An Integrative Literature Review to Introduce Socio-Networked Learning

Abstract

Human resource development (HRD) practitioners have a critical role to play in understanding interdisciplinary learning among cross-sector stakeholders addressing large-scale social issues. Recent trends within philanthropic and governmental grant making agencies reveals a movement toward prioritizing and funding large-scale social change rather than the historical focus on individual project solutions. This shift has precipitated a need for cross-sector collaborative organizations dedicated to social innovation to learn from each other, lending themselves to study by HRD professionals. The purpose of this paper is to discuss Peter Senge’s shared vision discipline as applied to an inter-organizational learning context of multiple stakeholders working toward social innovation. A new model and theoretical HRD understanding will be introduced hereafter referred to as socio-networked learning to identify the learning across organizations dedicated to social innovation. Socio-networked learning is therefore learning across organizations (public and private) dedicated to addressing large-scale social issues.

Keywords

theory building public sector management societal development

Introduction

The Problem and Why It Is Important

Despite decades of investment directed at improving social problems such as quality education, reducing poverty, and reducing crime, little measurable progress has been made (Kania & Kramer, 2011) toward large-scale societal change. The scale and complexity of such large-scale social ills has defied strong evidence of solutions at a large scale. Many in the philanthropic community and public sector funding agencies have concluded there is no silver bullet or individual solution to address large-scale problems at scale (AT&T, 2012; Office of Budget and Management, 2012). As a result, funders within the public and private sectors are turning their attention toward large-scale solutions requiring multiple agencies with multiple missions each with a micro-solution to come together to create what is commonly referred to as social innovation, collective impact, or impact investing (Kania & Kramer, 2011; Office of Budget and Management, 2012). For the purposes of this paper, the term social innovation will be used to describe the phenomenon of multiple stakeholders assembling to bring about large-scale social change. To accomplish what has never been done before requires a new premise of operation and collaboration among multiple partners and agencies. In short, large-scale change for social innovation requires inter-organizational learning and a shared vision. It is an emerging opportunity for Human resource development (HRD) practitioners to cross disciplinary boundaries (Torraco, 2005).

The purpose of this paper is to conjoin the model of Peter Senge’s shared vision and the model of inter-organizational learning within the context of social innovation to introduce a new theoretical framework for HRD which is hereafter referred to as socio-networked learning. This paper will first provide an overview of Senge’s shared vision discipline and its traditional role within an organization’s learning function within the literature. Following the overview, this paper will define inter-organizational learning and the shared vision construct across multiple contexts found within the literature. Following this foundational framework, this paper will provide the current guiding definition of social innovation as a framework of understanding. To synthesize, this paper will define socio-networked learning as the gap or intersection among the three. This paper will construct the literature search methodology and followed by application to the social innovation context as analyzed through comparison and contrast of the contexts and recommendations for inter-organizational learning. Thus, this paper lays the groundwork for the new theoretical framework of socio-networked learning for large-scale social change through understanding Senge’s discipline of shared vision within inter-organizational learning. Figure 1 displays the new theoretical framework this paper proposes for understanding an emerging occurrence in policy environments.

Figure 1.

Socio-networked learning theoretical framework.

Background—The Models

Senge’s Shared Vision Discipline—A Description of the Foundational Learning Model

Contained within Peter Senge’s five disciplines of a learning organization is shared vision (Senge, 1990, 2006). While all of Senge’s five disciplines (mental models, team learning, shared vision, systems thinking, and personal mastery) are essential, Senge notes that a shared vision is a force of impressive power to move an agenda forward within an organization (Senge, 1990, 2006). Senge also notes that shared vision can be the most powerful of motivators and a driving force within a learning organization. Senge’s model has been applied most often to the private sector and is highly cited within the management literature. What is missing within the literature is strong understanding of shared vision within the public sector including social service and nonprofits. In a private sector and for-profit environment, a shared vision leads to a goal where each individual within the company may benefit. This is in contrast to the application of a shared vision in the public sector and across organizations where the goal may be the ideal of the public good without explicit benefit to any individual or organization.

