Search results

Astin and Astin (2000), W.K. Kellogg Foundation, note “leadership occurs when people become concerned about something and work to engage others in bringing about positive change” (p. 23). At the University of Arizona we have taken that philosophy and integrated it into every component of our course to help students learn about and engage in the social change process. In addition to course curriculum, readings, and classroom activities that expose students to the social change process, students are asked to complete a semester-long team Social Change Project using the social change process dealing with a social issue facing an underrepresented or oppressed group. This project challenges students to recognize the role of leadership in creating social change, giving students a context within which they can apply leadership concepts learned. It has made a lasting impact that some students note as being their most meaningful experience in college.

A qualitative approach based on grounded theory was utilized, with data collected through 26 semi-structured interviews with social entrepreneurs. Alas’s Triangular Model provided the framework for data analysis and interpretation.

This study explores how Hong Kong social enterprises approached crisis and change management during the COVID-19 pandemic, examining their resilience-building strategies.

The pandemic triggered an existential crisis for many social enterprises, causing severe revenue losses. However, strong leadership and cultures based on social mission enabled resilience. Enterprises demonstrated agility by rapidly transitioning operations online and establishing partnerships. Technology adaptation and social innovation were pivotal to sustaining impact.

As the sample comprises enterprises that survived the pandemic, insights into failed enterprises are lacking. Comparative analysis could illuminate differences in crisis response between successful and unsuccessful cases.

The study’s practical implications suggest that social enterprises should focus on developing flexible crisis management plans, cultivating purposeful leadership, embracing digital transformation, strengthening collaborative networks and prioritizing organizational learning to effectively navigate crises while staying true to their social missions.

Findings demonstrate how shared values and cultures grounded in purpose can anchor organizations amidst upheaval, fostering resilience. This underscores the role of social enterprises in modeling responsiveness to societal needs.

While research has examined social enterprises’ vulnerability in crises, investigation into their crisis management practices is limited. This study enriches understanding of how social enterprises effectively navigate turbulence.

The complexity of contemporary societal challenges in emerging countries reanimates the necessity of collective action to resolve them. What is required is system change, namely, transformations in policy, practice, power relationships, market dynamics and social customs that underlie social and environmental issues. Technological innovations, paired with intentional social changes, might play a transformative role in this effort. This paper aims to investigate the relationship between the adoption of technologies in social enterprises (SEs) and their contribution to achieving system change. It also addresses the effects of their hybrid nature on this relationship.

The analysis relied on data collected through a survey of the global population of Ashoka fellows, which is largely based in emerging economies. Three models were developed concerning different pathways to achieve system change identified in the theoretical framework. These were tested using Probit regressions.

The investigation confirms that technology can support SEs in navigating complex pathways to achieve system change rather than merely enabling linear scaling operational strategies. The pursuit of economic value creation, in conjunction with a social mission, decreases the ability of SEs to achieve system change. This is because the scaling paths which hardly create revenues are neglected.

The study conceptualises a multifaceted model of system change. It tests the framework empirically to show that SEs can adopt technologies to unleash complex system change processes to generate societal impact, on top of merely demonstrating linear approaches to scaling or replication. The paper questions the capacity of SEs to facilitate system change without appropriate financial support and the inherent tensions between hybridity and the depth of system change dynamics.

This paper develops an argument about how contentious changes unfold in organizational fields, focusing on the role of uncertainty – and the networks people use to address uncertainty. We propose that as controversial practice gains traction and spreads, the nature of uncertainty facing organizational decision makers also evolves. This dynamic has important implications for how different actors and networks can influence change. We illustrate our argument with a mixed-methods case study on the diffusion of domestic partner benefits across US Fortune 500 companies. Our findings shed light on how – and when – social activists, corporate elites, and middle managers can influence the corporate decision-making process.

Purpose – We make a case for bridging two types of logics – analytic and dialectic – for explaining processes of social-historical change, and maintain that a successful bridge between these two logics depends on a variety of conditions and most especially the type of analytic logic or model one employs for capturing dynamic processes.

Methodology/approach – Conventional models of social change processes typically presuppose ergodic social worlds and are problematic as analytic approaches generally and most certainly are not fertile grounds for feeding dialectic theorization. Instead, we propose modeling dynamic processes that begin by assuming a nonergodic social world – one in flux, one that is nonrepeating, one within which model process and parameter structures are historically contingent and change with time, one that is autocatalytic, creating and changing its own possibilities.

