dentify the agency, organization, or community for which you will develop a strategic plan. State whether the agency, organization, or community exists at the local, regional, national, or international level. Then, discuss why you have chosen this agency

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wphs20

Journal of Progressive Human Services

ISSN: 1042-8232 (Print) 1540-7616 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wphs20

Executive Leadership and Social Innovation in Direct-Service Nonprofits: Shaping the Organizational Culture to Create Social Change

Micheal L. Shier & Femida Handy

To cite this article: Micheal L. Shier & Femida Handy (2016) Executive Leadership and Social Innovation in Direct-Service Nonprofits: Shaping the Organizational Culture to Create Social Change, Journal of Progressive Human Services, 27:2, 111-130, DOI: 10.1080/10428232.2016.1155429

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10428232.2016.1155429

Published online: 04 May 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1182

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Executive Leadership and Social Innovation in Direct-Service Nonprofits: Shaping the Organizational Culture to Create Social Change Micheal L. Shiera and Femida Handyb

aFactor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; bSchool of Social Policy and Practice, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

ABSTRACT Direct-service nonprofits have taken on increasing responsibility in creating social change (operationalized through the concept of social innovation) within local communities. Qualitative interviews were conducted with executive directors to determine the factors within the intra-organizational environment that support an orientation toward social innovation. Findings show that aspects related to staff engagement and development and direction by the executive leadership team are particularly important. The findings provide a conceptual model of the varying intra-organizational dynamics that support the development of a social innovation- oriented organizational culture. This research offers a focus for social work education programs to equip practitioners with the skills needed in contemporary practice.

KEYWORDS Human services; organizational culture; organizational development; social innovation; social work

In contemporary scholarship, direct-service nonprofits are perceived to be engaged actors in social-change efforts. For example, Hasenfeld and Garrow (2012) argue that because of dominant political and economic shifts in the provision of social welfare from the public to the nonprofit sphere, this has resulted in greater roles being played by these nonprofits in meeting the social welfare needs of the citizenry (see also, Anheier, 2009; Mayer, 2003; Powell, 2007; Salamon, 2002). Essentially, as governments decentralized services and traditional welfarism continued to retrench, communities—and nonprofits as the dominant institutional form in communities—have taken on the responsibility of addressing persistent and emerging social issues.

We refer to social issues here in very general terms. In particular, these social issues might be manifested at individual or local neighborhood levels, or might be broader and more generalized at a macrosocietal level. The social issues are perceived to be persistent or emergent for a population (or group) of service users. As an example, an emergency shelter program that aims to reduce the average number of days of housing loss among the episodically homeless population and creates an employment support program to do so. They are

CONTACT Micheal L. Shier [email protected] Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, 246 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5S IV4, Canada.

JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE HUMAN SERVICES 2016, VOL. 27, NO. 2, 111–130 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10428232.2016.1155429

© 2016 Taylor & Francis

addressing an emerging challenge within their local community (around employment and housing loss) to support individuals in transitioning more quickly from situations of homelessness.

As is later described in the literature review section, the concept of social change (as it relates to direct-service nonprofits) is operationalized here through the lens of social innovation (see Shier & Handy, 2014). Social innovation is “any new idea with the potential to improve either the macro-quality of life or the quantity of life,” where macro-quality of life is defined as “the set of valuable options that a group of people has the opportunity to select” (Pol & Ville, 2009, p. 882). In relation to direct-service nonprofits, the term group of people refers to the population of people accessing services, and/or the population of people excluded from services due to the current structure and focus of service provision (Shier & Handy, 2015). From the previous example, this latter category might include the group of people who are on the verge of housing loss, and if the new initiative were to be developed, it could act as a preventive measure to protect against housing loss. Therefore, among direct social service nonprofits, social innovation refers to the efforts undertaken that aim to improve the social outcomes and/or addresses emergent social issues that have a negative impact on groups of service users characterized by a specific service delivery need.

Current scholarship concerning the factors in the intra-organizational context that support a social innovation-orientated organizational culture is an emerging area of study that requires greater conceptual clarity. For instance, Evans, Hanlin, and Prilleltensky (2007) suggest that an orientation toward social change can be developed by refocusing missions toward principles of equality and justice and through adaptations of organizational practices and beliefs. It is not very practical to direct-service nonprofits that may already share such a universally articulated focus. Other studies emphasize that the characteristics and values of executive leaders are critical to socially innovative organization- level change (Schmid, 2009). Also, Cohen and Hyde (2014) highlight the relationship between high- and low-power actors within organizations as a key factor in determining the success of an organization’s ability to undertake initiatives that aim to create some type of social change for purposes of improving outcomes of service users or groups in society.

In support of the development of this emerging body of scholarship, and utilizing qualitative research methods, this study answers the following research question: What factors within the intra-organizational environment of direct- service nonprofits shape the development of a social innovation-orientated organizational culture?

Previous research has shown that there is variability in the extent to which direct-service nonprofits are engaged in social change efforts (such as political advocacy) (Garrow & Hasenfeld, 2014). This variability is not fully explained by leadership qualities or the focus of an organization’s mission (Mosley,

112 M. L. SHIER AND F. HANDY

2010). Therefore, further research is needed to explore the existence of organizational culture within direct-service nonprofits that promotes social change. A better understanding of how these organizational cultures are developed can lead to recommendations that can enhance nonprofit and social work education programs that train individuals to take leadership roles.

Social innovation as a conceptual model of social change

In the literature, the primary focus of the social-change efforts undertaken by direct-service nonprofits deals with the dynamics between nonprofits and the public (or government) sector (Garrow & Hasenfeld, 2014; Smith & Grønbjerg, 2006). The focus has been on the relationships between governments and nonprofits, with social change operationalized through measures of engagement in political advocacy (Almog-Bar & Schmid, 2014).