Senge builds his definition of a shared vision from the position that if any one idea about leadership has inspired organizations for thousands of years, it is the capacity to hold a shared picture of the future organizations seek to create (Senge, 1990, 2006). Such a vision drives human behavior toward a common agenda, and the shared vision encourages experimentation and innovation. Crucially, it is argued, it can also foster a sense of the long-term, something that is fundamental to the “fifth discipline” (Senge, 2006). A shared vision is vital for learning organizations because it provides focus and energy for the task. Generative learning occurs only when people are striving to accomplish something that matters deeply to them. Shared vision is a vision that people can truly commit to, because it reflects their personal vision. When there is an explicit shared vision, Senge indicates people excel and learn, not because they are told to, but because they want to. Many organizations have visions that never get translated into shared visions that galvanize the organization (Senge, 2006), but also never move beyond the organization to its natural network. Creating a shared vision within an organization involves the skills of unearthing shared pictures of the future that foster genuine commitment and enrolment rather than compliance (Senge, 1990, 2006).

Senge notes shared visions spread because of a reinforcing process and dialogue creating increased clarity, enthusiasm, and commitment in an organization (Senge, 1990, 2006). Finally, Senge notes shared visions that are truly shared take time to emerge, and they grow as a by-product of interactions and reflection on the vision. With this foundation of a shared vision established, this paper now turns to inter-organizational learning as a model and driving force for collective impact in solving large-scale social problems.

Inter-Organizational Learning—A Description of the Model

Senge’s five disciplines of art and practice of learning organizations have been observed and measured predominately within one organizational context. But what happens when learning must occur outside of the organization, across multiple organizations, and across multiple sectors of society? Learning of this type is characterized as inter-organizational, and it is essential in social innovation (Melaville & Blank, 1991). Inter-organizational learning draws from organizational learning theory, network theory, and team learning theory. Organizational learning theories argue the importance of learning from others; network theories describe the knowledge acquisition virtues of various ties (Lechner, Frankenberger, & Floyd, 2010), and team learning theories attribute performance to external learning (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). When these theories combine, they suggest that the process of participants of one organization actively sharing knowledge causes a change in the capacities of another organization, either through experience sharing, or by somehow stimulating innovation (Ingram & Simons, 2002).

Despite the fact inter-organizational learning has large-scale impact potential; very little empirical research exists on inter-organizational learning (Larsson, Bengtsson, Henriksson, & Sparks, 1998). What research exists mainly describes the experience of knowledge management firms partnering to learn and innovate in competitive, usually production industries (Lechner et al., 2010). Parallel research focused on not-for-profit firms or sectors where knowledge is a public good is scarce by comparison (Apostolakis, 2004; Jamali, 2004; Tett, 2005). This may be because such learning is taken for granted in these sectors, or it may be an emerging area of research.

Within some sectors inter-organizational learning takes place, specifically within the medical field as shown in evidence-based care provided by different health care providers (Shortell, Zukoski, Alexander, & Bazzoli, 2002) and the analysis of the failures of communication between U.S. intelligence agencies prior to September 11, 2001 (Holmqvist, 2003). However, these two examples indicate that much inter-organizational learning does not occur naturally, even when there is a clear imperative, rather it is in response to an external (likely a regulatory or crisis trigger). Current theory has not illuminated the challenges, catalysts, and range of outcomes from inter-organizational learning as an exploratory development for social innovation and large-scale social change (Larsson et al., 1998; Li-Fen, 2006).

In a similar field of literature on network theory, scholars from many disciplines are beginning to examine inter-organizational learning with literature production growing very rapidly (Grogan & Roberson, 2002; Knight & Pye, 2005). The academic community’s interest in networks is driven in part by dissatisfaction with traditional, atomized views of individual organization actors and their actions (Melaville & Blank, 1991), and by changing practice across networks especially the emergence of collaboratives for social innovation. In studies of network effectiveness much of the research and performance focuses on organizational antecedents and outcomes of network involvement (Nembhard, 2008; Tett, 2005; West, 2009). Although this is understandable where organizational performance (e.g., of a firm) is critical to the analysis, there are cases in which performance of the network or collaborative is the primary determinant of success.

Examining learning in collaboratives for social innovation has recently gained empirical attention within the areas of community-based health and social services. Within these contexts effectiveness is assessed at the network level, since client well-being depends on the integrated and coordinated actions of many different agencies (Shortell et al., 2002). Research is now focused on understanding network processes and their relationship with network structure and outcomes, as a means to improve the knowledge of public sector social innovation effectiveness (Lyons, 1996; Moss & Grunkenmeyer, 2010; Peel, Peel, & Baker, 2002). This is significant, and it is a promising occurrence, for the field of social innovation as collaborative efforts are built to address large-scale societal issues.

