Intraorganizational Conditions Supporting Social Innovations by Human Service Nonprofits

Abstract

Social innovation is a distinct type of innovation that refers to the efforts of individuals and organizations that help to create opportunities that have a broader impact on a social system and/or the experiences of a vulnerable social group as a whole. This research identifies the intraorganizational conditions that support or hinder efforts by human service nonprofits to undertake social innovations. Utilizing a cross-sectional research design with a random sample of human service nonprofits (N = 165) in Pennsylvania, the study identifies internal organizational conditions related to cohesion, procedures, and staff engagement that positively predict product, process, and socially transformative social innovations. This study provides empirical evidence of specific internal organizational characteristics that are supportive of social innovations in human service nonprofits. Furthermore, areas for organizational development related to leadership, staff and volunteer engagement, and procedures and processes are identified that support the development and undertaking of social innovations.

Keywords

social innovation human service social services intraorganizational conditions leadership

Introduction

In this article, we examine the organizational factors that support the undertaking of social innovations by human service organizations. Social innovations are defined as new ideas or activities that aim to improve the overall macro-quality of life (Pol & Ville, 2009), with the macro-quality of life defined as “the set of valuable options that a group of people has the opportunity to select” (Pol & Ville, 2009, p. 882). For human service nonprofits, the “group of people” may refer to the social group characterized by the services offered, such as individuals in society who experience domestic violence, housing loss, or mental illness.

Social innovations are distinct from other innovations undertaken by human service organizations. Although some innovations may be aimed at improving the efficiency or effectiveness of the day-to-day operations of an organization (such as technological, procedural, or administrative innovations), a social innovation aims to have a broader impact on the social system and/or experiences of a vulnerable social group as a whole. Consider a nonprofit that provides a shelter for people experiencing housing loss. The nonprofit may implement a new, innovative procedure that streamlines the intake process, making the shelter more efficient. Albeit beneficial, this effort is not considered a social innovation since there are no implications for the broader social system for people who experience housing loss. Conversely, an innovation is a social innovation if the nonprofit undertakes an effort that effectively reduces the average number of days of housing loss that people in a given locality experience prior to re-entering stable housing. Understandably, social innovation is incremental in nature, and efforts for social innovation that aim for broader impact will be distinctly different from efforts that aim to only increase efficiency and effectiveness.

Knowing what conditions that facilitate or hinder organizations to engage in social innovations is an important area of study (Lawrence, Dover, & Gallagher, 2013; Shier & Handy, 2016). By understanding the conditions that support human service nonprofits to develop and implement social innovation, internal and external organizational dynamics can be adapted or shaped to support such efforts. This can subsequently improve the broader social impact of the efforts of human service nonprofits.

There is an emerging body of scholarship that supports the claim that internal organizational dynamics have an impact on the innovative efforts of human service nonprofits. For example, the extant scholarship generally identifies the potential role of executive leadership, hierarchical personnel relationships, and the general orientation toward social change within an organization as possibly contributing to innovations (Beekman, Steiner, & Wasserman, 2012; Cohen & Hyde, 2014; Evans, Hanlin, & Prilleltensky, 2007; Lawrence et al., 2013; Schmid, 2009). Similarly, Glisson (2015) found that innovation and effectiveness are created by improving the organizational culture and climate. This can be achieved by focusing on the mission of the organization, emphasizing results of the work being undertaken, improving the well-being of clients, supporting inclusiveness of organizational personnel in decision making, and concentrating on relationships between organizational units that impact the quality of services for clients (Glisson, Dukes, & Green, 2006; Glisson, Hemmelgarn, Green, & Williams, 2013; Glisson, Hemmelgarn, Green, Dukes, Atkinson, et al., 2012; Glisson et al., 2010).

Although this scholarship is important in defining intraorganizational conditions that might support the innovation and effectiveness of human service organizations, it emphasizes innovations related to specific outcomes for service users rather than to a social group or societal-level change—which is the intended focus of social innovations. And, while Shier and Handy (2016) identify internal organizational factors, as reported by Executive leaders, that are associated to organizational culture, their research was exploratory in nature. No studies to date have statistically tested the relationship between various internal organizational dynamics and the outcomes of engagement in social innovation among human service nonprofits. Therefore, further investigation is needed to assess these intraorganizational conditions, which are associated with innovation more generally, and the extent to which they support efforts for social innovation, which is conceptually distinct from other innovations.

To advance this line of inquiry, we ask the following research question: What intraorganizational conditions that define the internal organizational environment of human service nonprofits are conducive to supporting efforts to undertake social innovations? We answer the question using data from a survey of human service nonprofits in Pennsylvania.

Literature Review

Shier and Handy (2015a) have operationalized social innovations by human service organizations in a threefold manner: (a) socially transformative social innovations, such as political advocacy efforts or public awareness initiatives; (b) product-based social innovations, such as the development of new programs and new methods of intervention; and (c) process-based social innovations, which include adaptations to organizational procedures and processes that improve outcomes attained for social service user groups. This typology is informed by scholarly literature related to innovation by nonprofits (and other organizational forms). For instance, the distinction of process- and product-related innovations is aligned with the early work of Schumpeter (1942), which was conceptualized and operationalized across a spectrum of organization types, albeit only with respect to aspects of organizational efficiency, productivity, and effectiveness (Beekman et al., 2012). Product and process changes are primarily aligned with the general notion of innovation to improve the organizational functioning but not necessarily to influence broader social outcomes. However, that is not to say that product and process innovations are not undertaken with a goal to improve broader outcomes for vulnerable social groups, alongside or separately with advocacy or public awareness initiatives (Guo & Saxton, 2014; Hasenfeld & Garrow, 2012; Mellinger, 2014; Netting, O’Connor, & Fauri, 2007). Shier and Handy’s (2015a) typology on social innovations captures each of these three types of social innovations as representative of what human service nonprofits do to have a broader social impact and create new opportunities for vulnerable social groups.