This emphasis is problematic for two reasons. First, there is a misalignment in perception between researchers and practitioners concerning the meaning of advocacy. For instance, Mosley (2013) described the perceptions of executive leaders in homelessness-serving organizations with regard to their political advocacy. That study highlighted that practice-based definitions of advocacy were not consistent with those used in research to measure the extent of advocacy participation. This is likely because of the heavy emphasis on political advocacy in contemporary research on social change (Almog-Bar & Schmid, 2014), with little focus on the varied ways in which nonprofits engage in social-change initiatives.

In the advocacy efforts, Garrow and Hasenfeld (2014) conceptualize differ- ences between “advocacy for social benefits” and “advocacy for organizational benefits.” They describe advocacy for social benefits as those activities that create a sense of moral responsibility among government actors to “accept responsibility for the care of its citizens” (p. 81). They describe advocacy for organizational benefits as activities that maintain and secure adequate levels of funding to support program delivery and to enhance service user outcomes (Garrow & Hasenfeld, 2014).

However, they place direct-service nonprofits within a vision of traditional welfarism and early nonprofit theorizing, both of which describe direct-service nonprofits as extensions of the government in the provision of social welfare (see, for example, Anheier, 1990, 2004; Salamon, 1987; Weisbrod, 1975). For instance, in both advocacy types, Garrow and Hasenfeld (2014) maintain that advocacy is a political activity with the intention of influencing public policy or government decisions around levels of service and access. This begets the question: Are these examples of political advocacy the only ways by which direct-service nonprofits create social change?

This leads to the second problem: focusing only on the political advocacy- related roles of nonprofits. Nonprofits create social change in a variety of

JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE HUMAN SERVICES 113

ways, and not just in response to governmental failure in providing services (Weisbrod, 1975). As scholars have pointed out, nonprofits fulfill a number of other roles within communities, and those roles create social change; they support and promote community and economic development (DeFillippis, Fisher, & Shragge, 2009; Green & Goetting, 2010), they facilitate civic engagement and democratic participation (Putnam, 2000; Shier, McDougle, & Handy, 2014), and they address issues of social exclusion and respond to emerging service-user needs through adapted programs and methods of intervention (Fairbanks, 2009; Handy & Cnaan, 2000; Shier & Graham, 2013).

Furthermore, undertaking initiatives that seek to change public percep- tions may have a greater impact on service-user outcomes than addressing an inequitable public policy (Shier, Jones, & Graham, 2010). Or organizations that create new programs to address the exclusion of populations from provided services may address emerging negative sociopolitical and socio- cultural dimensions within local communities (Shier & Graham, 2013). And in the case of products and services with a high degree of informational asymmetry, nonprofits become the trustworthy providers whom consumers can trust to resolve the ensuing market failure (Handy et al., 2010; Hansmann, 1980).

This research suggests that nonprofits also seek to create social change not only because of government failures to meet demand for services but also as a result of social, cultural, and market failures within communities. As this literature about the role of nonprofits suggests, direct-service nonprofits respond to the government failure in the provision of social services and also respond to a general social development failure of our key public and private institutions. By using this framework, the social-change role of direct- service nonprofits encompasses more than advocacy efforts to influence the direction of public policy or to secure resources to maintain their existing programs.

A more inclusive model for understanding the social-change efforts of nonprofits can be found in the social-innovation literature (Cnaan & Vinokur-Kaplan, 2015). Social innovation refers to the ways in which organizations adapt, restructure, and respond to emerging or persistent social issues for service-user groups and society more generally so as to achieve progressive outcomes (Nichols & Cho, 2006). Within this scholarship, direct- service nonprofits are seen as active agents in shaping solutions to social problems, as opposed to being merely service providers or advocates for policy-related reform. Social innovation then becomes the operational construct of social change. How this model of social innovation (which is further conceptualized in the Methods section) manifests itself within the organizational culture of direct-service nonprofits emerges as a central research question.

114 M. L. SHIER AND F. HANDY

The intra-organizational context of socially innovative nonprofits

The intra-organizational context refers to the internal factors within an organi- zation that impact day-to-day functioning. Many aspects, such as the values, structures, and processes, of the internal functioning of organizations have been conceptualized in relation to an organization’s culture (Glisson, 2007; Scott, Mannion, Davies, & Marshall, 2003). Multiple factors linked to the cultural underpinning of an organization are also linked to the development of new and innovative programming (Jaskyte & Dressler, 2005). However, there exist differ- ences in the secondary literature in the assessments of organizational culture. Some focus on characteristics of organizational culture at an organizational level (e.g., management style, organizational values and beliefs, or teamwork) (Dellana & Hauser, 2000), and others focus on the individual level constructs (or person-specific characteristics and qualities) such as leadership style in the organization (e.g., decision making, risk taking in entrepreneurship) (Matzler, Schwarz, Deutinger, & Harms, 2008; Savaya, Packer, Strange, & Namir, 2008).

Both may have an impact on the extent to which organizations undertake socially innovative programs and initiatives. For instance, the research that focuses on cultural cohesiveness at the organizational level has suggested that strong and weak organizational cultures limit the development of innovative programs (Nemeth, 1997; Trice, 1993, cited in Jaskyte & Dressler, 2005). However, since innovative programs and initiatives that aim to create social change are in direct response to external environment factors, a strong organizational culture around a number of key issues, such as client orientation, teamwork, goal achievement, and implementing change, would positively impact the development of these new programs and initiatives (Jaskyte & Dressler, 2005). These descriptions, while important for concep- tualizing, provide little insight into how these issues are manifested on a microsocial interaction level within the culture of the organization.