Social Innovation for Collective Impact—A Description of the Model

Across the public sector and philanthropic communities, social innovation has become a rallying cry in the midst of large-scale social problems with shrinking financial resources (Apostolakis, 2004; “Social innovation: Let’s hear those ideas, 2010”). Social innovation is the increasingly common shorthand for this approach to public–private partnerships with the intention of creating collective impact (AT&T, 2012; Kania & Kramer, 2011; “Social innovation: Let’s hear those ideas, 2010”). Social innovation differs from the public administration practice of contracting out the delivery of public services to businesses and nonprofit groups to cut costs (Dal Fiore, 2007; “Social Innovation: Let’s Hear Those Ideas, 2010”). Rather, social innovation is loosely defined as social entrepreneurship and networks of organizations solving large-scale problems.

The White House, in 2010, launched the Social Innovation Fund and invested more than $50 million in new public sector models (http://www.nationalservice.gov). The Alliance for Global Good launched a new Innovation Fund (Alliance for Global Good, 2012) to encourage breakthrough business models that combine enterprise and social good for nonprofit sustainability. The movement is not just within the United States. European governments have incentivized social innovation since the 1990s. Similarly, large corporate philanthropic efforts within the US have branded their giving as social innovation. AT&T, a leader in this movement, branded their giving as social innovation with a new grant making priority dubbed ASPIRE. AT&T’s ASPIRE goal is “applying innovative tools and resources to address societal issues—for the betterment of our communities—in a way that is more effective, efficient and sustainable than previous approaches” (http://www.att.com).

Socio-Networked Learning—A New Theoretical Model of Understanding

While these social innovation efforts toward solving large-scale social problems in a more efficient and effective manner are appealing, much inter-organizational learning is required to achieve new success and a collective impact (Holland & Gelmon, 1998). Collective impact as defined by the Stanford Social Innovation Review authors Kania and Kramer (Kania & Kramer, 2011) refers to the process of multiple sectors coming together to solve a large-scale social problem. Kania and Kramer note five conditions for achieving collective impact as also noted by other authors (Argote, McEvily, & Reagans, 2003; Lyons, 1996), the first of which is a shared vision leading to a common agenda. The vision must be organized toward change, and include an understanding of the problem and a joint approach to solving it through agreed-upon actions (Kania & Kramer, 2011). Building on this foundation, much as Senge builds on shared vision within a corporation, multiple stakeholders can achieve far greater outcomes than a singular approach. Through a shared vision, social service organizations who may have been competitors become collaborators. The sheer simplicity of this idea is appealing, but the reality of implementation and historical patterns of behavior may thwart attempts toward change and is thus an opportunity for HRD through an understanding of socio-networked learning. Inter-organizational learning is required for collaboratives to function within the five conditions of collective impact defined as; a common agenda, shared measurement, mutually reinforcing activities, continuous communication, and a backbone support organization (Nembhard, 2008; West, 2009). Collective impact and social innovation cannot be achieved through a shared vision alone, socio-networked learning among collaborative partners is essential to success. A shared vision is essential to success with intra-organizational learning, it is even more important to bring multiple organizations together to achieve large-scale change. With this background of shared vision, inter-organizational learning, and social innovation for collective impact established, this paper now presents an integrative literature review to establish the basis for a new theory of socio-networked learning.

Literature Search Methodology

Search 1: Shared vision and web of science

The first literature search was conducted through the Web of Science using the search term shared vision. The general search term returned 3,806 entries. The search was refined by limiting the focus areas to management, educational research, social science interdisciplinary, business, public administration, and planning/development for a total of 629 records. These records were scanned with yes or no variable criteria indicating cross-disciplinary or public sector application for social innovation. Many articles received a “no” indicator as the application was to a firm’s knowledge. Of the 629 articles, none of the articles matched the search term of shared vision across multiple stakeholders in a public setting for social innovation and large-scale social change.

Search 2: Inter-organizational learning and web of science

The second literature search was conducted through Web of Science for inter-organizational learning. The general term returned 217 entries. The search was refined by limiting the focus areas to management, educational research, social science interdisciplinary, business, public administration, and planning/development for a total of 149 records. These records were scanned with a yes or no variable criteria indicating cross-disciplinary or public sector application for social innovation. The search was further refined by eliminating articles for management, educational research, and business administration. The remaining three disciplines of planning, social sciences, and public administration yielded 22 articles, none of which met the search term of social innovation for large-scale change.

Search 3: Shared vision and academic search complete

The literature review process next searched EBSCO Host Academic Search Complete for shared vision. Search criteria were (a) article, (b) search within text, and (c) scholarly peer-reviewed text. The general term with the parameters and limited indicated returned 696,454 entries. The search was refined by adding social innovation as the “and” criteria. This search returned 635 peer-reviewed records. These articles were reviewed for application to public sector social innovation learning through a review of abstracts. After a first pass for content and focus area, the community development articles were eliminated, leaving the political studies and social research articles for review. The search yielded a total of 0 articles suitable for the review.

