overall company culture where everyone's dignity is recognized; thus, everyone matters. With this type, not only are the skills and competencies of all employees coming from lower socioeconomic status (i.e. generally perceived as individuals experiencing vulnerabilities) recognized, but also those same employees are valued for who they are. As a result, a more humanistic and inclusive culture is created where all employees are offered opportunities to acquire leadership positions at different levels within the organization (Chapman and Sisodia, 2015). The most striking part of BW's humanizing move is that, as it created a higher-than-average financial performance for the company and fulfilling and meaningful professional and personal lives for its employees, it also built strong bonds between the company, its employees and local communities (Chapman and Sisodia, 2015).

Pathway E: opportunity for full awakening

The final pathway requires the most drastic move as it involves both recognition of dignity and a change in approach to vulnerabilities from deficit-based to strength-based. This move from exclusionary to humanistic type for their TSIs is neither easy nor common for service organizations. One example of this pathway comes from the financial services industry. Many financial institutions previously ignored or excluded populations with vulnerabilities from financial products like financing and credit lines. In recent years, microfinancing has shifted some financial service organizations and banks from exclusionary to humanistic type by offering start-up loans without collateral as a poverty alleviation solution for highly vulnerable populations that were excluded from typical financial markets (Figueroa-Armijos and Berns, 2022; Yunus, 2007). For example, Akhuwat is the world's largest interest-free microfinance organization operating to create a poverty-free society. Akhuwat, a nonprofit founded in 2001, has a network of 850 branches in approximately 400 cities in Pakistan and has disbursed over $700m to 3 million families in need. Akhuwat currently has over 1 million active borrowers, many of whom are disadvantaged women who can help lift their families out of poverty but have been systematically marginalized and struggled with support for their small businesses. Such programs recognize them as worthy individuals who qualify to receive financing and their creative potential to build successful companies (given the resources needed to grow a small business) and pay off their loans. It is essential to recognize that this pathway may be challenging for many service organizations as changes in dignity recognition and approaches to vulnerabilities may face internal resistance in organizations. However, with the increasing pressure to support and provide solutions to increase well-being outcomes, it would not be unrealistic to think that many service organizations will take this pathway in designing their TSIs.

Future research agenda

Given the complicated nature, importance and urgency of well-being creation for individuals experiencing vulnerabilities, this paper presents two separate future research agendas with specific themes and questions: one about the proposed framework and different types of TSIs and one about the pathways identified for service organizations to follow to move their TSIs from one type to another.

Research questions for approach to vulnerability and dignity

Given the role of service organizations and TSIs in creating well-being outcomes, the framework proposed in this paper illuminates several themes and questions related to TSIs specifically and to the TSR field in general. First, the differences between well-being outcomes created for various stakeholders by different types of TSIs would need to be empirically investigated to provide insights for service organizations to design their TSIs accordingly. For example, while the framework developed in this paper proposes that the humanistic type of TSIs is the most effective in creating intended well-being outcomes, this proposition needs to be empirically tested. Ideally, including TSIs designed for individuals with different vulnerabilities, i.e. physical, financial or social, in different service contexts, i.e. healthcare, education, housing, etc., would provide not only validity to the framework developed in this paper but would also provide generalizability to its importance and application.

Similarly, while the framework describes TSIs in terms of two important dimensions and compares their outcomes regarding well-being creation for individuals and communities, a fruitful avenue for future research lies in exploring the conditions that enable service organizations to design and offer such TSIs. For example, what specific organizational structures, practices and roles would allow service organizations to maximize the effectiveness of their TSI in creating intended well-being outcomes while minimizing negative unintended consequences? Along these lines, especially for the humanistic type of TSIs, studying their existing employees' skill sets and competencies and identifying how they can support humanistic TSIs could provide insights to managers regarding using such skills to create well-being. Further research may also study the development of TSIs that could be effectively designed and delivered by public or private service organizations to increase their effectiveness in creating well-being outcomes.

This framework does not distinguish between the individuals experiencing vulnerabilities regarding their roles in service organizations. In other words, it does not address the possible interplay between TSI types that target different stakeholders, like customers or employees, separately. In practice, the same organization may adopt a deficit-based approach to its customers and a strength-based approach to its employees and thus offer different types of TSIs with varying outcomes for each target group. Exploring if and how service organizations use multiple types of TSI for various stakeholders can uncover the possible tradeoffs in well-being creations. Importantly, enacting different TSI types can also have unintended organizational consequences, especially regarding stakeholders' perceived authenticity (Steckler, 2012; Yue, 2021). Future studies may examine the possible implications of service organizations simultaneously adopting different types of TSIs when they offer them to different groups of individuals and the impact of such an approach on the effectiveness of their well-being outcomes. Finally, service organizations' standing regarding dignity and approach to vulnerabilities may not be visible or easily observable in their day-to-day operations. Therefore, studying various mechanisms and tools that organizations can adopt to audit their enacted standing in terms of those two concepts could provide them with a better understanding of where they are and what can be done to improve the effectiveness of their TSIs.