Leadership style within the intra-organizational context has been critical for creating social change (Rose-Ackerman, 1996; Ruvio, Rosenblatt, & Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2010); however, this literature provides little insight into how a social-innovation-oriented culture is developed within organizations, especially in nonprofits (such as larger, more established nonprofits, which are typical in human services) that have multiple actors providing leadership (Shier, Graham, Deane, & Jones, 2013).

Recent research has found that innovation has been associated with transformational leadership practices (Jaskyte, 2010), where the leaders approached their work with the intention of challenging the status quo. This mentality was manifested in the interpersonal dynamics between leaders and followers within organizations (Bass & Avolio, 1990). Missing from this research is what characterizes these interpersonal interactions that helped to manifest a socially innovative organizational culture.

JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE HUMAN SERVICES 115

Organizational learning has also been identified as a contributing factor to the organizational culture that contributes to innovative programs and initia- tives. Organizational learning refers to the extent to which an organization supports the ongoing learning and development of its staff from within the organization (Busch & Hostetter, 2009). Because socially innovative programs and initiatives are the results of new ways of thinking about issues and service- delivery challenges, organizational learning, it is argued, might be a necessary prerequisite in order to develop these new programs and initiatives (Cohen & Austin, 1994).

Although this research highlights some aspects of the intra-organizational context that might support the development of a social-innovation-oriented organizational culture, it is not sufficiently comprehensive to understand the process and practices that result in its development. The intention of this study is to add to the literature and provide some pragmatic understanding about how direct-service nonprofits can move from a government-failure perspective to a social-development failure in understanding their role.

Methods

Using a sample (n = 31) of executive directors of direct-service nonprofits in Alberta, Canada, this research utilized a qualitative study design to identify the characteristics and factors of the intra-organizational contexts that are supportive (or influential) in developing an organizational culture orientated toward social innovation. Executive directors were recruited to participate because they are in positions that provide the general directions of organizations’ efforts and focuses. The questions posed in this research followed the findings of an earlier study (Shier & Handy, 2014), which provided us with a conceptual framework, describing the typology of social innovation undertaken by direct-service nonprofits (see Table 1 for an overview).

Socially transformative social innovations include new programs and initiatives that aim to create social change within the wider community. Product-based social innovations include new programs and initiatives that create social change for current service-user groups and excluded populations within the community. And process-based social innovations include new programs and initiatives aimed at adapting internal organizational procedures and structures to achieve better social outcomes for current service-user groups.

Using a sample frame of respondents (n = 241) from that earlier research (Shier & Handy, 2014), 50 respondents were randomly sampled. This resulted in a 62% response rate by 31 participants. Respondents were first contacted through e-mail by the researcher; they were advised that they had been randomly sampled and were informed about the upcoming qualitative study. They were then recruited through a telephone conversation. No further recruitment or follow-up was undertaken with the 19 nonresponding

116 M. L. SHIER AND F. HANDY

participants because a saturation of findings was attained. This study received ethics certification from the University of Pennsylvania’s Institutional Review Board.

Respondents represented a wide range of areas of direct practice, as might be expected from a random-sampling method. Respondents repre- sented general counselling services, youth and young adults, food support services, addictions and mental health services, developmentally delayed adults, hospice care, employment supports, immigration, and housing and homelessness supports, among others. Of the respondents, 7 were male and 24 were female. The average age of the respondents was 53.8 years, and they had been in their current positions for, on average, approximately 9 years. Consistent with the full sample of participating organizations in the survey research, these interview respondents similarly indicated that their organizations were involved in moderately high levels of socially transfor- mative and product-based social innovations and moderate levels of pro- cess-based social innovations.

Data were collected in March 2014, following procedures for collecting qualitative interview data (Fetterman, 1998, 2008; Holstein & Gubrium, 1995). Participants were required to participate in a one-to-one interview conducted over the telephone or in person (depending on their locations in Alberta). Because the intention of this qualitative research was exploratory, a semistructured, open-ended interview guide was utilized throughout the

Table 1. Conceptual framework of social innovation undertaken by direct-service nonprofits (adapted from Shier & Handy, 2014).

Socially transformative social innovations Product-based social

innovations Process-based social

innovations

Creating public awareness Education initiatives Promoting community engagement Changing public perceptions Influencing policy direction Bringing information forward Undertaking research Discussion in networks Invited participation in formal policy gatherings

Creating more inclusive programming

Creating new programs to meet emerging needs

Establishing new organizations

Adapting existing services to attain better outcomes

Incorporating new methods of intervention

Restructuring existing programs

Changing focus of service delivery efforts

Seeking to attain different outcomes

Aligning service delivery to client described need

Adaptations to methods if engagement with key stakeholder groups

Service users Other organizations Funders/donors Organization staff Community members Adaptations to organizational procedures, processes and structure

Creating new positions Refocusing training efforts Adapting focus of interaction with service users

JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE HUMAN SERVICES 117

interview process. Probing questions helped to maintain the flow and purpose of the interviews. The interviews ranged in duration from 30 to 60 minutes.

Respondents were asked questions about how their leadership style and the support (or lack thereof) of their governing board contributed to their social-change efforts. They were also asked to describe ways in which they see their social-change role manifested at different levels of practice within the organization. Examples of questions include: How does your leadership style play into your organization’s ability to undertake transformative programs and initiatives?; Does your board (or governance structure) support your organization in undertaking new programs and initiatives? and Are there aspects of the way people interact within the organization that are supportive of creating social-change initiatives (such as the way decisions are made, the organization’s culture, the professional quality of staff members)? The interviews were digitally recorded and then transcribed verbatim.