Search 4: Social innovation and academic search complete

The research continued by searching Academic Search Complete for social innovation. The general term returned 20,033 entries across a broad spectrum of disciplines. The search was refined by selecting peer-reviewed journal articles from 1939 to present. The subject list was limited to social aspects, social conditions, and the United States and 1,939 articles were returned. The list was further limited to the United States and returned 198 articles. These articles were reviewed for application to public sector social innovation through a review of abstracts. The search yielded a total of 0 articles suitable for the review.

At this point in the literature search, the focus was turned to conference proceedings to find a pathway to peer-reviewed articles. The lack of literature is not surprising given the fact the term social innovation was introduced in 2011 by Kania and Kramer. The literature is emerging from a variety of disciplines due to the networked nature of the work of social innovation. The remainder of this literature review is derived from a variety of sources, each with a piece of the puzzle in understanding this new phenomenon of socio-networked learning. The exciting quality of this work for HRD practitioners lies in the role HRD can play in understanding the interactions and learning among partners.

Socio-Networked Learning: The Missing Understanding for Large-Scale Social Problems

While the search of literature yielded little in the way of understanding the phenomenon of learning across socially innovative organizations, it did provide opportunity for a new model or framework of learning to be developed. The approach taken to understand socio-networked learning is one of sense-making (Weick, 1989) due to the fact the phenomenon is an emerging practice among governments and private philanthropic organizations, and its evolution across disciplines (Roth, 2004). Current theories do not account for the emerging practice and learning dynamic. Therefore, this paper proposes the following as the conceptual (Storberg-Walker, 2007; Weick, 1989) components of the socio-networked learning.

Organizations engaged in socio-networked learning cut across sectors; government, private business, trade associations, philanthropic organizations, advocacy organizations, education, private citizens, health care, the faith community, human service organizations, etc. In short, large-scale social problems require learning engagement from all corners of society and learning across the specific actors.

Collective impact is structured to be inclusive with power sharing. No one entity controls the agenda other than to set the direction of the movement allowing learning to emerge from all collaborative partners.

The social cause is the reason for the collective impact creating the foundation for socio-networked learning.

Socio-networked learning takes place through exploratory discussions and meetings.

Normative assumptions of social problems are challenged to change through socio-networked learning.

Shared vision is central to the socio-networked learning organization’s functions.

Collective impact learning organizations are committed to social justice in some form.

The following section provides a review of the literature on Senge’s shared vision and inter-organizational learning, but acknowledges the literature is lacking to explain socio-networked learning. The combination of literatures explains some elements of socio-networked learning, but falls short of a complete description making the phenomenon an ideal HRD focus of study. Socio-networked learning is grounded in reality and observable, providing key elements of a good theoretical contribution (Lynham, 2002). Socio-networked learning explains the meaning, nature, and challenges (Lynham, 2002) of social innovation movements providing knowledge and understanding to act in more informed and effective ways. Socio-networked learning engages networks of networks, providing HRD research and practice new ways to frame issues, pose questions, conduct research, and design interventions (Storberg-Walker & Gubbins, 2007). The framework of theoretical contribution of social-networked learning would be of great interest to policy makers given the large-scale social and economic implications (Swanson, 2008) of this HRD understanding. Socio-networked learning is a means to study social justice movements (Brazzel, 2008), and the framework is a multi-paradigm theoretical understanding (Torraco & Holton, 2002).

Literature Discussion

Comparison of the Models Within the Literature

Two approaches (models) of organizational learning dominate the literature. One focuses on how formal organizations, such as companies, government agencies, universities, hospitals, for example, learn from experience (Argyris & Schön, 1978). Such analysis focuses on learning within organizations (Larsson et al., 1998) and is the most common unit of analysis in the organizational learning literature. The second model is shared vision across organizations. The combination of models with the intent of social innovation defines the context of socio-networked learning.

The distinction between inter- and intra-organizational learning is somewhat ambiguous, given that organizational learning occurs in various social practices that may transcend the formal organizational borders (Knight & Pye, 2005). Organizational borders are real along with their behavioral and cognitive implications (Lyons, 1996; Moss & Grunkenmeyer, 2010). In this respect, the degree of interaction between the organizations may denote what behavior belongs to an organization and what behavior is related to other organizations (Dal Fiore, 2007; Jamali, 2004). Inter-organizational learning requires interdependency, an outcome of a shared vision. Karl Weick’s (1979) early work on organizational learning found that to the extent that two systems either have few variables in common or share weak variables, they are independent of each other. To create interdependency and socio-networked learning, the commitment derived from shared vision toward social innovation is essential. From this interaction basis, inter-organizational learning is thus defined as learning between organizations where there is (initially) a low degree of interdependency.