This operationalization of social innovation is aligned with the operationalization proposed by Pitt-Catsouphes and Berzin (2015) and further adapted by Berzin and Camarena (2018). They present a threefold model of social innovations by human service organizations that encompasses efforts that shape mindsets about social issues (i.e., social transformations), the creation of new programs (i.e., products), and adaptations to existing organizational structures (i.e., processes). Examples of these different types of social innovation are well represented in case studies of socially innovative nonprofits (see, for example, Cnaan & Vinokur-Kaplan, 2015, in their collection of socially innovative nonprofits).

Intraorganizational Conditions and Innovation

The literature categorizes the intraorganizational conditions that impact the operational functioning (which may include engagement in innovation) of an organization in two dimensions: (a) internal processes and procedures, and (b) micro-social interactions (Dellana & Hauser, 2000; Glisson, 2007; Lane, Koka, & Pathak, 2006; Matzler, Schwarz, Deutinger, & Harms, 2008; Savaya, Packer, Strange, & Namir, 2008; Scott, Mannion, Davies, & Marshall, 2003; Shier & Handy, 2016). Internal organizational processes and procedures are understood as important factors shaping the development, adoption, and diffusion of socially innovative responses to changing external conditions (such as the needs of vulnerable social groups, among others; Chalmers & Balan-Vnuk, 2012; Cnaan & Vinokur-Kaplan, 2015; Shier & Handy, 2016). And, micro-social interactions shape capabilities to undertake innovations. For example, Chalmers and Balan-Vnuk (2012) apply Cohen and Levinthal’s (1990) notion of “absorptive capacity” to explain the relationship between intraorganizational conditions and social innovation. Absorptive capacity refers to a firm’s “ability to recognize value of new external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends” (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990, p. 128). In the context of social innovation, external information might arise relating to the emerging needs of vulnerable social groups within a locality. The assimilation and application of this information within human service nonprofits for a social innovation might include adapting existing programs (i.e., product-based social innovations) or methods of engagement with excluded service user groups (i.e., process-based social innovations).

Teece (2007) and Lewin, Massini, and Peeters (2011) expanded on this notion of absorptive capacity to highlight key micro-social processes within organizations that support innovation more generally. This included social dynamics that support inclusive decision making and that establish norms and habits among organization personnel (Chalmers & Balan-Vnuk, 2012; Lewin et al., 2011; Teece, 2007). Lewin et al. (2011) also suggest explicit elements of the intraorganizational environment, such as sharing knowledge, facilitating variation within the organization, and managing tensions toward adaptation. Glisson (2015) has also highlighted the importance of staff relationships, decision-making practices, and a focus on the broader mission of the organization in reference to innovation and effectiveness for existing clients. Others have highlighted the importance of an entrepreneurial orientation within organizations along with involvement of staff and board members (Beekman et al., 2012).

Based on their qualitative study, Shier and Handy (2016) offer conceptual specificity on these micro-social processes and procedures within an organization that supports the development and undertaking of socially innovative efforts. They highlight the importance of staff engagement, board of director’s involvement in the organization, and staff hiring and development. For example, this may include staff engagement on issues experienced by service users, processes of decision making, community engagement with new initiatives, and activities that empower service users to be engaged. Their findings also identify the importance of having a governance board that is focused on creating social change and is engaged with key stakeholders, and the value in developing board subcommittees focused on advocacy and awareness. Also, of importance are staff development experiences that establish expectations for staff to improve client outcomes, training staff with a focus on social change, and aligning staff hiring and development with the organization’s goals (Shier & Handy, 2016). Together, these adaptations to the micro-social processes within the organization are hypothesized to improve the absorptive capacity of an organization to be responsive to emerging and persistent needs among a specific social service user group, and subsequently lead to greater social innovation uptake by human service nonprofits.

These findings are categorized into three intraorganizational factors: (a) organizational procedures, (b) staff engagement, and (c) organizational cohesion (Shier & Handy, 2016). Similar categorizations are used in other areas of organizational study, such as in network effectiveness (see, for example, Provan & Milward, 1995; Raab, Mannak, & Cambré, 2015). Each of these categories have been found to enhance organizational capacity for innovation in general, but not necessarily for social innovation specifically (Anderson, Potočnik, & Zhou, 2014; Chalmers & Balan-Vnuk, 2012; Damanpour & Schneider, 2009; Dodgson, Gann, & Phillips, 2013; Glisson, 2015; Jaskyte & Dressler, 2005; Lewin et al., 2011; Osborne & Brown, 2013; Rogers, 2003; Shier & Handy, 2016; Teece, 2007).

To elaborate on the three intraorganizational factors, we reference the literature on innovations more generally, due to the absence within the current literature of the effects of these intraorganizational factors on social innovation, a specific type of innovation. As a result, our hypotheses emerge from existing literature on innovations in general, assuming, a priori, that absorptive capacity of nonprofits to develop and undertake social innovations may be naturally aligned with other types of innovations.

1. Organizational procedures: Organizational procedures refer to the routine functions in which organizations engage to fulfill their roles and responsibilities, which are defined by formal and informal policies.

By executing routine functions, organizations instill normative assumptions about proper conduct and therefore shape the intraorganizational environment. In this context, organizational procedures that lead to innovation include staff training and development (Simpson & Flynn, 2007). However, Mathewson (2014) suggests that isolated training sessions are insufficient. Rather, an ongoing commitment to learning is required, suggesting that only organizations that develop a culture of learning with respect to staff development are successful in becoming more innovative. A similar finding is identified by Choi (2012) in community centers. Furthermore, attending meetings regularly, in addition to receiving continual technical assistance, leads to greater staff adoption of innovative programs (Hunter, Paddock, Ebener, Burkhart, & Chinman, 2009). Thus, the literature suggests that appropriate training and staff development increases an organization’s propensity to develop and implement innovations.