Data were analyzed following the qualitative procedures of analytic induction and constant comparison (see Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). The intention was to detect patterns within the transcribed interviews—specifically, emergent themes (see, for example, Charmaz, 2000) and patterns (see, for example, Creswell, 2009; Fetterman, 2008) that focused on characteristics of the intra-organizational context that supported the development of an orientation toward undertaking socially innovative programs and initiatives.

For the first step of the coding process, the researcher read all the interviews and identified common themes. The themes were then coded into more general thematic categories, and the data were searched for instances of the same or similar phenomena. To increase the dependability and consistency of the findings, these general working categories were refined until all instances of contradictions, similarities, and differences were explained.

To maintain the credibility criteria of the study, notes were taken throughout the interview process and the researcher used those notes as a source of reflection for the final analysis. The notes taken throughout the interview captured the researcher’s reflections on what the participant was saying. This helped to monitor the emergence of biased interpretations of data. Together, these practices helped to maintain the trustworthiness criteria of the study (see Grinnell & Unrau, 2005). An identification number (001 to 031) is used to highlight that a full range of participants supported the thematic categories. A saturation of findings was reached through this analytical process with the interview data that were collected. No new themes were emerging from the transcripts after the first 10 interviews.

118 M. L. SHIER AND F. HANDY

Findings

Four general thematic categories emerged from this analysis. They included (a) staff engagement; (b) staff development and hiring; (c) board involvement; and (d) executive leadership direction. Together these thematic categories provide a framework for understanding how to support the development of an organizational culture orientated toward social innovation within direct-service nonprofits.

Staff engagement

Respondents identified four ways in which they engage with employees to encourage the development of a social innovation-orientated organizational culture. The first involved engaging staff at all levels in the organization with the general issues experienced by service users. For some respondents this process was manifested in the general job-related expectations of individuals. Central to this characteristic, respondents indicated that all staff were responsible for responding to service users’ needs as they emerged, and there was no process for passing off responsibility to colleagues. For instance, one respondent noted:

Everyone answers the phone and everyone fields the calls. Unless there is an explicit need to transfer a call from one person to another, everybody basically takes their turn at trying to get a good sense at that individual level advocacy piece and becoming aware of the needs of the individual who would be accessing this service. So I think that it does provide some degree of ownership, some degree of innovation. (001)

Other respondents described the implementation of practice-based models and approaches—such as empowerment focused interventions with service users—that acted to create a mindset among employees about the general goals and aims of the organization as well as the underlying intentions of creating social change around general sociocultural perceptions of service users. For instance, one respondent stated:

People here are always in that business of thinking about what else we can do to help, but it is also very much, and I see it more now in our intake process, that is very much driven by the client, which I really appreciate. We are not pushing anything on anybody, we are kind of meeting them where they are. We rarely discuss their illness, and we are really there to help them identify their goals that may help them in their journey. (009)

The second aspect of staff engagement identified by respondents, which can contribute to the development of a social innovation-orientated organizational culture, is the structure or processes involved in decision making. Several respondents described the need to implement a consultive form of decision making within the organization. Such an approach allows for individuals at all

JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE HUMAN SERVICES 119

levels of the organization to feel comfortable with bringing issues or challenges forward and to offer input for solutions. For instance, one respondent said:

The staff that works with the individuals that we serve are the ones that are boots on the ground and see the greatest need and understand what the community’s needs are. They need to have a say in it, and have a say in what the future looks like in this organization. And when you give them that ability to speak and freely speak without repercussions, it is amazing the work that you will get from these individuals. (022)

As this respondent points out, knowledge comes from multiple levels within an organization and within the community. In efforts to create social change, nonprofits have to be informed and realize that it is not just the executive leadership team that has the information. Another respondent similarly stated:

In an organization like this, to pull out the strengths, you have to be pretty authentic and pretty open to speaking to people where they are at, and being okay to be wrong. Because in the true approach, where you are finding out what is happening to help build social change, you have to realize that you are wrong and your approach is wrong and be okay with that, and find different ways of doing things. (021)

As these respondents point out, being open to discussions about the utility of current practices is an important component for undertaking efforts to create social change. Having consultative or open communication around key decision making creates a critically reflective organizational environment that might be more open to adaptation and change.

Related to the previous excerpts, the third aspect of staff engagement that can support the development of a social innovation-orientated organizational culture is involving staff at all levels in the organization’s initiatives. Several respondents described how they intentionally involved staff in the efforts undertaken by the organization to create social change. For many organiza- tions, it was perceived that people at all levels within the organization (includ- ing community members, service users and their families) had a role to play in an organization’s social change efforts. For example, one respondent said:

Staff will also form groups and will also move things forward. They will also connect in with other stakeholders and also with other people that are also on the move for making changes as well. For our disability sector, some of our clients sit on our advisory groups, and others sit on the [respondent names local self- advocacy group]. Then there is a staff group as well. And in our case, the board also kicks in to determine who, from a governance perspective, should they meet with and connect with. (004)

Getting people within the organization involved was achieved, for some respondents, by involving all staff in key discussions about the issues and social change efforts that the organization will be involved with. For example, one respondent noted:

120 M. L. SHIER AND F. HANDY

We all have our finger somewhere; or involved in something. Just because I am the CEO does not mean that I make the decision. So anytime there is a change coming, or a new initiative, or a new committee, we all sit down together and we talk about who would be the best person to take on that responsibility.. . .We work together and, again, depending on what we are working towards, we have our regular staff meetings with the frontline people. So we bring them in, and we talk to them about what we are thinking, the direction we are going, and we get their input. (003)

Other respondents undertook intentional practices to align departments within organizations to provide some consistency in the interpretation of underlying social issues and to encourage collaboration within the organiza- tion to identify initiatives or solutions that could be undertaken. For example, one respondent said:

We are always thinking and talking about things that we can do. So if somebody in the counselling department comes up with an idea that they think would be a really good idea for public education, they bring it to them and then we all discuss it, and we say that is a great idea, what can we do, how can we make that work? (019)

The intention of these efforts is to try to create opportunities for people to contribute, because, as these and other respondents pointed out, to have change and to embrace change, people need to perceive ownership in it. Related to this point, the fourth aspect of staff engagement that supported the development of a social innovation-orientated organizational culture were activities undertaken to empower organizational staff to act. Respondents identified that they achieved this by encouraging staff through discussions orientated specifically around achieving better outcomes for service users. For example, one participant undertaking several process- and product-based social innovations in the organization, all of which were aimed at creating better social outcomes for service-user groups and the needs of young adults within the community more generally, stated:

The staff have been complaining about the amount of work that they undertake. Because to look at something that is not working and part with it, means we need to replace it with something else. But I have solid commitment from the people here that we will do the change process together. Like, I model situational leadership, listen to what the challenges are, and I support people as they strive to change, and you acknowledge the small efforts they make towards successive changes. (016)

Other respondents described empowering staff by holding information sessions about how individuals could contribute to a particular social change effort. The underlying aim was to promote individual-level capacity to under- take or engage in social-change efforts. Essentially this is a twofold process. One step is to bring awareness to the staff’s role in creating social change, and the other is to provide the tools or resources to mobilize that awareness.

JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE HUMAN SERVICES 121

Staff development and hiring practices

Respondents described three ways in which aspects of staff development and hiring practices contributed to the development of a social innovation-orientated organizational culture. The first was in regard to the expectations of staff. Simply put, respondents described that they had an expectation of staff when they were hired, or through their direct practice roles within the organization, that they would be engaged in thinking about ways to create better social outcomes. For instance, one respondent from a counseling nonprofit who had undertaken a series of process-related social innovations (aimed at assessing counseling-session outcomes, to inform the implementation of some product-based social innova- tions) described a disconnect between the training professionals had and what the new needs were for her organization. As a result, she had to adapt her hiring practices to recruit individuals who were similarly aligned with the socially innovative orientation of the organization:

For the most part, what we are teaching human service professionals is not consistent with what the research is teaching us. . .. Although it [respondent is referring to the process-based social innovation] created some pain for us, it was a really good decision in the long run. And we have now changed all of our HR practices to hire to what we need. (025)

The second aspect of staff development and hiring practices identified by respondents was aligning staff with the organization’s goals. For some respon- dents, staff fit referred to the professional capabilities of the staff, and for others it meant that staff being hired are aligned with the underlying social mission of the organization. For instance, one respondent from a disability-service organization that is undertaking some product-based social innovations and some socially transformative social innovation work around addressing issues of stigma and social exclusion of developmentally delayed adults from the labor market, said:

I have people come from other agencies and say this is really hard work. I would rather just go work in a group home where I can watch television all night. Then I say, “You are not in the right place, because we are not here to just hang out all day. You can only go bowling, or to the library, or go to the malls so much. Seriously, that is what some staff do all day with people, and we are not trying to do that here. (013)

Although these respondents describe seeking a specific mindset among new hires, this is not necessarily a luxury that all organizations have, especially in tight labor markets and where wages and salaries are significantly lower than in the private or public sector. As a result, respondents also identified that training with a social-change focus was also incorporated within organizations to generate a social innovation-orientated organizational culture. For some respondents, this training was achieved by involving individuals throughout

122 M. L. SHIER AND F. HANDY

the organization in strategic planning exercises. For other respondents—and primarily in smaller organizations—this was achieved through one-on-one engagement with the executive director. For larger organizations, respondents described a process of developing a socially innovative organizational culture over several decades. As an example, one respondent from a shelter organiza- tion, which was very selective in the population it would serve prior to her appointment as executive director, said:

We have done a lot of training so that people understand to be very accommodat- ing and receptive, however not putting themselves in danger, to anyone who comes in our building and not being selective or rejecting no matter how they may appear or how they may present. (026)

Board involvement

A third general theme that respondents identified as contributing to the development of a social-innovation-orientated organizational culture was the level of board involvement. Most research on leadership and social change emphasizes the role of the executive director, but governance boards are also influential in the overall focus and direction of nonprofits. Respondents identified three ways that the governance board can impact the development of a social innovation orientated organizational culture.

The board may or may not have a general focus on creating social change. For example, some organizations described their boards as being particularly oriented toward undertaking socially innovative efforts. These respondents described how their boards were connected within the community and able to have conversations at tables with various key stakeholders—whether they be individuals in government, in the private sector, or in other local community-interest groups.

Other respondents described their boards as groups of individuals who were focused primarily on direct-service-delivery roles and less interested in addressing external environment factors. For example, one respondent noted:

We have a real community board. And only recently have they owned that they need to be paying attention to engaging with other people. And that is a slow process. We are not connected, none of us are connected. And the board keeps saying maybe we should have some more profile-type people to talk to people. But I do not see that happening any time soon. . .. And I think we have missed that willingness of the board until the last year. That is a long time to have a board that doesn’t talk to people. (008)

Although the focus of the board can impact the extent to which an organization undertakes socially innovative programs and initiatives, this effect can be mediated by the level of support received from the board. For example, one organization described the support of their board in

JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE HUMAN SERVICES 123

undertaking a new product-based social innovation to meet the emerging need within the community:

The board is incredibly receptive and proactive. If I identify the need for a new program, like the [respondent names new program], I did presentations to pregnant moms in the community and realized there was nothing there in the community. So I identified this need in the community and I approached the board and asked if we could get some funds and offer some training and connect with schools. That proposal was immediately accepted. If it is proposed and presented well, the board is very supportive. (006)