The inter-organizational learning literature focuses on the notion of external partners in inter-organizational learning processes (Larsson et al., 1998). Partners are generally assumed to be organizations that differ in terms of experiences and that bring varying capabilities to the collaboration. To create socio-networked learning, organizations must engage in exploration of mission, purpose, and values to achieve shared vision. The process of exploration grounds the interactions between organizations in dialogue to avoid the domination by one organizational group (Argyris & Schön, 1978). In addition, a collaboration between two or more organizations may lack a formal chain of authority for coordination (Grogan & Roberson, 2002; Larsson et al., 1998; Li-Fen, 2006), the members remain partly sovereign actors (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Larsson et al., 1998), and they only partly share the same experiences (Dal Fiore, 2007; Melaville & Blank, 1991). This may create a situation of negotiated decision making, making the exploratory process of inter-organizational learning all the more valuable for establishing long-term commitment and large scale social outcomes.

Inter-organizational learning does not occur by itself; it occurs because of an intentional combination of single formal organizations’ experiences (Holmqvist, 2003; Nembhard, 2008), and partner organizations’ experiences, however, formal organizations are the necessary building blocks of inter-organizational collaborations. When two (or more) entities are tied together in collaborative learning, the learning of single organizations is what drives the learning of inter-organizational collaborations (Dal Fiore, 2007; Melaville & Blank, 1991; Nembhard, 2008). Within the inter-organizational collaborations the learning of single organizations is affected, which is beneficial to the larger collaborative effort thereby creating a reason to continue the collaborative learning process (Larsson et al., 1998). The experiences created in inter-organizational learning processes may be internalized by the members, creating variety in their experience bases and benefit to their organization (Lechner et al., 2010).

In contrast to learning of single organizations, learning between organizations holds potential for innovative and explorative characteristics, given the potential to share different experiences between the learning entities (Lyons, 1996; Melaville & Blank, 1991). Inter-organizational collaborations may enable formal organizations to increase knowledge not previously available within the organization. Inter-organizational learning may prove to be faster than acquisition through experience and more complete than acquisition through imitation (Tett, 2005; West, 2009), proving to be of significant benefit for the desired large scale social change. Researchers of organizational learning have stressed that exploration is less a property of individual organizations than a property of inter-organizational collaborations (Apostolakis, 2004; Moss & Grunkenmeyer, 2010) and that such collaborations provide a shortcut to radical change a strongly desired outcome within collective impact collaborations (Holmqvist, 2003; Moss & Grunkenmeyer, 2010).

Inter-organizational learning may be seen to focus on the exploratory process more than intra-organizational learning based on the assumption that interactions between organizations are not as permanently dominated by one organizational group as interactions are within formal organizations (Argyris & Schön, 1978). This dominance can possibly be a short coming of inter-organizational collaborations in that they can be marked by conflicts and instability as a result of the lack of formal authority, thereby hindering learning (Melaville & Blank, 1991). Inter-organizational conflicts resulting from a weak authority structure may still produce strong learning and move the cause of the collective impact forward, through smaller scale changes to policy and practices within their individual organizations.

Learning is often equated with imitation between organizations (Larsson et al., 1998; Nembhard, 2008). Learning as imitation is not simply copying a specific organization’s experiences, rather the experiences of one organization become more varied as a result of the interaction. Experiences themselves are not things that can be transferred between organizations. The experiences (and the resultant learning) need to be internalized within the collaborating organizations and integrated into the organizational memory, not remain the result of one individual actor’s actions or within one portion of the organization. If internalization of the change experience can be accomplished, individually and collectively the organizations benefit from the experience (Melaville & Blank, 1991) and the shared vision can be achieved. The greatest benefit of inter-organizational collaboration is likely the result of a higher degree of reliance on each other to accomplish a shared vision (Tett, 2005).

This background of shared vision, social innovation, and inter-organizational learning serves as the backdrop for comparison of the models within the literature. What is known is primarily that the study of inter-organizational learning is a field with great potential to inform society in a globalized political and economic climate. This paper now turns to some common and disparate findings within the literature.