Research questions about the organizational pathways

Regarding the organizational pathways service organizations may take to move their TSIs from one type to another, this paper offers some relevant and valuable research questions. First, identifying the internal and external barriers to such moves between TSIs could provide valuable insights to service organizations to maximize the effectiveness of their well-being creation initiatives. At the macro level, what national laws, regulations and policies can be relevant for such organizational pathways? For example, if companies want to adopt a more strength-based approach to refugees and undocumented immigrants, can they easily move along those pathways and implement their TSIs, given the legal restrictions in that specific country? How would overall economic, social and cultural factors impact organizational motivation and ability to move along those pathways to change the type of their TSIs?

At the meso level, when service organizations plan to move their TSIs between different types, what would be barriers related to overall company culture, leadership and internal resources, including their technology and employees, that might block a successful move? What factors help organizations avoid falling into those two traps as described above and follow the pathways instead? What would be the role of employees and their perceptions when adopting a strength-based approach to vulnerabilities? Similarly, what would be the enabling factors for such organizations to move between types of TSIs seamlessly? For instance, what kind of training would be needed to change the mindset of employees and the leadership from a deficit-based to a strength-based approach when it comes to individuals experiencing vulnerabilities? Would compassion-based training programs be helpful in such mindset change to enable moving to more effective TSIs? Another exciting area of inquiry would be examining the potential unexpected consequences of moving between different types of TSIs. For example, how would such a move affect employees' job motivation, satisfaction and commitment to their organizations? Additionally, understanding the alignment between organizational moves and employees' overall values and beliefs would be helpful to organizations that plan to move along those pathways and change the type of their TSIs.

Finally, at the micro level, what would be the response and reaction from their customers when organizations move along organizational pathways by recognizing dignity and adopting a strength-based approach to vulnerabilities? Suppose organizations have a reason that such changes to their TSIs may positively or negatively impact their customers. How should such moves be communicated with customers to leverage their potential positive response or minimize their reaction?

Discussion

The experience of vulnerability is increasing because of many interrelated factors, such as climate crisis, the high cost of living, the aftermath of the pandemic and the fast-growing number of displaced refugees and immigrants. The efforts of governments or NGOs alone will not provide scalable relief for such grand societal challenges. It is an ethical imperative and expectation for all types of public and private organizations to dismantle structural vulnerability and increase well-being. To that end, the framework developed in this paper offers useful theoretical and managerial implications for service organizations that design and provide TSIs to ease the suffering of individuals experiencing vulnerabilities and maximize the effectiveness of their well-being outcomes.

Theoretical contributions

The TSR literature discusses how service organizations can create well-being and a better human experience for individuals experiencing vulnerabilities at different levels of service ecosystems (Fisk et al., 2020). For example, various TSIs have been examined in terms of their contribution to the well-being of populations with vulnerabilities (Boenigk et al., 2021; Eslami et al., 2023). However, organizational structures, mechanisms and tools that enable such well-being outcomes have been excluded from those studies (Alkire et al., 2020). Furthermore, the existing TSR literature has mostly focused on well-being-related outcomes without giving much attention to how service organizations view or approach alleviating the experience of vulnerability. This is a significant omission, as the recent literature suggests adopting a specific approach to vulnerabilities (deficit- vs. strength-based approach) would make a difference in terms of the effectiveness of TSIs and other organizational efforts to reduce suffering and increase well-being (Raciti et al., 2022; Russell-Bennett et al., 2023). While the possibility of TSIs creating unintended negative consequences for multiple stakeholders has been discussed, there is a need for more research to understand how such consequences can be mitigated (Blocker et al., 2022).

We extend the TSR literature by introducing pathways for increasing the effectiveness of TSIs in creating and improving well-being outcomes. Furthermore, while the importance of dignity and its impact on well-being have been recognized in other literature (Pirson, 2017), we are the first to highlight the importance of the TSR literature. The framework developed in this paper introduces dignity and approach to vulnerabilities as new dimensions to be considered and studied in the TSR literature, especially when designing TSIs to support individuals experiencing vulnerabilities. The framework in this paper suggests that recognizing dignity and adopting a strength-based rather than a deficit-based approach would improve well-being outcomes for individuals experiencing various types of vulnerabilities, increasing the effectiveness of such TSIs.