In addition, organizational procedures that include staff (at all levels) in decision making may also lead to greater innovation within the organization. As Cowie, Sandall, and Ehrich (2013) found, top-down decision making may stifle progress. In the initial stages of innovation, a certain openness and flexibility is required for staff to improve procedures to make innovative programs fully operational. A top-down, bureaucratic decision-making process may not afford this flexibility and therefore might hinder innovations to fruition. Moreover, as changes are inevitable in innovative processes, and staff are often prone to resist changes, innovations may not succeed if staff have insufficient agency in the decision making related to the design of an innovation or in its implementation (Cowie et al., 2013; Dover & Lawrence, 2012).

Change-oriented qualities in employees are positively related to organizational innovations (Jewel, Davidson, & Rowe, 2006). Hiring practices of organizations, which target employees who are likely to embrace change, are likely to increase innovation uptake (Shier & Handy, 2016). In addition, an organization that expects and values change from its employees is also more likely to create a culture promoting innovations (Glisson, 2015; Mathewson, 2014), and thus increase the likelihood of undertaking innovations. This suggests that nonprofits that actively hire change-embracing individuals and that create expectations of change-orientated behavior from its employees are also more likely to engage in initiatives for innovation.

Given this literature, we hypothesize that organizational procedures (such as hiring individuals with change-oriented perspectives, appropriate staff training and development, and utilizing inclusive decision-making procedures) are characteristics of an intraorganizational environment associated with an increased likelihood of an organization undertaking social innovations. For example, since the purpose of social innovation by human service nonprofits is to support broader social change or improved impact for general social service user groups, the people who push boundaries and have a positive perspective toward change might be more inclined to engage in critical reflection of their own efforts and seek alternative solutions that have greater impacts. Likewise, training and development that exposes organization personnel to alternative methods of intervention and programming could act as a catalyst to identify potential social innovations within their own organizational settings. Similarly, since human service nonprofits typically are structured in a hierarchical manner, inclusive decision-making processes can help to generate buy in for new socially innovative efforts within an organization.

2. Staff engagement: The ways in which staff are engaged in critical organizational activities influence innovations. For example, by encouraging staff to guide the organization’s direction, the organization entrenches assumptions and expectations of its employees into its overall culture and goals (Anderson et al., 2014). In addition, innovation is more likely to occur if initiatives for change come from all levels within an organization (Mathewson, 2014). When different classes of employees (i.e., different professions and different work roles) spend time together, they can explore their interests and collaborate to develop innovative programs around those interests (Damanpour, 1987; Jaskyte & Dressler, 2005; Mathewson, 2014). In addition, there is reason to believe that innovation may increase if the board of directors of human service nonprofits is committed to achieving broader social outcomes beyond direct service (Beekman et al., 2012; Jaskyte, 2004; Shier & Handy, 2016). Although little research exists on the board of directors’ role in innovation, Jaskyte (2004) suggests that governance boards can encourage innovation if its members hold values that are innovation-oriented.

As this literature suggests a positive relationship between staff engagement and innovation uptake, we hypothesize that increased engagement with staff members at all levels in the organization, including board members, is a key characteristic of an intraorganizational environment associated with an increased propensity of an organization for undertaking social innovations. For example, engaging with frontline staff members and board members with social innovation initiatives might help to establish an orientation and culture toward achieving outcomes beyond their direct service efforts. It can also provide new perspectives for workers and volunteers about their roles and responsibilities and encourage them to undertake innovations to address persistent and emergent social issues within society, and among their social service user group more generally.

3. Organizational cohesion: Organizational cohesion refers to the level of unity within an organization to meet its goals and is identified as another factor of the intraorganizational environment that leads to innovation (Nemeth, 1997; Shier & Handy, 2016; Trice, 1993). Factors of organizational cohesion, such as client orientation, teamwork, goal achievement, and implementing change, positively impact the development of innovative programs and initiatives (Jaskyte & Dressler, 2005). A qualitative study on social innovations found two specific elements of organizational cohesion to be salient: staff collaboration on new programs and initiatives as well as a shared vision of the organization’s purpose and mission among the staff (Shier & Handy, 2016).

Similar conclusions are supported in other research, which has found associations between intraorganizational conditions where employees work collaboratively to undertake their work roles and an increase in innovations. For example, in a qualitative study of two large organizations, Plath (2013) found that when practitioners of diverse qualifications and positions met regularly in groups to share questions, information, and professional concerns across the organization, they supported the implementation of a product-based innovation. Other case studies (e.g., Shoemaker, Kazley, & White, 2010) also found a positive relationship between organization-wide collaboration in work roles and innovations.

Simpson and Flynn (2007) indicate that expressing a clear organizational mission contributes to innovation adoption. They found that clients of treatment programs report a greater satisfaction with innovations if the organization had a coherent mission, a finding also supported by McDonald’s (2007) study of hospital administrators. Although there is evidence to support the notion that a shared organizational vision might lead to innovation, this is not always the case as suggested by Jaskyte (2004) who found that if employees have a shared value of stability, it hindered innovation as they may resist any changes to the status quo. These studies point to the importance of a shared value of embracing change among employees for innovations to be developed and implemented.

Although the literature does not provide definitive answers, it does suggest that distinct elements of organizational cohesion lead to greater innovation. Therefore, we hypothesize that increased levels of organizational cohesion (around the organization’s vision and collective program development) will also be factors that positively impact an organization’s efforts to undertake social innovations. While one might expect unity to produce groupthink and stability, given that disruption often happens from the periphery. Alternatively, a cohesive organizational environment around values of disruption and social change—cornerstones of a social innovation orientation—might result in the establishment of procedures and processes of reflection and ongoing dialogue about existing efforts and their impact on creating broader systemic change for the organization’s general social service user group.