Common and Disparate Findings Within the Literature

Not all inter-organizational literature supports the discipline of a shared vision as the basis for social innovation, but there is agreement among scholars on a variety of observable data. Within the literature supporting inter-organizational learning, agreement can be found that the following are characteristics of an effective social innovation collaborative.

When the interested parties collaborate in data collection, interpretation of research on needs and resources, and on evaluation of programs, their common interest, and therefore the interests of the community, are better served (Lyons, 1996; Melaville & Blank, 1991; Torres & Schaffer, 2000; West, 2009).

Active participation and shared learning is required among the collaborative’s membership to achieve the greatest benefits (Nembhard, 2008).

Organizations are likely to learn the most together when all choose collaborative learning strategies of high transparency and receptivity, (Larsson et al., 1998).

An explicit vision of what is to be accomplished and a management model that recognizes the inherent complexity of inter-organizational alliances formed largely to achieve communitywide benefits rather than individual organizational member benefits (Shortell et al., 2002).

Learning activities for shared vision would build progressively on each other, and would require the learners to continually push themselves into new territories, where they could gain new skills and expertise and learn to be adaptable and flexible. Also, group and personal reflection should become a valued component of the shared vision learning environment (West, 2009).

These findings can comprise a new research agenda for inter-organizational learning. Furthermore, there is much analysis to be conducted in applying the discipline of shared vision to the inter-organizational learning framework for social innovation.

Is It Really as Simple as a Shared Vision?

Within the literature supporting shared vision through inter-organizational learning, there is diversity of thought on the importance of a shared vision as the top priority to accomplish the goal. As has often been highlighted throughout this paper, different sectors of society approach shared vision and collaborative participation differently resulting in multiple approaches to inter-organizational learning outcomes. The health care sector evidence indicates that real progress toward large-scale comprehensive change is only possible when community agencies move beyond cooperation to genuinely collaborative ventures at the service delivery and system level requiring much more than a simple shared vision (Melaville & Blank, 1991). To illustrate, Melaville and Blank’s (1991) analysis of collaborative efforts found that there were a number of factors required for inter-organizational learning for social innovation to occur. Despite the fact the research was published in 1991, the elements of agreement on interagency success are noteworthy for building the socio-networked learning theory. Melaville and Blank studied 13 interagency initiatives with the following factors of success noted: (a) success is dependent on the climate in which initiatives begin, (b) the processes used to build trust and handle conflict impact success, (c) the people involved matter, (d) the policies that support or inhibit their efforts, and (e) the ongoing availability of resources (Melaville & Blank, 1991).

Based on these findings, Melaville and Blank created a framework for inclusive partnership design with the following provided as guidance. The keys to multi-member collaborative partnerships achieving social innovation outcomes include (a) involving all key players, (b) choosing a realistic strategy, (c) establishing a shared vision, (d) agreement to disagree in the process, (e) making promises that can be kept, (f) focusing on common goals, (g) building ownership at all levels, (h) avoiding convenient excuses that prevent partners from working together, (i) institutionalizing change, and (j) publicizing joint successes (Melaville & Blank, 1991).

Melaville and Blank’s findings are echoed by Apostolakis (2004) who found that shared vision steers a collaborative toward a common goal, but implementation of the vision is more difficult than anticipated (Apostolakis, 2004). Apostolakis’ research indicates the empirical evidence has shown the existence of dysfunctional elements beyond shared vision, such as careless leading partners, inability to promote inclusiveness and a fair system of accountability, and weaknesses at the policy delivery level. Nevertheless, Apostolakis’ research indicates these elements of inadequacy in partnership functioning can also galvanize the utility of collaborative advantage, even from a negative point of view (Apostolakis, 2004). Apostolakis suggests that perhaps these indications of collaborative difficulties are not only symptoms of the case city partnerships, but also symptoms which can be found in the case of other partnerships. The findings are useful when forming a collaborative or partnerships because such symptoms can be useful because they show which possible integrating steps partnerships have to take or avoid toward their future development.

Conclusion

This brief analysis of Senge’s shared vision and inter-organizational learning, with social innovation and collective impact outcomes represents the basis of socio-networked learning as an HRD research focus. Rather than focus on change models which are limited to individual organizations, socio-networked learning focuses on large-scale social change that cannot be accomplished by one social actor (Kania & Kramer, 2011). This new framework and theory for understanding socio-networked learning is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Socio-networked learning theoretical framework.