The recently emerging study of human dignity argues that the ultimate purpose of organizations should be to serve human needs (Mea and Sims, 2019). Our paper contributes to this emerging literature by offering an “approach to vulnerability” as another concept that service organizations need to incorporate into their culture to serve human needs and improve well-being. More specifically, the framework developed in this paper suggests that service organizations need to consider both dignity (ignoring vs. recognizing) and approach to vulnerability (deficit-based vs. strength-based) dimensions in their TSIs. This framework presents four types of TSIs with different characteristics regarding their approach to vulnerabilities and dignity and associated well-being outcomes with each type. Given the prevalence of vulnerability-related topics studied in service literature (Johns and Davey, 2021), this paper highlights the importance of the approach to vulnerabilities (deficit- vs. strength-based) adopted in those studies. Thus, the framework developed in this paper supports the assertion that adopting a strength-based approach to vulnerabilities can promote better well-being outcomes (Fisk et al., 2023; Raciti et al., 2022). This is consistent with recent research that advocates organizations move from a “caring for” to a “caring with” approach that shifts from a paternalistic view of individuals with vulnerabilities as helpless toward a view of individuals with vulnerabilities as empowered partners in addressing their needs (Johansson and Wickstrom, 2022). Our call for a strength-based approach to TSIs illuminates a path that can empower individuals, leverage the strengths of actors in the service ecosystem, mitigate structural barriers and enhance well-being.

Furthermore, in addition to supporting the adoption of a strength-based approach to vulnerabilities as suggested by recent work of service scholars (Fisk et al., 2023; Raciti et al., 2022), we also extend the emerging literature by including human dignity in addressing vulnerabilities. Our framework advocates for explicitly recognizing the dignity of participants in the SAIV strength-based process of eliciting insights from individuals experiencing vulnerability (Raciti et al., 2022). Solutions identified by such a process to create well-being outcomes would only be optimized when that process recognizes human dignity in each step. Similarly, while adopting a strength-based perspective that emphasizes the capabilities of actors in the service ecosystem in healing the digital divide and reducing vulnerabilities, Fisk et al. (2023) do not explicitly address human dignity in their work. We recommend that service organizations should explicitly include human dignity to increase service inclusion and facilitate digital inclusion for all.

We make an additional contribution to the TSR literature by suggesting that organizational approaches to vulnerabilities and the way they treat human dignity can also play essential roles in creating negative unintended consequences (Blocker et al., 2022). For example, when service organizations adopt a deficit-based approach to vulnerabilities or ignore individual dignity, their TSIs have the potential to create negative spillover or boomerang effects that would both limit the effectiveness of their well-being creation efforts or, even worse, hurt the same individuals that they aim to help with those initiatives. Alternatively, when they design and offer humanistic TSIs that adopt a strength-based approach and recognize human dignity, they can create positive spillover effects for other stakeholders than their intended target group, amplifying the effectiveness of their initiatives.

We also contribute to the HM literature by introducing the role of two opposing approaches to vulnerability in the dignity/well-being relationship. Recognizing someone's dignity is necessary for increasing the well-being of an individual experiencing vulnerability (Hicks, 2011). Furthermore, a recently developed HM concept of virtuous social responsiveness (VSR) emphasizes the role of business in maximizing individual and collective well-being, and it incorporates the organizational approach to human dignity as part of efforts to create well-being in socially responsible ways (Dillon, 2021). While it highlights the importance of recognizing dignity, this paper extends the VSR concept and overall humanistic approach to human flourishing by suggesting that dignity-based approaches alone may fall short of developing a full spectrum of well-being by service organizations. For example, the framework in this paper illustrates that paternalistic TSIs may not create optimal well-being outcomes for all and may unintentionally introduce harm to those individuals they intend to support.

In contrast, we propose that a dignity-recognition and strength-based approach adopted by humanistic TSIs offers broader well-being outcomes and thus creates positive spillover effects for multiple stakeholders. This suggests that although dignity is a necessary dimension for creating well-being, as depicted in HM research (Dillon, 2021; Pirson, 2019), it is insufficient. It is also critical to consider how that person and their vulnerability are viewed by others (strength vs. deficit-based). As suggested in this paper, this distinction and its differential effects on well-being are an essential addition to HM literature.