In fact, it is important to recognize the relationship between each of these three broad organizational dynamics of cohesion, procedures and processes, and staff engagement in supporting social innovations by nonprofits. Although we have presented them here as distinct categories, they are, in fact, interrelated. That is, if an organization intentionally hires people to push the boundaries of current organizational efforts but does not engage them within their own new initiatives, we would expect this to significantly impact the degree of organizational cohesion, leading to less social innovation development and adoption. Although we have developed hypotheses for this model of an organizational environment by exploring the possible individual component parts, they should be considered more holistically. This is a limitation of existing literature, which simply highlights the presence of one or another characteristic independent of the others.

A more realistic hypothesis is that these various internal organizational dynamics are mutually re-enforcing, and subsequently contribute to an internal organizational environment that results in greater levels of social innovation by human service nonprofits.

Method

Utilizing a quantitative cross-sectional design, this study surveyed a random sample (N = 600) of human service nonprofit Executive Directors in Pennsylvania. The initial sampling frame was developed from the Internal Revenue Agencies Exempt Organization Select Check database (Internal Revenue Agency, 2016) with two inclusion criteria: nonprofits providing direct service to a social service user group and that they were in Pennsylvania.

Executive Directors (or equivalent) were selected as the survey respondent because we assumed that they would have the required insight on the types of initiatives undertaken by their organization, as well as knowledge of the organization. Executive Directors also have a key role in developing the intraorganizational environment through their leadership efforts, inclusive of their orientation toward social change and their facilitative role within organizations to engage in social innovations (Shier & Handy, 2016). This study was conducted in 2015 and received ethics certification from the Ethics Review Board at the University of Pennsylvania.

Dillman’s (2000) tailored design method was utilized to maximize response rates. A prestudy email was sent to each of the 600 randomly sampled organizations’ Executive Directors advising about the upcoming study. This was then followed by an email 5 days later with a link to the survey and the informed consent documents. Over the course of 3 months, three reminder emails about the study were sent to each sampled organization that had not yet participated. We received a satisfactory response rate of 28% (n = 165). A satisfactory response rate (i.e., n = 95) for statistical purposes (Kazdin, 2003) was predetermined based on a sample size calculation of the effect sizes of similar variables in other studies (see Shier & Handy, 2015a).

Instrument

Survey questions focused on the extent to which the organization has been involved in the following: socially innovative efforts over the last 12 months, intraorganizational conditions that were hypothesized as contributing to a social innovation-orientated intraorganizational environment, and organizational demographic variables.

For the dependent variable in this study (i.e., social innovation), Shier and Handy’s (2015a) Human Services Social Innovation Scale was utilized, assessing three different types of socially innovative efforts: socially transformative social innovations, product-based social innovations, and process-based social innovations. The scale is comprised of 12 items each measured on a 5-point rating scale ranging from never to very frequently. Items measuring the extent of socially transformative social innovations include “Participating in initiatives that aim to enhance the well-being of the wider community” and “Participating in initiatives to change public perceptions of a service user group or social problem.” Items measuring the extent of product-based social innovations include “Introducing new methods of intervention” and “Adapting existing services to meet changing need.” Items measuring process-based social innovations include “Creating new administrative departments to meet changing needs” and “Changing the way that staff members interact with your service user group.”

Previous research finds sufficient reliability and construct validity for these measures: internal consistency of the three factors on this scale ranges from α = .71 to α = .76, and the internal consistency of the total scale was found to be α = .73 (Shier & Handy, 2015a). In this study sample, we found the internal consistency of each of the factors was slightly lower ranging from α = .69 to α = .72. The internal consistency of the total scale with this study sample was higher at α = .79

To assess the intraorganizational conditions hypothesized, a new measurement tool was developed, which included three themes: (a) Organizational procedures is characterized by the following: “our organization follows procedures that includes staff at all levels in decision making,” “we incorporate staff training that aims to support empowering service users,” and “our organization intentionally hires people that push boundaries”; (b) staff engagement is characterized by the following: “the overall focus of new programs and initiatives in our organization comes from all levels within the organization,” “our board of directors is committed to achieving social outcomes beyond our direct service,” and “we have structured committees that provide direction for the social mission of the organization”; and (c) organizational cohesion was characterized by the following items: “individual’s within the organization work collaboratively to develop new programs and initiatives,” and “organization staff tend to have the same vision of the organization’s purpose and mission.” Each item was measured on a 5-point rating scale ranging from never to very frequently.

The psychometric properties of the newly developed Intraorganizational Environment for Social Innovation Scale were assessed with this study sample. For the item-level analysis, principal axis factoring, a method of exploratory factor analysis (EFA), was undertaken. The results are presented in Table 1 along with a description of the criteria utilized for a model with a good fit. As seen in Table 1, the items satisfactorily loaded on a single factor. Although more complex factor models were tested, no model except the single factor model met the criteria for an optimal factor solution. Reliability of this scale was assessed by calculating the internal consistency of all eight items. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this scale with this study sample was .81. These results demonstrate that this scale has satisfactory reliability and construct validity in its measurement of an intraorganizational environment oriented toward social innovation. As the items satisfactorily loaded onto a single factor, a total index score was calculated for this independent variable.

Table 1.

Exploratory Principal Factor Analysis Results of the Intraorganizational Environment for Social Innovation Scale.^a

Items	Factor loadings	Communality^b
The overall focus of new programs and initiatives in our organization comes from all levels within the organization	0.76	0.501
Individual’s within the organization work collaboratively to develop new programs and initiatives	0.66	0.508
Our organization follows procedures that includes staff at all levels in decision making	0.63	0.443
Organization staff tend to have the same vision of the organization’s purpose and mission	0.57	0.477
We incorporate staff training that aims to support empowering service users	0.52	0.294
Our organization intentionally hires people that push boundaries	0.51	0.275
Our board of directors is committed to achieving social outcomes beyond our direct service	0.51	0.257
We have structured committees that provide direction for the social mission of the organization	0.49	0.226

The criteria used to determine the most satisfactory factor structure are as follows: (a) the items loaded on one and only factor (i.e., simple structure), (b) item loadings were greater than 0.40, (c) the factor(s) were/was internally consistent with a correlation greater than .70, and (d) the items made theoretical sense.