Based on research for this paper, the socio-networked learning model requires much more research at this time; however, much of the HRD literature supports the theoretical framework. Given that recent trends within the philanthropic and governmental grant making agencies are moving toward multiple-partner socially innovative projects, this paper presented the basis for this widespread change and need for understanding socio-networked learning to accomplish the social innovation. This shift of priorities within government and the private philanthropic community is not likely to be reversed in the near future, as both actors are intending to radically transform business as usual due to the lack of change over the past 20 to 30 years after billions of dollars invested.

To achieve this goal will require far more than a lofty priority, it will require organizations to coalesce around a shared mission and the creation of a shared vision with clearly defined work plans. The socio-networked learning theoretical model presented in this paper is far from inclusive of all factors required for social innovation change, as noted in the section on shared vision. There is great opportunity for HRD professionals to influence the process and outcomes of this movement.

Findings from this investigation of the literature also illuminated the fact that the structure of partnerships matter to the outcome. Research indicates partners must collaborate in data collection, interpretation of research on needs and resources, and on evaluation of programs, their common interest, and therefore the interests of the community (Lyons, 1996; Melaville & Blank, 1991; Torres & Schaffer, 2000; West, 2009). Active participation is required among the collaborative’s membership to achieve the greatest benefits (Nembhard, 2008). Socio-networked learning organizations are likely to learn the most together when all choose collaborative learning strategies of high transparency and receptivity (Larsson et al., 1998). An explicit vision of what is to be accomplished and a management model that recognizes the inherent complexity of inter-organizational alliances formed largely to achieve communitywide benefits rather than individual organizational member benefits (Shortell et al., 2002). Finally, socio-networked learning activities for shared vision should build progressively on each other, and should require the learners to continually push themselves into new territories, where they could gain new skills and expertise and learn to be adaptable and flexible. Also, group and personal reflection should become a valued component of the shared vision learning environment (West, 2009).

Recommendations for Future Research

Social innovation policy makers should be interested in knowing what will bring about large-scale and effective social change outcomes. What may be missing is an understanding of the learning required among the organizations who join together to address the large-scale change, namely, socio-networked learning. This is a new field of HRD study brought about by policy change at the highest political levels. There is a great deal of research within socio-networked organizations examining how the actors come together, the process of organizing, the processes of self-examination for engagement with the work, and the processes of evaluation of outcomes brought about by the collaborative partnerships. Furthermore, this phenomenon is not a change management initiative for research, but rather an examination of the learning process across institutional and political boundaries and the conglomeration of networks. There could be a tendency to examine what partnerships are doing rather than why and how they are doing the work of social innovation, and the phenomenon and role of learning through the socio-network of social innovation may be entirely overlooked. Here is where HRD can engage and bring insight, understanding, and new knowledge to benefit organizations and society at large. A shared vision across multiple organizations is the foundation of partnership development, but it may or may not be enough to keep players in the game to achieve the long-term intended outcome of social innovation. The purpose of this paper was to provide an overview of Peter Senge’s shared vision discipline as applied to an inter-organizational context of social innovation and to introduce a new theoretical framework of socio-networked learning for HRD. The integrative literature review findings are conclusive that the research arena for this connection is emergent and without conclusive evidence, however, it is a much-needed area of HRD research with potential for significant impact on policy and social change efforts.

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 Biography

Carol Cutler White is currently a Doctoral student at North Carolina State University studying educational research and policy analysis with a specialization in workforce and human resource development. Cutler White is employed at the University of North Carolina General Administration as State Director of GEAR UP NC. In this capacity, Cutler White is responsible for a 7-year $28.5 million US Department of Education Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) grant. The grant requires socio-networked learning to achieve strong college going rates in communities across North Carolina. Cutler White also served as Co-PI of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Partners for Postsecondary Success grant requiring socio-networked learning to improve postsecondary outcomes among low resource families in Raleigh, North Carolina.

References

Alliance for Global Good. (2012). New innovation fund encourages breakthrough business models that combine enterprise and social good for nonprofit sustainability. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/01/idUS150157+01-Jun-2012+PRN20120601

Ancona

Caldwell

(1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634-665.

Apostolakis

(2004). Citywide and local strategic partnerships in urban regeneration: Can collaboration take things forward. Politics, 24, 103-112. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9256.2004.00211.x

Argote

McEvily

Reagans

(2003). Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49, 571-582.

Argyris

Schön

(1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

AT&T. (2012). What is social innovation? Retrieved from http://www.att.com/Common/about_us/files/pdf/aspire/att_aspire_social_innovation.pdf

Brazzel

B. M.

(2008). Deep diversity, social justice, and organization development. OD Seasonings, 5(2). Retrieved from http://www.ntl.org/upload/BrazzelODSeasoningsDeepDivSJODSummer2008.pdf

Dal Fiore

(2007). Communities versus networks: The implications on innovation and social change. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 857-866.

