Turning rebellion into money? Social entrepreneurship as the strategic performance of systems change

Abstract

Critical scholars recognize a disjuncture between the problems identified by social entrepreneurs and the solutions they propose. Existing theory treats this as a problem to be rectified at the organizational level. In this essay, we widen attention to the macro-oriented systems change strategies of social entrepreneurs. We develop a dynamic typology showing how strategies are reassembled over time to stimulate or deflect desire for systems change. Deriving inspiration from Goffman, we theorize the ways that different types of systems change actor perform systems change via interaction with their environments. Drawing on illustrative cases on the boundaries of social entrepreneurship, we show how the collective action frameworks developed by systems change actors can be adapted and repurposed by their (systems) audiences: effectively turning rebellion into money. Managerial Summary: Social entrepreneurs often call for systems change to tackle wicked problems such as poverty or climate change. However, the strategies they propose for tackling these problems, such as lending money to poor people are considerably less radical. In this essay, we identify three types of systems change actor distinguished by the degree of systems change they call for. We trace their

Seizing the moment—Strategy, social entrepreneurship, and the pursuit of impact

“…Importantly, this is largely due to several issues noted throughout the special issue regarding the need to account for diverse stakeholder interests (Teasdale et al, 2023) and concepts of value across different contexts (Anokhin et al, 2023;Hechavarría et al, 2023) when assessing long-term social performance.…”

“…First, what is the risk of failure of the intervention? The focus on creating positive changes has often overlooked the fact that, like many-even most-entrepreneurial ventures, social entrepreneurship initiatives often fail and/or drift substantially from their initial objectives (Teasdale et al, 2023). In the social value space, the harm may be far beyond the loss of investor capital and some degree of entrepreneur reputation (Anokhin et al, 2023).…”

“…As indicated in the table, the special issue papers broadly addressed theoretical questions across three primary themes. One paper (Teasdale et al, 2023) focuses on the influences of diverse actors' characteristics; two papers (Anokhin et al, 2023; Hechavarría et al, 2023) explore how competing environmental factors shape social entrepreneurship; and two papers (Boulongne, 2023; Yan et al, 2023) examine specific outcomes of social entrepreneurship.…”

“…Teasdale et al (2023) delve into an important failing in the field of social entrepreneurship—social entrepreneurs often seek (and claim) to make radical change, but true systemic change is rarely realized. This is consistent with recent research noting how tackling “grand challenges” can be frustratingly slow, where setbacks, failure, and missing the “true solution to problems” that organizations seek to address is often the norm rather than the exception (Ferraro, Etzion, & Gehman, 2015; Pearce, Albritton, Grant, Steed, & Zelenika, 2012; Sawyer & Clair, 2022, p. 291; Stephan, Patterson, Kelly, & Mair, 2016).…”

“…As indicated in the table, the special issue papers broadly addressed theoretical questions across three primary themes. One paper(Teasdale et al, 2023) focuses on the influences of diverse actors' characteristics; two papers(Anokhin et al, 2023;Hechavarría et al, 2023) explore how competing environmental factors shape social entrepreneurship; and two papers(Boulongne, 2023;Yan et al, 2023) examine specific outcomes of social entrepreneurship.1.1.1 | Diverse actors and social entrepreneurship Teasdale et al (2023) delve into an important failing in the field of social entrepreneurship-social entrepreneurs often seek (and claim) to make radical change, but true systemic change is rarely realized. This is consistent with…”