The communality estimates show the proportion of item variance that is explained by the retained factor structure. This final factor structure explains 54.2% of the variance in these eight items.

To justify utilizing a total index score in the analysis, a measurement model comprised of the eight items of the Intraorganizational Environment for Social Innovation Scale was also assessed through confirmatory factor analysis with aid of the Mplus statistical software package (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2012). Model fit statistics included an assessment of the chi-square test of model fit, the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The analysis resulted with the following fit indices: chi-square test of model fit = 122.87 with 99 degrees of freedom, p = .0523; CFI = 0.944; TLI = 0.919; and RMSEA = 0.043. Each of the indicators of model fit is satisfactory for samples of less than 500 (Weston & Gore, 2006), which suggests the adoption of these eight items as good fitting indicators (Kline, 2011) of the latent variable social innovation–oriented intraorganizational environment.

Demographic variables included (a) the age of the organization (operationalized as the number of years since the organization was established; self-reported by respondents), (b) the number of volunteer hours used per week in the organization and the number of full-time employees (a self-reported measure by respondents of the specific numbers of each, and used as one proxy of organization size), (c) the total revenue of the organization (a categorical variable with 11 category choices with incremental increases between categories of US$50,000, and ranging from US$0 to more than US$500,000, and used as a second proxy of organization size), and (d) the number of years the current Executive Director has been in his or her position (a self-report by respondents of the specific number of years, and used as an indicator of the number of years the organization has been under their current leadership). These variables were used as control variables since previous research has indicated their influence on the extent to which an organization is engaged in undertaking innovations (Jaskyte & Dressler, 2005; Shier & Handy, 2015b).

To investigate the answer to the research question posed in this study, we used a multiple regression analysis to examine the relationship between the index score of the intraorganizational environment characteristics on each type of social innovation controlling for the organizational demographic variables.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

The average age of participating organizations was 36.5 years with a range of 1.5 years to 180 years. Organizations varied in size, as measured by the number of paid employees, with a range of 0 to 1,000 and a mean of 71. Forty-three percent employed more than 10, 51% had less than 10, and 6% had no employees. Participants also indicated a high frequency of volunteer hours. On a weekly basis, the mean number was 142, and it ranged from 0 to 2,000 hr. As measured by revenue, sample organizations varied in size with nearly 10% indicating they had zero revenue, while the majority (58%) had revenues of more than US$500,000. Finally, the number of years of leadership for the current participating Executive Director ranged from as little as 2 months to 35 years with the mean reported as 8.8 years.

Respondents represented organizations providing a range of services, including homelessness and housing supports, counseling services, newcomer services, literacy services, concurrent disorder treatment, hospice and end of life care, disability support services, food security, employment supports, youth and child care services, and supports for older adults.

Table 2 provides the descriptive results for the eight items in the Intraorganizational Environment for Social Innovation Scale along with the total index score. The items are generally distributed across the range of response categories, with averages on all items above 2.0 (the midpoint on the scale). Table 3 provides the descriptive statistics for social innovations. Overall, respondents reported moderately high levels of undertaking all three social innovation types, which is consistent with previous research utilizing this scale (see Shier & Handy, 2015a, 2015b).

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics of Items for the Intraorganizational Environment for Social Innovation Scale and Total Index Score.

Items	M (SD)	Range
Our organization intentionally hires people that push boundaries (Item 1)	2.35 (1.21)	0-4.00
Our organization follows procedures that includes staff at all levels in decision making (Item 2)	2.71 (1.03)	0-4.00
We incorporate staff training that aims to support empowering service users (Item 3)	2.77 (0.97)	1.00-4.00
The overall focus of new programs and initiatives in our organization comes from all levels within the organization (Item 4)	2.33 (0.91)	0-4.00
Our board of directors is committed to achieving social outcomes beyond our direct service (Item 5)	3.17 (0.71)	1.00-4.00
We have structured committees that provide direction for the social mission of the organization (Item 6)	3.13 (0.79)	1.00-4.00
Individual’s within the organization work collaboratively to develop new programs and initiatives (Item 7)	2.87 (0.93)	0-4.00
Organization staff tend to have the same vision of the organization’s purpose and mission (Item 8)	2.82 (0.90)	0-4.00
Total Index Score	2.74 (0.60)	1.00-4.00

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics of the Extent of Social Innovation Types (Socially Transformative, Product, and Process) by Organizations.

Variable	M (SD)	Range
Socially transformative	3.07 (0.75)	0.50-4.00
Product	3.35 (0.69)	0.75-4.00
Process	2.73 (0.80)	0.75-4.00

Multiple Regression Analysis

Table 4 provides the multiple regression results, with both standardized and unstandardized coefficients. The results (Model 1) show that the intraorganizational environment (comprised of the eight items that represent organizational environment) is a statistically significant predictor of each of the three types of social innovation assessed in this analysis. None of the organizational demographic variables were found to be statistically significant predictors of the extent to which these organizations engaged in each of the three different types of social innovation.

Table 4.

Multivariate Analysis for Predicting Extent of Socially Transformative, Product-Based and Process-Based Social Innovations by Human Service Nonprofits.