Grogan

Roberson

(2002). Developing a new generation of educational leaders by capitalizing on partnerships. International Journal of Educational Management, 16, 314-318.

10.

Holland

Gelmon

(1998). The state of the engaged campus: What we have learned about building and sustaining university-community partnerships. American Association of Higher Education Bulletin, 51(2), 3-6.

11.

Holmqvist

(2003). A dynamic model of intra-and interorganizational learning. Organizational Studies, 24, 573-589. doi:10.1177/0170840603024001684

12.

Ingram

Simons

(2002). The transfer of experience in groups of organizations: Implications for performance and competition. Management Science, 48, 1517-1533.

13.

Jamali

(2004). Success and failure mechanisms of public private partnerships in developing countries: Insights from the Lebanese context. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17, 414-430.

14.

Kania

Kramer

(2011, Winter). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(1). Retrieved from http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/collective_impact

15.

Knight

Pye

(2005). Network learning: An empirically derived model of learning by groups of organizations. Human Relations, 58, 369-392. doi:10.1177/0018726705053427

16.

Larsson

Bengtsson

Henriksson

Sparks

(1998). The inter-organizational learning dilemma: Collective knowledge development in strategic alliances. Organization Science, 9, 285-305.

17.

Lechner

Frankenberger

Floyd

S. W.

(2010). Task contingencies in the curvilinear relationships between intergroup networks and initiative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 865-889. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.52814620

18.

Li-Fen

(2006). A learning organization perspective on knowledge-sharing behavior and firm innovation. Human Systems Management, 25, 227-236.

19.

Lynham

S. A.

(2002). The general method of theory-building research in applied disciplines. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4, 221-241. doi:10.1177/1523422302043002

20.

Lyons

(1996). Shared learning: A proven participative change design. Journal for Quality and Participation, 19(2), 58-64.

21.

Melaville

Blank

(1991). What it takes: Structuring interagency partnerships to connect children and families with comprehensive services. Washington, DC: Education and Human Services Consortium. Available from http://eric.ed.gov/

22.

Moss

Grunkenmeyer

(2010). Building shared visions for sustainable communities. Community Development, 41, 240-254.

23.

Nembhard

I. M.

(2008, May). When do organizations learn from each other? Interorganizational Learning in Health Care. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Annual Conference, Boston, MA (pp. 1-41).

24.

Office of Budget and Management. (2012, May 18). Memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2012/m-12-14_1.pdf

25.

Peel

Baker

(2002). School/university partnerships: A viable model. International Journal of Educational Management, 16, 319-325.

26.

Roth

G. L.

(2004). CPE and HRD: Research and practice within systems and across boundaries. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6, 9-19. doi:10.1177/1523422303260417

27.

Senge

(1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.

28.

Senge

(2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.

29.

Shortell

Zukoski

Alexander

Bazzoli

(2002). Evaluating partnerships for community health improvement: Tracking the footprints. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 27, 49-91.

30.

Social innovation: Let’s hear those ideas. (2010, August 12). Economist (Briefing). Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/16789766

31.

Storberg-walker

(2007). Understanding the conceptual development phase of applied theory building research: A grounded theory approach. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18, 63-90. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1192

32.

Storberg-Walker

Gubbins

(2007). Social networks as a conceptual and empirical tool to understand and “Do” HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9, 291-310. doi:10.1177/1523422306304071

33.

Swanson

R. A.

(2008). Economic foundation of human resource development: Advancing the theory and practice of the discipline. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10, 763-769. doi:10.1177/1523422308324425

34.

Tett

(2005). Partnerships, community groups, and social inclusion. Studies in Continuing Education, 27, 1-15.

35.

Torraco

R. J.

(2005). Human resource development transcends disciplinary boundaries. Human Resource Development Review, 4, 251-253.

36.

Torraco

R. J.

Holton

E. F.

(2002). A theorist’s toolbox. Human Resource Development Review, 1, 129-140.

37.

Torres

Schaffer

(2000). Benchmarks for campus/community partnerships. In Campus Compact (Ed.), Introduction to service learning toolkit (pp. 101-108). Providence, RI: Campus Compact.

38.

Weick

K. E.

(1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.), Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

39.

Weick

K. E.

(1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Journal, 14, 516-531.

40.

West

(2009). What is shared? A framework for understanding shared innovation within communities. Education Technology Research Development, 57, 315-332. doi:10.1007/s11423-008-9107-4