Organizational Pathways for Social Innovation and Societal Impacts in Disability Nonprofits
- 24 Downloads
Using data from a sample of 301 Australian disability nonprofit organizations (NPOs), this study applies configurational thinking to identify combinations of organizational capabilities that lead to Nonprofit Social Innovation (NSI)—a new service or process that promotes social inclusion of people with disabilities—and examines whether NSI is a sufficient condition for high societal impacts to be achieved. The conceptualization and components of the NSI framework were developed in our previous research through a two-month researcher-in-residency at disability NPOs. In this study, we employ fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis to identify several “recipes” of capabilities (varying by organizational size and geographical location) for NSI development. The analyses find that high societal impacts from NSI occur when organizations adopt diverse perspectives, and embrace either person-focused approaches or operate in a risk-tolerant environment. These findings provide valuable linkages to managerial practice in nonprofits and advance emerging theoretical understandings of social innovation.
KeywordsCapabilities Disability nonprofits Qualitative comparative analysis Social innovation Societal impact
The lead author would like to acknowledge financial support received through an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2014). Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2012–2013. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/3218.0~2012-13~Main+Features~Main+Features?OpenDocument. Accessed February 10, 2017.
- Barraket, J., Collyer, N., O’Connor, M., & Anderson, H. (2010). Finding Australia’s social enterprise sector. Brisbane: Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies.Google Scholar
- Butkevičienė, E. (2009). Social innovations in rural communities: Methodological framework and empirical evidence. Social Sciences, 63, 80–87.Google Scholar
- Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Connellan, J. (2014). Big disruptive and here to stay: The impact of the National Disability Insurance Scheme on not for profit housing and homelessness agencies. Parity, 27, 23–24.Google Scholar
- Crutchfield, L. R., & Grant, H. (2012). Forces for good: The six practices of high-impact nonprofits. San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Davies, A., Mulgan, G., Norman, W., Pulford, L., Patrick, R., & Simon, J. (2012). Systemic innovation. Brussels: Social Innovation Europe.Google Scholar
- Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FAHCSIA). (2011). 2010–2020 national disability strategy. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
- Green, J., & Mears, J. (2014). The implementation of the NDIS: Who wins, who loses? Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, 6, 25–39.Google Scholar
- Hsiao, J. P. H., Jaw, C., Huan, T. C., & Woodside, A. G. (2015). Applying complexity theory to solve hospitality contrarian case conundrums: Illumination happy-low and unhappy-high performing frontline service employees. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27, 608–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jankel, N. (2011). Radical (re)invention: A white paper. http://jbctm.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/radicalreinvention.pdf. Accessed November 4, 16.
- Kabeer, N. (2005). Inclusive citizenship. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Laub, J. (2010). The servant organization. In D. van Dierendonck & K. Patterson (Eds.), Servant leadership: Developments in theory and research. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
- Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1175–1195.Google Scholar
- Mulgan, G., & Pulford, L. (2010). Study on social innovation. London: The Young Foundation.Google Scholar
- Nussbaum, M. (2012). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2010). Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. British Medical Journal, 341, 1147–1150.Google Scholar
- Phills, J., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. (2008). Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6, 34–43.Google Scholar
- Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Stainton, T. (2000). What is self-determination? In Proceedings of the first international conference on self determination and individualized funding, Seattle, 29–31 July.Google Scholar
- Taylor, R., Torugsa, N., & Arundel, A. (2018b). Thriving within the turbulence: A complexity theorizing approach to social innovation by nonprofit organizations. In C. Dogru (Ed.), Handbook of research on contemporary approaches in management and organizational strategy. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
- Wills, G. B. (2004). Cognitive testing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Woodside, A. G. (2010). Case study research: Theory, methods, practice. Bradford, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar
- Zapf, W. (2003). Sozialer Wandel. In B. Schafers (Ed.), Grundbegriffe der Soziologie. Opladen: Leske und Budrich.Google Scholar