No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the field of social innovation by examining institutional logics at the level of inter- and intra-organizational partnerships for scaling impact. Design/methodology/approach The authors use a set of case studies from the Stanford Social Innovation Review to analyze success in scaling social innovations applying the logic compatibility-centrality matrix proposed by Besharov and Smith (2014), which aims to reveal the potential for conflict in organizations based on the diversity of logics present and the degree to which they are compatible with each other. Findings The findings shed insight on how individuals and organizations are able to manage logic multiplicity in the context of partnerships for scaling social innovation. Originality/value The authors build on recent work that recognizes logic multiplicity in social enterprises resulting from their hybrid nature, and the authors add to the existing debate by introducing to the discussion contributions from cognitive theory that help explain why organizational cultures evolve and scale out the way they do.

This article examines the concept of creating shared value (CSV) as articulated by Michael Porter and Mark Kramer, in non-Western and Western contexts. We define non-Western contexts as those in so-called "developing" countries and emerging economies, whereas Western ones pertain to dominant thinking in "developed" regions. We frame our research in postcolonial theory and offer an overview of existing critiques of CSV. We conduct a critical discourse analysis of 66 articles to identify how CSV is being cited by authors, and potential underlying power dynamics that affect its relevance for non-Western contexts. Our review exposes increasingly critical views about the paradoxical positioning of CSV as an instrumental concept that can offer "win-win" solutions, particularly from those working in non-Western settings. Western perspectives generally tend to be more supportive of its instrumental nature, but also recognize the increasing complexity of the business-society nexus and stakeholder engagement. We argue that the CSV framework requires further development to maintain credibility and applicability, especially in non-Western domains.

Purpose The purpose of the paper is to propose a systems change lens to current approaches to assessing social impact in social ventures. Many existing tools for measuring social impact are limited in their capacity to assess the inherent complexities and interconnected nature of the work done by social enterprises. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses in-depth interviews with sector experts to gain insights into their needs related to impact assessment, as well as issues they face when attempting to understand and measure their impact. Findings Expert interviews provide insights into how social impact occurs through interconnected systems. It also highlights the need for impact assessment to better consider interaction within systems and networks. Results support previous work concerning the need for methods that can better account for complexity, interacting problems and the place of power in influencing actions. Research limitations/implications Following results from interviews and review of existing literature, symbolic interactionism and Social Worlds/Arenas theories are used to gain insight as to how impact can be conceptualized in terms of systemic shifts in social equilibria. The model proposes to capture the contested definitions of problems and their negotiation in social structures. Originality/value Grounded in sociological theory, the model brings a new theoretical approach to social impact assessment, one that provides a different view of social structures than existing models that are grounded in economic metrics. The proposed model, therefore, provides a new lens for the detailed assessment of the complex interactions between systems.

This paper adopts an explanatory sequential mixed method design to explore the impact of decentralized (vs. centralized) leadership on cross-functional teams' resource exchanges at a long-term care facility in Canada. In the quantitative phase, social network analyses were used to examine the direct and moderated effects (via leader–follower relationship quality; LMX) of the presence of formal decentralized leaders on: (1) knowledge sharing, and (2) work hindrance networks within cross-functional healthcare teams. In the qualitative phase, team members were interviewed regarding the impact of their decentralized leaders. Collectively, the findings suggest that the presence of a decentralized leader may enhance knowledge sharing and safeguard against work hindrance behaviors in cross-functional healthcare teams. However, these effects are contingent on the situation (e.g., LMX quality and status-based hierarchies). Implications for research and healthcare practice are discussed.