	Socially transformative		Product		Process
	β	B	β	B	β	B
Model 1
Predictors entered
Organization demographics
Organization age	−0.095	−0.002	−0.149	−0.003	−0.091	−0.002
Number of employees	0.073	0.000	0.127	0.001	0.133	0.001
Volunteer hours per week	−0.091	0.000	−0.038	0.000	−0.010	0.000
Revenue	0.161	0.032	0.108	0.020	0.164	0.034
Number of years of current leadership	0.043	0.004	0.143	0.014	−0.030	−0.003
Intraorganizational conditions
Intraorganizational environment	0.341***	0.416***	0.454***	0.521***	0.320***	0.414***
R²	.153		.261		.152
Model 2
Organization demographics
Organization age	−0.095	−0.002	−0.132	−0.003	−0.115	−0.002
Number of employees	0.099	0.000	0.125	0.001	0.115	0.001
Volunteer hours per week	−0.086	−0.000	0.006	0.000	−0.134	−0.000
Revenue	0.131	0.025	0.068	0.013	0.173	0.036
Intraorganizational conditions
Organization procedures
Item 1	0.022	0.018	0.221	0.166*	0.000	0.000
Item 2	−0.084	−0.060	0.110	0.074	0.168	0.127
Item 3	0.122	0.076	−0.032	−0.018*	0.152	0.099
Staff engagement
Item 4	0.170	0.139	0.218	0.164	−0.002	−0.002
Item 5	0.029	0.022	0.049	0.037	0.103	0.085
Item 6	0.177	0.137	0.100	0.072	0.131	0.107
Cohesion
Item 7	−0.072	−0.077	−0.168	−0.169	−0.084	−0.096
Item 8	0.117	0.106	0.182	0.155	0.016	0.016
R²	.188		.314		.190

Note. β = standardized coefficients; B = unstandardized coefficients.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

We also conducted regression analyses of each of the individual item indicators on each of the different types of social innovation (Model 2). This was done to investigate whether there were specific intraorganizational characteristics that have a greater effect on each of the dependent variables. From these results, we note that only the items related to intraorganizational characteristics of organizational procedures (i.e., role of staff training and hiring practices) had a statistically significant positive effect on the extent to which respondents indicated that they had implemented product-based social innovations within the last 12 months.

No other single item indicators were found to be statistically significant. This suggests that maybe there is not just one aspect of the intraorganizational environment that could be adapted to increase the extent to which human service organizations engage in social innovations. Instead, within human service organizations, it is a holistic organizational environment, which contains multiple, overlapping, and mutually reinforcing intraorganizational conditions, that is conducive to the development and implementation of social innovations.

Discussion and Conclusion

This research highlights the relationship between specific intraorganizational conditions, related to organizational cohesion, staff engagement, and organizational procedures, and the extent to which a human service nonprofit undertakes socially innovative efforts. Together, these intraorganizational conditions aligned together as a single factor (or latent variable) that is positively associated with each of three different types of social innovation undertaken by human service nonprofits. The results support the conclusion that these indicators comprise characteristics of an intraorganizational environment orientated toward the development and implementation of social innovations. The findings are aligned with previous research on the internal organizational conditions that support innovation by nonprofits (see Beekman et al., 2012; Choi, 2012; Cowie et al., 2013; Dover & Lawrence, 2012; Glisson, 2015; Hunter et al., 2009; Jaskyte, 2004; Jewel et al., 2006; Mathewson, 2014; McDonald, 2007; Plath, 2013; Shier & Handy, 2016; Shoemaker, 2010; Simpson, 2009; Simpson & Flynn, 2007). The findings of this study, however, focus not only on a unique type of innovation (i.e., social innovation) for which limited studies exist but also on the development of an initial scale. The latter highlights ways in which human service nonprofits can cultivate their internal organizational environments to facilitate social innovations.

On the level of specificity, the findings provide insights about the organizational characteristics that support social innovations: These include procedures that incorporate staff at all levels within the decision-making processes of the organization, the use of staff training to promote the empowerment of service users, and hiring practices that employ people who are willing to push boundaries. Critical in this environment is the engagement of staff at all levels in the program and initiative development process, a general focus by the board that aims to create social change, the use of structured committees that focus on the mission of the organization, collaborative work processes, and a general alignment among personnel about the organization’s vision, mission, and purpose.

If demands of contemporary social welfare require engagement in social innovations to resolve broader systemic issues, then our findings present some enabling factors that contribute to increasing the absorptive capacity of the organization to do so, thereby contributing to the literature commenced by other scholars (Chalmers & Balan-Vnuk, 2012; Lane et al., 2006; Lewin et al., 2011; Teece, 2007). Our findings also contribute to the theoretical understanding of these organizational conditions as they relate to engagement in social innovations. As seen in the literature review, several studies have found (or argued) that various intraorganizational factors impact an organization’s uptake of innovations. Typically, these are presented as single factors. The results from this study demonstrate that for social innovations it is not a matter of simply creating one or two of the different intraorganizational conditions, but instead it is a matter of creating a holistic environment (that includes many of the stakeholders) to support engagement in social innovations.

These contributions to the literature are important. First, the findings from this study extend our knowledge-base on innovations by digging deeper into one type of innovation: social innovation. We cannot simply rely on research on the general category of innovations to determine the knowledge-base for social innovation, because the outcomes of different innovation types are often rather different. Second, by moving beyond single-case analyses, conceptualizations, and qualitative studies, which tend to characterize the current knowledge-base on social innovation, this study adds an important empirical dimension to existing research and literature.

Third, our findings may be of interest to scholars studying social change since social innovations may well be salient precursors of social change and may have wider societal implications. The empirically supported organizational environment presented in this study provides a knowledge-base on how to support organizational environments where social innovations can flourish as the first step in social change agendas.

There are several limitations to this research. Findings of this study do not show how the conditions that support efforts for social innovations come about nor the nuances within an organization that make it possible for the conditions to emerge. For example, if focusing on hiring people that are prone to challenge institutional norms (or “push boundaries”) is an important condition of an intraorganizational environment that supports undertaking socially innovative efforts, further research needs to identify such individuals and how to recruit them.