To a lesser extent, respondents also described ways of structuring their boards to emphasize a socially innovative orientation. This may include having subcommittees within the board structure focused on issues related to advocacy or public awareness. For some respondents, the roles of these subcommittees were more proactive and acted to set the socially transformative agenda (including social innovation plans of political advocacy or public awareness) for the organization. For others, these subcommittee structures were more reactive to an emerging situation or problem. For example, one respondent said:

We have an advocacy committee, which is a subcommittee of our board of directors, and they take either an active or advisory capacity in certain situations. So if an issue comes up that we need to advocate for, we come together, identify our plan, and determine who needs to participate. Even though it is a policy-driven board, they will participate in areas that make sense. (002)

Executive leadership

The final general thematic category identified by respondents as contributing to a social-innovation-oriented organizational culture were aspects of their own executive leadership. First, respondents identified one factor contribut- ing to their organization’s willingness and ability to undertake social change efforts was their own perception of their roles—i.e., their social change orientation. Several respondents articulated that they recognized the impor- tance of their involvement in addressing wider systemic issues of social exclusion or inequality, adapting existing programs and creating new ones to meet emergent needs, or changing organizational processes to achieve better social outcomes. For example, one respondent said:

I feel like, because we are a community organization—and not a government or for-profit organization—that we have the ability to really respond to the needs of the community. It is really our sole purpose. And I am a big believer in grassroots efforts, in the sense that if enough people want change, then change will occur. It is not just about writing a bunch of proposals to government, or just lobbying and hope some decision maker is going to change policy because it is the right thing to do. I think that it is important that enough people care about it. And community

124 M. L. SHIER AND F. HANDY

organizations are best at that because that is who we are. We are not just mandated to be here, we have a purpose. (010)

Alternatively, another respondent saw her role as being at the service-delivery level and less at undertaking socially transformative social innovations. She describes how her own social-change orientation might impact the general focus of efforts undertaken by her organization:

I am more of a Mary Richmond person [as opposed to a Jane Adams type of person]. I really believe philosophically that change can happen one person at a time and it might take a little longer than being at a rally. But it still works. It absolutely works in a very systematic way. I am sure that has an influence on the way the organization works. And it works both for and against me because the people who are working with the kids see me as a very strong advocate for doing just that. And the people outside, or even my senior directors, they might want me to be more connected. I decided long ago that I wasn’t going to be. And I told the board that was either going to be a liability or a strength, I guess it depends. I just couldn’t do it. (024)

The second aspect of respondents’ executive leadership, and possibly the first step toward the manifestation of their social change orientation, is their belief that they were responsible for providing overall direction for the organization’s social change efforts. For example, several respondents described their roles as providing the direction within the organization around the general focus of their social change efforts, providing the rationale for developing new approaches to practice, and maintaining an overall vision of what the underlying aims are of the work being conducted in the organization. For instance, one respondent noted:

Sticking to your core mission, vision, and values, and sticking to what is important for your organization relative to who you serve and not losing sight of that. So to think about those things that would impact our ability, as you say, to create capacity to influence change, to make a difference in somebodies’ lives. A way to approach that is by being intentional with your employees in terms of having a growth and a strategy. You might have some learnings at a leadership level, you have to filter that down to your staff and your stakeholders. (004)

The third aspect of their executive leadership, and the following step toward the manifestation of their social change orientations within their organizations, is that executive leaders undertake a facilitative role. Several respondents described their role in facilitating discussions, creating key messaging, and providing the means for individuals to develop the tools and skills needed for individuals and groups within the organization to take active roles in developing and implementing socially innovative programs and initiatives. For example, one respondent said:

I really believe that we have to be engaged, and all of us have to a part of the effort. So my job might be facilitating discussions where we pull vision out of that and move toward it and helping to make that happen. I don’t expect change quickly any more. I am a lot more patient than I used to be. These things take time, seeds need to be sown and people

JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE HUMAN SERVICES 125

really need to work on whatever it is we are working toward as an organization. Every individual has their own goals, but I think that shared vision is so critical. (012)

Discussion and conclusion

In their review of organizational culture, Scott et al. (2003) highlight the variability within academic research in conceptualizing organizational cul- ture. It can refer to a number of characteristics within an organization, including assumptions, values, beliefs, and behaviors, among others. The findings from this research align with Schein’s (1985) definition of organizational culture, which is:

Organizational culture is the pattern of shared basic assumptions—invented, discov- ered, or developed by a given group as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration—that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (cited in Scott et al., 2003, p. 925).

Aligned with this definition, social innovation (and the varying social-change efforts that make up that operational construct) becomes an orienting principle within direct-service nonprofits that enables organizations to adapt and restruc- ture as a result of emergent challenges in the external environment and as a result of the need for internal adaptations to existing processes and structures so as to achieve better social outcomes for service user groups. Considering the emergent role of direct-service nonprofits in addressing the social welfare needs in local communities (Hasenfeld & Garrow, 2012), an organizational culture oriented toward principles of social innovation is a defining feature of all direct-service nonprofits within the contemporary welfare state.

Following from Schein’s (1985) definition of organizational culture, respondents identified several ways in which this orientation toward social innovation is taught to new and existing employees. To develop a social innovation-oriented organizational culture, respondents identified ways in which they engage with staff, support staff development, and undertake specific hiring practices and how they involve members of the organization at all levels in the organization’s efforts to create social change. Executive leaders who have an orientation toward social change support the manifesta- tion of a similar orientation by providing direction and facilitating action. Governance boards, which are responsible for providing executive oversight on organizational policies and operations, and hiring the executive director of an organization, have a considerable amount of influence on the focus of social change efforts undertaken by direct-service nonprofits. Together, these findings provide a more comprehensive conceptual framework (see Table 2) for understanding some of the variability in the extent to which organizations engage in social-change efforts.

