Ideas and insights

I felt like revisitng my annotated bibliography that I developed whilst undertaking my doctorate and  saw a note I wrote in response to the journal article cited here. Hope some readers find it interesting and useful. 

 Ashforth, Harrison & Corley, (2008) presented some useful insights into the nature and significance of identity as well as of identification. Their study revealed that both identity i.e. role identity, as well as organisational identification, are important constructs, not just conceptually but in a practical sense. Individuals have a need to identify with a spectrum of entities, such as values, beliefs, and also groups and organisations. Understanding and recognising the relevance of identity is important for anyone in an organisational setting, especially for those in leadership roles, as identity and identification are linked to important organisational objectives and outcomes including employee commitment and responsiveness to change; they also make a point that “as societies and organisations become more turbulent and individual-organisation relationships become more tenuous, individuals’ desire for some kind of work-based identification is likely to increase- precisely because traditional moorings are increasingly unreliable” (Ashforth, Harrison & Corley, 2008, p. 326).

 Ref: Ashforth B, Harrison SH & Corley KG, 2008, Identification in Organizations: An Examination of  Four Fundamental Questions. Journal of Management 34: pp 325-374.

Recent articles I have seen refer to a few interesting aspects of interests and concerns apparently observed by others in the broad group we label as Millennials. Concerns around the environment, about sustainability and about working in ways and in enterprises that are meaningful, are some of these aspects. I am currently working with close to 70 undergraduates from various degrees at Flinders University; for some the topic/subject Entrepreneurship and Small Business is a core part of their degree while for many more it is an elective and therefore represents a subject that was of particular interest to them. What I am noticing is the interest expressed by many, in socially oriented enterprises. In a recent activity – the development of ideas to be explored to determine whether said idea may constitute a feasible opportunity, it has been interesting to see the number of ideas for social enterprises that have been put through the feasibility process. 

It has been interesting also to see how those students who have been developing possible ways to set up social enterprises, readily recognize how much they need to identify and work with stakeholders, establish, build and be able to sustain collaborative relationships with other entities, and in short, also engage in simple forms of systems thinking and user-centred innovation. 

 “Social entrepreneurs have an acute understanding of social needs, and then fulfill these needs through creative organization. This focus on social value is consistent across various definitions of social entrepreneurship” (Certo & Miller 2008, p 268). Social entrepreneurs ‘‘play the role of change agents in the social sector by. . .engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning.’’ (ibid, p. 268).

Useful sources for the above concepts:

Cajaiba-Santana G (2014) Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 82, 42–51

Certo S and Miller T (2008) Social entrepreneurship: Key issues and concepts. Business Horizons 51, 267-271.

Luma Institute, 2014, A Taxonomy of Innovation. Harvard Business Review.

Mair J & Mart I (2006) Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business41 36–44

Neck H, Brush C & Allen E (2009) The landscape of social entrepreneurship. Business Horizons,52, 13—19

Santos F (2012) A Positive Theory of Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics,111, 335-351.

Weerawardena J & Mort G (2006) Investigating social entrepreneurship: A multidimensional model. Journal of World Business,41, 21–35

 During the last couple of years I’ve taken a look at the literature and practices relating to social innovation. In particular, whilst working through 2016- 2017 in order to develop a new academic (yet practical…) degree focused on innovation, I became aware of the growth in ways to conceptualise the term. After I attend this year's 2019 Creative Innovation Conference in April, looking at 'Human Intelligence 2.0 'A Collective Future?' I am going to have more 'food for thought' about the kinds of future scenarios we may be creating and participating in... 

In the meantime, let’s take a look at some of the ways we see innovation: we have social innovation (Phills, Deiglmeier & Miller (2008); sustainability-oriented innovation (Adams, Jeanrenaud, Bessant, Denyer & Overy, 2016); user-centred innovation; purpose driven innovation (Tidd & Bessant 2009); design-driven innovation (Battistella, Biotto & De Toni, 2012, p. 719); systemic innovation (Mulgan & Leadbeater (2013); human-centred innovation (Van der Bijl-Brouwer & Dorst, 2014, p. 280) by which they mean innovation that is closely linked to and responding to 'deeply felt human needs understood within their context'. They also discuss design innovation, that, put simply, innovation in design based on a deep understanding of human needs. At the core of all these permutations of the change process that is about being innovative, is a stronger recognition of and therefore focus on the emotional, psycho-social (in addition to the financial or commercial) elements of organisational life and the desire for enterprising individuals to address often complex human problems and challenges, and an interest in work that is meaningful. 

References

Adams R, Jeanrenaud S, Bessant J, Denyer, D & Overy, P, 2016, Sustainability-oriented Innovation: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 18, pp. 180-205. 

Battistella C, Biotto G & De Toni, A, 2012, From design driven innovation to meaning strategy. Management DecisionVol. 50, Issue 4, pp. 718-743.

Mulgan G & Leadbeater C, 2013, Systems Innovation Discussion Paper. NESTA. 

Phills J A, Deiglmeier K and Miller D, 2008, Rediscovering Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall 6, 4, 34-43.

Tidd J & Bessant J, 2009, Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change, 4^thedition. Chichester,John Wiley & Sons. 

Van der Bijl-Brouwer M & Dorst K, 2014, How deep is deep? A four-layer model of insights into human needs for design innovation. Proceedings of the Colors of Care: 9th International Conference on Design & Emotion, pp. 280 – 287.

As we observe and experience the growth of new, often micro, highly networked enterprises in our economy and communities, including initiatives that disrupt older business models, it is clear that the insights and initiatives of the founders are both the starting point and centre of entrepreneurial activity. Individuals with a propensity for focused action that then evolves into entrepreneurial leadership of the business, are creating new forms of organisation, some virtual and many highly networked. This kind of activity highlights and demonstrates the crucial role that intrapersonal, interpersonal effectiveness combined with the ability to absorb business skills quickly, plays. A transdisciplinary approach to knowledge is often enacted by successful entrepreneurs.

I couldn't resist adding an image of a small and beautifully formed tree in my local area, that seems to be on fire but of course is displaying its vibrant Autumn colour. I hope to add another image when we see colour again after we get through this very dry 2019 summer.