Along the same lines, it is unclear from the findings how organizations achieve mission alignment among their staff, or what optimal procedures and processes would facilitate meaningful inclusion of personnel in planning and undertaking new initiatives. Exploratory qualitative research could be undertaken to better understand how these internal organizational conditions are best achieved, thereby expanding on these specific nuances and enhancing the absorptive capacity of nonprofits to engage in socially innovative efforts.

Importantly, there are limitations for interpreting our findings. First, each of the indicators of an intraorganizational environment that promote social innovations loaded on a single factor, and likewise, the confirmatory factor analysis model fit indices supported this single factor hypothesis. Although this is not a limitation of the statistical procedures utilized and does not lead to any misinterpretations of the results from the analysis, it does limit our ability to differentiate between the various facets of procedures, staff engagement, and cohesion. Further research could develop this scale by including separate items related to each of the general themes. This may help in delineating specific factors to be extracted and empirically tested. Such research would help to identify greater specificity of the intraorganizational conditions that support or hinder the socially innovative efforts of human service nonprofits, which, in turn, could provide clearer recommendations for enhancing an organization’s absorptive capacity for socially innovative efforts. Nonetheless, the results do highlight key aspects related to organizational procedures, cohesion, and staff engagement that could be scaled up for social innovation and a foundation for which future research could develop this framework.

Next, we have used the label of intraorganizational environment instead of organizational culture because the assessment tool was not tested across organizational personnel. This is a departure from the work by Shier and Handy (2016) who described some of these intraorganizational conditions as components of organizational culture. It was their qualitative research which provided a foundation for understanding intraorganizational characteristics that supported human service nonprofits to undertake social innovations specifically. But, distinct from their study, this study utilizes different methods of inference to make conclusions. From a quantitative perspective, without a sample across the personnel within the organization, it is difficult to assess the extent to which the specific organizational conditions are shared across the organization. As a result, we do not claim these indicators characterize a culture, rather offer them as describing an intraorganizational environment. However, by using mixed modeling and nested sampling techniques, this scale could be used to test for organizational culture, which opens an important area for future research.

In addition, our research is unable to mitigate potential response bias, a common issue with survey methods such as those used in this study. However, the research did utilize follow-up qualitative interviews with a subsample of the survey participants (n = 30) to explore in more depth some of the findings from this survey. Respondents from that stage of study very clearly articulated the various social innovations they were engaged in; many of whom were engaged in multiple efforts, comprising the various types of social innovations measured in this study. This provided to us some evidence that the survey results are not conflated with respondents who simply wanted to report positively (i.e., response bias). However, we are unable to assess the extent to which this was the case for all survey respondents.

In conclusion, it is important to note that an intraorganizational environment may be oriented to several different frameworks. Although we have presented characteristics of an intraorganizational environment oriented toward social innovations here, a human service nonprofit might also be seeking an environment that is anti-oppressive or trauma-informed or one that promotes worker safety. Our model results do not compare different organizational orientations that may be comprised of similar or conflicting intraorganizational conditions.

Despite these limitations, this study expands existing knowledge on the intraorganizational conditions that increase and enhance the propensity for social innovations by human service nonprofits. Using data from human service nonprofits, the model used in this study demonstrates how intraorganizational conditions contribute to the undertaking of social innovations, and thus provides a starting point for further research. This future research should investigate further use and refinement of the measurement tool developed, further delineation of the interplay between the identified conditions, and further consideration of how these conditions emerge within human service nonprofits, or even other types of nonprofits.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Micheal L. Shier is an assistant professor at the Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto.

Femida Handy is a professor at the School of Social Policy and Practice, University of Pennsylvania.

Calvin Jennings is a research assistant at the School of Social Policy and Practice, University of Pennsylvania.

References

Anderson

Potočnik

Zhou

(2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40, 1297-1333.

Beekman

A. V.

Steiner

Wasserman

M. E.

(2012). Where innovation does a world of good: Entrepreneurial orientation and innovative outcomes in nonprofit organizations. Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability, 8(2), 22-36.

Berzin

S. C.

Camarena

(2018). Innovation from within: Redefining how nonprofits solve problems. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Chalmers

D. M.

Balan-Vnuk

(2012). Innovating not-for-profit social ventures: Exploring the micro-foundations of internal and external absorptive capacity routines. International Small Business Journal, 31, 785-810.

Choi

(2012). Learning orientation and market orientation as catalysts for innovation in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43, 393-413.

Cnaan

R. A.

Vinokur-Kaplan

(2015). Social innovation: Definitions, clarifications, and a new model. In Cnaan

R. A.

Vinokur-Kaplan

(Eds.), Cases in innovative nonprofits: Organizations that make a difference (pp. 1-16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cohen

M. B.

Hyde

C. A.

(2014). Empowering workers & clients for organizational change. Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books.

Cohen

Levinthal

(1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152.

Cowie

Sandall

Ehrich

(2013). Reflections on the implementation of governance structures for early-stage clinical innovation. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 19, 1019-1025.

10.

Damanpour

(1987). The adoption of technological, administrative, and ancillary innovations: Impact of organizational factors. Journal of Management, 13, 675-688.

11.

Damanpour

Schneider

(2009). Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations: Assessing the role of managers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 495-522.

12.

Dellana

S. A.

Hauser

R. D.

(2000). Corporate culture’s impact on a strategic approach to quality. Mid-American Journal of Business, 15, 9-20.

13.

Dillman

D. A.

(2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York, NY: John Wiley.

14.

Dodgson

Gann

D. M.

Phillips

(Eds.). (2013). The Oxford handbook of innovation management. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

15.

Dover

Lawrence

T. B.

(2012). The role of power in nonprofit innovation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 999-1013.

16.

Evans

S. D.

Hanlin

C. E.

Prilleltensky

(2007). Blending ameliorative and transformative approaches in human service organizations: A case study. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 329-346.

17.