126 M. L. SHIER AND F. HANDY

Of course, the intention of this research was not to measure an organization’s culture (which would require a sample of several organization staff and volunteers) but, instead, to identify aspects within an organization that are perceived to contribute to the organizational culture that is oriented toward social innovation. A further empirical model could be developed from these qualitative findings to be tested in a sample of direct-service nonprofits to determine the fit of the findings.

These findings have implications for social work education and practice. There is a pragmatic application; the findings provide some ways in which direct-service nonprofits incorporate a social innovation-oriented organiza- tional culture. This may be particularly useful in a range of organizational settings where social workers practice. Whether they are in leadership positions or not, they can strive, in differing ways, to promote a culture leading to social change, such as by engaging in or aiming to develop initiatives within their organizations that seek to create some level of social change in the local com- munity. (For a series of case studies on this point, see Cohen and Hyde, 2014.)

Within the professional practice guidelines of the discipline of social work are principles related to achieving social justice. While previous research has tended to focus on the role of the practitioner in achieving some level of social justice for individual service users, this research highlights ways in which these efforts can become manifested within an organization so as to have a wider impact on groups of service users. Furthermore, if they find that the values of social justice and social change associated with their professional discipline are not incorpo- rated in organizational practices, then the findings here highlight ways in which social workers can begin to bring these discussions into their workplaces and critically reflect on how current practices may impede the development of such an organizational culture. As our findings show, an orientation toward social change can be developed. This is similarly aligned with other research on the development of new programs and initiatives that aim to create better social outcomes for service users and groups in society (Cohen & Hyde, 2014).

Table 2. Conceptual framework of organizational determinants for social-change efforts.

Staff engagement Staff development and

hiring Board involvement Executive leadership

With issues experienced by service users

With the structure or processes involved in decision making In promoting community engagement

With the initiatives undertaken by the organization

With activities that empower staff to act

Expectations of staff about ways to create better social outcomes

Aligning staff hiring and development with the organization’s goals

Training staff with a focus on social change

Board’s focus on creating social change

Board’s connections within the community and engagement with all key stakeholders

Structure of board with subcommittees dealing with advocacy or raising awareness

Having a social change orientation

Taking responsibility for social change efforts

Undertaking a facilitative role for social change efforts

JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE HUMAN SERVICES 127

This study also has implications for the focus of social work education in achieving social change. The findings here show that organizations are adapt- ing to a range of failures within their communities—and not just to a govern- ment failure in the provision of direct service. Direct-service nonprofits are actively creating organizational cultures that are oriented to social innovation so as to meet the demands placed on them by their external environments.

References

Almog-Bar, M., & Schmid, H. (2014). Advocacy activities of nonprofit human service organizations: A critical review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 11–35. doi:10.1177/0899764013483212

Anheier, H. (1990). Institutional choice and organizational behavior in the third sector. In H. Anheier & W. Siebel (Eds.), The third sector: Comparative studies of nonprofit organizations (pp. 47–52). New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter.

Anheier, H. (2004). Third sector-third way: Comparative perspectives and policy reflections. In R. Surender & J. Lewis (Eds.), Welfare state change: Towards a third way? (pp. 111–134). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Anheier, H. (2009). What kind of non-profit sector, what kind of society? Comparative policy reflections. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(7), 1082–1094. doi:10.1177/0002764208327676

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palto Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.

Busch, M., & Hostetter, C. (2009). Examining organizational learning for application in human service organizations. Administration in Social Work, 33(3), 297–318. doi:10.1080/03643100902987929

Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructionist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cnaan, R. A., & Vinokur-Kaplan, D. (2015). Social innovation: Definitions, clarifications, and a new model. In R. A. Cnaan & D. Vinokur-Kaplan (Eds.), Cases in innovative nonprofits: Organizations that make a difference (pp. 1–16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cohen, B. J., & Austin, M. J. (1994). Organizational learning and change in a public child welfare agency. Administration in Social Work, 18(1), 1–19. doi:10.1300/J147v18n01_01

Cohen, M. B., & Hyde, C. A. (2014). Empowering workers & clients for organizational change. Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

DeFillippis, J., Fisher, R., & Shragge, E. (2009). What’s left in the community? Oppositional politics in contemporary practice. Community Development Journal, 44(1), 38–52. doi:10.1093/cdj/bsm010

Dellana, S. A., & Hauser, R. D. (2000). Corporate culture’s impact on a strategic approach to quality. Mid-American Journal of Business, 15(1), 9–20. doi:10.1108/19355181200000001

Evans, S. D., Hanlin, C. E., & Prilleltensky, I. (2007). Blending ameliorative and transformative approaches in human service organizations: A case study. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(3), 329–346. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6629

Fairbanks, R. P. (2009). How it works: Recovering citizens in post-welfare Philadelphia. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Fetterman, D. M. (1998). Ethnography: Step by step. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

128 M. L. SHIER AND F. HANDY

Fetterman, D. M. (2008). Ethnography.In L. M. Given (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 288–292). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Garrow, E. E., & Hasenfeld, Y. (2014). Institutional logics, moral frames, and advocacy: Explaining the purpose of advocacy among non-profit human service organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 80–98. doi:10.1177/0899764012468061

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine Press.