Finally, we have highlighted the similarities and resonance between TSR and HM regarding their shared goal of reducing human suffering and increasing the well-being of individuals, communities and societies. While the collaboration between these two streams of research has yet to be included so far, this paper encourages TSR scholars to engage more with the HM literature. Exploring the generative intersection between TSR and HM joins the engaged scholarship movement (Van de Ven, 2007), calling for research work intended to address societal grand challenges (George et al., 2016; Gümüsay et al., 2022).

Managerial implications

For managers, we suggest that efforts to increase the effectiveness of TSIs by improving the well-being of populations with vulnerabilities require a more holistic approach that involves not only recognition of those individuals’ dignity but also a more strength-based approach to their vulnerabilities. As the framework and the related pathways indicate, when service organizations adopt only one of these dimensions in their TSIs – focusing on dignity or changing their approach to vulnerabilities – their efforts may not generate the intended optimal outcomes and may create negative unintended consequences. Instead, service organizations need to consider both dimensions in the design of their TSIs and avoid falling into the charity or utility traps. Furthermore, our framework could provide opportunities for managers to conduct assessment and internal auditing to define which type of TSIs they currently have and identify the type to which they would like to move. Such an assessment process could help service organizations identify the required transitional pathways and the resources and capabilities needed to implement changes to move along that pathway. For example, the shift from ignoring to recognizing dignity may require internal training (e.g. civility training) (Pirson, 2019) or hiring processes to ensure that all employees recognize the dignity of all individuals. Still, this paper acknowledges that moving from less effective to more effective TSIs can be challenging. While it can be achieved by following the pathways described above, this paper also illuminates traps (charity trap and utility trap) that service organizations need to navigate and overcome.

Similarly, changing the mindset of employees regarding the deficit-based to strength-based view of vulnerabilities may require some adjustments in how such vulnerabilities are discussed, even among employees or in company documents. Since the terminology and rhetoric used to describe vulnerabilities directly impact how people view those vulnerabilities (Russell-Bennett et al., 2023), modifying the language within a company culture could be an essential step in an organization's move along desired pathways.

Finally, service organizations and managers may need to consider the ethical implications of following those pathways to move their TSIs from one type to another, and changing the approach to vulnerabilities may also affect how such moves are perceived ethically (Pless et al., 2017). For example, how do employees or other stakeholders respond to a service organization moving a TSI from a paternalistic to a humanistic type by following Pathway C? Do they think that including those individuals with vulnerabilities within their workforce or treating them as partners in creating well-being outcomes is ethically justifiable? Additionally, such moves may make tradeoffs for service organizations regarding whose well-being they need to address or focus on (Sisodia and Gelb, 2019). For example, would it be ethically justifiable if such moves put the well-being of others ahead of the well-being of employees?

Our framework has implications for policymakers. Service organizations may face legal, bureaucratic or social barriers with moves between groups on different pathways. For example, even though a school or a higher education organization may be interested in hiring refugee teachers, the bureaucratic procedures required for qualifications could be a significant hurdle that stalls their efforts (Strecker, 2018; West, 2021). Changing the mindset around a deficit- vs. strength-based approach to vulnerabilities may require a significant change in the terminology used in external communications, media outlets and internal reports (Raciti et al., 2022). In these and other similar cases, policymakers could identify those problems and use the power of policy and regulation to help service organizations move effectively in the right direction to generate well-being outcomes for populations experiencing vulnerabilities, communities and society at large.

Figures

Figure 1

Organizational pathways between different types of TSIs

Table 1

Types of transformative service initiatives (TSIs)

Dimensions	Type 1	Type 2	Type 3	Type 4
Organizing approach to individuals with vulnerability	Exclusionary	Opportunistic	Paternalistic	Humanistic
Organizing practice	Marginalization	Exploitation	Assistance	Inclusion
Dignity of the individual	Ignored	Ignored	Recognized	Recognized
Approach to vulnerability	Deficit-based	Strength-based	Deficit-based	Strength-based
The perception of the individual	Burden	Commodity	Victim	Partner
Examples of individuals/populations with vulnerabilities	Unhoused individuals	Undocumented immigrants working as farm workers/ restaurant employees	Charity recipients	Former inmates as employees; Refugees as doctors/teachers
Examples of TSIs	Public housing initiatives	Hospitality firms/restaurants in informal economy	NGOs, aid organizations	Greyston Bakery, The Migrant Kitchen
Well-being creation	Limited	Imbalanced	Conditional	Optimal
Possible unintended consequences	Boomerang effect	Negative spillover effect	Boomerang effect	Positive spillover effect

Source: Authors’ own work