Glisson

(2007). Assessing and changing organizational culture and climate for effective services. Research on Social Work Practice, 17, 736-747.

18.

Glisson

(2015). The role of organizational culture and climate in innovation and effectiveness. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 39, 245-250.

19.

Glisson

Dukes

Green

(2006). The effects of the ARC organizational intervention on caseworker turnover, climate, and culture in children’s service systems. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 855-880.

20.

Glisson

Hemmelgarn

Green

Dukes

Atkinson

Williams

N. J.

(2012). Randomized trial of the availability, responsiveness, and continuity (ARC) organizational intervention with community-based mental health programs and clinicians serving youth. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 51, 780-787.

21.

Glisson

Hemmelgarn

Green

Williams

N. J.

(2013). Randomized trial of the availability, responsiveness and continuity (ARC) organizational intervention for improving youth outcomes in community mental health programs. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 52, 493-500.

22.

Glisson

Schoenwald

S. K.

Hemmelgarn

Green

Dukes

Armstrong

K. S.

Chapman

J. E.

(2010). Randomized trial of MST and ARC in a two-level evidence-based treatment implementation strategy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 537-550.

23.

Guo

Saxton

(2014). Tweeting for social change: How social media are changing nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43, 57-79.

24.

Hasenfeld

Garrow

E. E.

(2012). Nonprofit human service organizations, social rights, and advocacy in a neoliberal welfare state. Social Service Review, 86, 295-322.

25.

Hunter

S. B.

Paddock

S. M.

Ebener

Burkhart

A. K.

Chinman

(2009). Promoting evidence-based practices: The adoption of a prevention support system in community settings. Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 579-593.

26.

Internal Revenue Agency. (2016). EO select check. Retrieved from https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organizations-select-check

27.

Jaskyte

Dressler

W. W.

(2005). Organizational culture and innovation in nonprofit human service organizations. Administration in Social Work, 29(2), 23-41.

28.

Jaskyte

(2004). Transformational leadership, organizational culture, and innovativeness in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15, 153-168.

29.

Jewel

Davidson

Rowe

(2006). The paradox of engagement: How political, organizational, and evaluative demands can hinder innovation in community mental health services. Social Service Review, 80, 4-26.

30.

Kazdin

A. E.

(2003). Research design in clinical psychology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

31.

Kline

R. B.

(2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

32.

Lane

P. J.

Koka

B. R.

Pathak

(2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review Archive, 31, 833-863.

33.

Lawrence

T. B.

Dover

Gallagher

(2013). Managing social innovation. In Dodgson

Gann

D. M.

Phillips

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation management. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199694945.013.032

34.

Lewin

A. Y.

Massini

Peeters

(2011). Microfoundations of internal and external absorptive capacity routines. Organization Science, 22, 81-98.

35.

Mathewson

(2014). Creating a learning culture. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 37, 71-72.

36.

Matzler

Schwarz

Deutinger

Harms

(2008). The relationship between transformational leadership, product innovation, and performance in SME’s. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 21, 139-151.

37.

McDonald

R. E.

(2007). An investigation of innovation in nonprofit organizations: The role of organizational mission. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 256-281.

38.

Mellinger

M. S.

(2014). Beyond legislative advocacy: Exploring agency, legal, and community advocacy. Journal of Policy Practice, 13, 45-58.

39.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.

40.

Nemeth

C. J.

(1997). Managing innovation: When less is more. California Management Review, 40, 59-74.

41.

Netting

F. E.

O’Connor

M. K.

Fauri

D. P.

(2007). Planning transformative programs: Challenges for advocates in translating change processes into effectiveness measures. Administration in Social Work, 31, 59-81.

42.

Osborne

S. P.

Brown

(Eds.). (2013). Handbook of innovation in public services. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

43.

Pitt-Catsouphes

Berzin

S. C.

(2015). Incorporating social innovation content in macro social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 51, 407-416.

44.

Plath

(2013). Organizational processes supporting evidence-based practice. Administration in Social Work, 37, 171-188.

45.

Pol

Ville

(2009). Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring term? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38, 878-885.

46.

Provan

K. G.

Milward

H. B.

(1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 1-33.

47.

Raab

Mannak

R. S.

Cambré

(2015). Combining structure, governance, and context: A configurational approach to network effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, 49-511.

48.

Rogers

E. M.

(2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

49.

Savaya

Packer

Strange

Namir

(2008). Social entrepreneurship: Capacity building among social workers in public human service agencies. Administration in Social Work, 32, 65-86.

50.

Schmid

(2009). The contingencies of non-profit leadership. In Kane

Patapan

t’ Hart

(Eds.), Dispersed democratic leadership: Origins, conditions, and implications (pp. 193-210). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

51.

Schumpeter

J. A.

(1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York, NY: Harper.

52.

Scott

Mannion

Davies

Marshall

(2003). The quantitative measurement of organizational culture in health care: A review of the available instruments. Health Services Research, 38, 923-945.

53.

Shier

M. L.

Handy

(2015a). From advocacy to social innovation: A typology of social change efforts by nonprofits. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26, 2581-2603.

54.

Shier

M. L.

Handy

(2015b). 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, 6-24.

55.

Shier

M. L.

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, 111-130.

56.

Shoemaker

L. K.

Kazley

A. S.

White

(2010). Making the case for evidence-based design in healthcare: A descriptive case study of organizational decision making. Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 4, 56-88.

57.

Simpson

D. D.

(2009). Organizational readiness for stage-based dynamics of innovation implementation. Research on Social Work Practice, 19, 541-551.

58.

Simpson

D. D.

Flynn

P. M.

(2007). Moving innovations into treatment: A stage-based approach to program change. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 33, 111-120.

59.

Teece

D. J.

(2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 1319-1350.

60.

Trice

H. M.

(1993). Occupational subcultures in the workplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

61.

Weston

Gore

(2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 719-751.