Glisson, C. (2007). Assessing and changing organizational culture and climate for effective services. Research on Social Work Practice, 17(6), 736–747. doi:10.1177/1049731507301659

Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. P. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Green, G. P., & Goetting, A. (2010). Mobilizing communities: Asset building as a community development strategy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Grinnell, R. M., & Unrau, Y. A. (2005). Social work research and evaluation: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Handy, F., & Cnaan, R. A. (2000). Religious nonprofits: Social service provision by congrega- tions in Ontario. In K. G. Banting (Ed.), The nonprofit sector in Canada: Roles and relationships (pp. 69–106). Kingston, Canada: McGill-Queens University Press.

Handy, F., Wakaruk, A., Seto, S., Mersey, B., Mejia, A., & Copeland, L. (2010). The discerning consumer: Is nonprofit status a factor in consumer choice? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(5), 866–883. doi:10.1177/0899764010362113

Hansmann, H. B. (1980). The role of nonprofit enterprise. Yale Law Journal, 89(5), 835–901. doi:10.2307/796089

Hasenfeld, Y., & Garrow, E. E. (2012). Nonprofit human service organizations, social rights, and advocacy in a neoliberal welfare state. Social Service Review, 82(2), 1–28.

Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1995). The active interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Jaskyte, J., & Dressler, W. W. (2005). Organizational culture and innovation in nonprofit human service organizations. Administration in Social Work, 29(2), 23–41. doi:10.1300/J147v29n02_03

Jaskyte, K. (2010). An exploratory examination of correlates of organizational culture. Administration in Social Work, 34(5), 423–441. doi:10.1080/03643107.2010.518518

Matzler, K., Schwarz, E., Deutinger, N., & Harms, R. (2008). The relationship between transformational leadership, product innovation, and performance in SME’s. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 21(2), 139–151. doi:10.1080/08276331.2008.10593418

Mayer, M. (2003). The onward sweep of social capital: Causes and consequences for under- standing cities, communities and urban movements. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(1), 110–132. doi:10.1111/ijur.2003.27.issue-1

Mosley, J. E. (2010). Organizational resources and environmental incentives: Understanding the policy advocacy involvement of human services nonprofits. Social Service Review, 84 (1), 57–76. doi:10.1086/652681

Mosley, J. E. (2013). The beliefs of homeless service managers about policy advocacy: Definitions, legal understanding, and motivations to participate. Administration in Social Work, 37, 73–89. doi:10.1080/03643107.2012.656221

Nemeth, C. J. (1997). Managing innovation: When less is more. California Management Review, 40(1), 59–74.

Nichols, A., & Cho, A. H. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: The structuration of a field. In A. Nichols (Ed.), Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change (pp. 99–118). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Pol, E., & Ville, S. (2009). Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring term? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(6), 878–885. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2009.02.011

JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE HUMAN SERVICES 129

Powell, F. P. (2007). The politics of civil society: Neoliberalism or social left? Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and survival of American community. New York, UK: Simon and Schuster.

Rose-Ackerman, S. (1996). Altruism, nonprofits, and economic theory. Journal of Economic Literature, 34, 701–728.

Ruvio, A., Rosenblatt, Z., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2010). Entrepreneurial leadership vision in nonprofit vs. for-profit organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 144–158. doi:10.1016/j. leaqua.2009.10.011

Salamon, L. (2002). The state of nonprofit America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Salamon, L. M. (1987). On market failure, voluntary failure, and third party government:

Toward a theory of government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 16, 29–49.

Savaya, R., Packer, P., Strange, D., & Namir, O. (2008). Social entrepreneurship: Capacity building among social workers in public human service agencies. Administration in Social Work, 32(4), 65–86. doi:10.1080/03643100802293840

Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Schmid, H. (2009). The contingencies of non-profit leadership. In J. Kane, H. Patapan, & P.

T. Hart (Eds.), Dispersed democratic leadership: Origins, dynamics, and implications (pp. 193–210). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Scott, T., Mannion, R., Davies, H., & Marshall, M. (2003). The quantitative measurement of organizational culture in health care: A review of the available instruments. Health Services Research, 38(3), 923–945. doi:10.1111/hesr.2003.38.issue-3

Shier, M. L., & Graham, J. R. (2013). Identifying social service needs of muslims living in a post 9/11 era: The role of community-based organizations. Advances in Social Work, 14(2), 379–394.

Shier, M. L., Graham, J. R., Deane, L., & Jones, M. E. (2013). Leadership in a Chinese advocacy focused non-profit organization: Adaptability to context for leadership success. Social Development Issues, 35(3), 96–108.

Shier, M. L., & Handy, F. (2014). From advocacy to social innovation: A typology of social change efforts by nonprofits. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. Online first. doi:10.1007/s11266-014-9535-1

Shier, M. L., & Handy, F. (2015). Social change efforts of direct-service nonprofits: The role of funding and collaborative networks in shaping social innovations. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 39(1), 6–24.

Shier, M. L., Jones, M. E., & Graham, J. R. (2010). Perspectives of self and situation of employed people experiencing homelessness: Challenging socially constructed perceptions and stereotypes. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 37(4), 13–37.

Shier, M. L., McDougle, L. M., & Handy, F. (2014). Nonprofits and the promotion of civic engagement: A conceptual framework for understanding the “civic footprint” of nonprofits within local communities. The Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research, 5(1), 57–75.

Smith, S. R., & Grønbjerg, K. A. (2006). Scope and theory of government-nonprofit relations. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The non-profit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed., pp. 221–242). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Trice, H. M. (1993). Occupational subcultures in the workplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press. Weisbrod, B. A. (1975). Toward a theory of the voluntary non-profit sector in a three-sector

economy. In E. S. Phelps (Ed.), Altrusim, morality, and economic theory (pp. 197–223). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundations.

130 M. L. SHIER AND F. HANDY