Findings – We develop the line of thinking adumbrated above and illustrate these modeling strategies with empirical examples from US labor movement history. Results from these examples lend much weight to our proposals. Thus, this chapter demonstrates that concerns about the use of ergodic assumptions and about greater use of dialectical reasoning when studying social processes are not idle speculations within theoretical commentaries but have practical consequences in the conduct of research and the building of better theory.

Research limitations/implications – To approximate such an approach, social scientists should avoid cross-sectionalist and longitudinal modeling strategies that presuppose stability and homogeneity in parameter and process structures. Homogeneity and stability in parameter and process structures should be demonstrated, not assumed.

Originality/value – Rather than accepting the alienated spheres of social science analytics and dialectic theory, our proposal presupposes nonergodic social worlds and takes pragmatic steps for estimating analytic models that are more amenable to dialectic reasoning. Models that take nonergodicity seriously not only have the potential to produce better, historically grounded analytics but are also best suited to bridge with dialectic logic, thus taking advantage of the strengths of both forms of logic.

Social entrepreneurship is gaining attention as a valid field for academic inquiry and a useful tool for funding a social mission and driving social change. As they are assimilated, innovative mechanisms and practices often require a new vocabulary and context to support precision in communication and clarity in analysis. This chapter takes a step toward merging previously disparate fields that may need to be aligned to help the advancement of social entrepreneurship and offers a neologism to describe this process. Primarily, it proposes that the real value of social entrepreneurship is an advancement in non-violent social change.

We develop a multilevel model of emotional processes grounded in social identity theory to explore the role of emotion in transformational leadership.

This work is conceptual in nature and develops theory surrounding emotion in organizations by integrating theories on transformational leadership, emotion management, and organizational identity.

Transformational leaders utilize interpersonal emotion management strategies to influence and respond to emotions arising from the self-evaluative processes of organizational members during times of organizational identity change.

The conceptual model detailed provides insight on the intersubjective emotional processes grounded in social identity that influence transformational leadership. Future research into transformational leadership behaviors will benefit from a multilevel perspective which includes both interpersonal emotion management and intrapersonal emotion generation related to social identity at both the within-person and between-person levels.

The proposed model expands on the role of emotions in transformational leadership by theoretically linking the specific transformational behaviors to discrete emotions displayed by followers. While previous empirical research has indicated the positive outcomes of transformational leadership and the role of emotion recognition, work has yet to be presented which explicates the role of discrete emotions in the transformational leadership process.

This article explores how legal intermediaries facilitate or inhibit social change. We suggest the increasing complexity and ambiguity of legal rules coupled with the shift from government to governance provide legal intermediaries greater opportunities to influence law and social change. Drawing from new institutional sociology, we suggest rule-intermediaries shape legal and social change, with varying degrees of success, in two ways: (1) law is filtered through non-legal logics emanating from various organizational fields and (2) law is professionalized by non-legal professionals. We draw from case studies in the United States and France to show how intermediaries facilitate or inhibit social change.

Organization development is often mourned as stagnant or perhaps dead, but most of these declarations seem to be insular, being supported primarily by anecdotal or survey research among organization development scholars and practitioners. This exploratory study seeks a more objective understanding of the state of organization development by examining big data from the social media platform Twitter. Drawn from over 5.7 million tweets extracted through Twitter's Application Program Interface (API) during 2 months in 2018, this research approaches the state of organization development through a quantitative, abductive study utilizing social network analyses. Organization development is examined through its characteristics as a social network on Twitter and how it relates to and interacts with other familial networks from management and organization studies. Findings show that organization development is relatively inactive as a social network on Twitter, as compared to other familial networks, and the relationships between the organization development network and these familial networks tend to be ones of inequality. Organization development references familial networks much more than any of the familial networks reference organization development. This inequality in social media presence is particularly surprising since several of these familial networks were founded from the field and principles of organization development. We locate organization development's generalist status, as compared to familial networks' specialist status, as generating this interaction disparity drawing on recent research that suggests specialized fields fare better in times of rapid change compared to generalist fields. We discuss the potential for greater specialization of organization development with a reemphasis on its process philosophy and focus.

Laboratories or “labs” outside science and technology have become increasingly popular in recent years. Their proliferation raises questions about what they have in common and the extent to which “lab” as a metaphor is still pertinent. We develop six criteria to assess these types of labs: (1) theoretical foundations; (2) experimentation; (3) collaboration; (4) boundaries; (5) governance; and (6) temporality. We identify a number of paradoxes in the operation of labs and explore their implications for research and practice.