Skip to main content

Systemic Social Innovation: Co-Creating a Future Where Humans and all Life Thrive

Abstract

Society is at a crossroads. Interconnected systems, radical transparency, and rapidly increasing sophistication in skills, communications, and technologies provide a unique context for fostering social innovation at a planetary scale. We argue that unprecedented rates of systemic social change are possible for co-creating a future where humans and all life can thrive. Yet, this requires innovation in the conceptions, practice, teaching, and researching of social innovation itself to reimagine what it is and can be. As a multidisciplinary group of academics, practitioners, and educators, we integrate our perspectives on social innovation and humanistic management to suggest the notion of systemic social innovation. We introduce the concept of “transformative collaboration” as central to facilitating systemic social innovation and propose a multilevel model for accelerating systems change. We then develop an integrated framework for conceptualizing systemic social innovation. Four levels of social impact are identified, and these levels are bracketed with a call for transforming individual consciousness at the micro level and new collective mindsets at the macro level. Blooom is presented as a case study to illustrate transformative collaboration, demonstrate the role of mindset shift in practice, and introduce four key ingredients to systemic social innovation. Finally, a call to action is issued for social innovation practice, teaching, and research. Most importantly, we seek to inspire and accelerate systemic social innovation that enables the flourishing of every human being and all life on earth.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    Founded in 1981, Ashoka has elected over 3500 leading social entrepreneurs (with systems changing solutions to the world’s most urgent social and environmental challenges) as Ashoka Fellows, providing them with living stipends, professional support, and access to a global network of peers in over 92 countries.

  2. 2.

    Here we build off the ideas of Ashoka, which according to its website states, “Ashoka envisions a world in which everyone is a changemaker: a world where all citizens are powerful and contribute to change in positive ways.”

  3. 3.

    AgTech has been referred to as “the application of technology – especially software and hardware technology – to the field… of farming” (Kobayashi-Solomon 2018).

References

  1. Acemoglu, Daron, and James A. Robinson. 2012. Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity and poverty. New York: Crown Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ashoka, U. 2014. Trends in social innovation. Arlington: Michèle Leaman.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ayob, Noorseha, Simon Teasdale, and Kylie Fagan. 2016. How social innovation ‘came to be’: Tracin g the evolution of a contested concept. Journal of Social Policy 45 (4): 635–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bennett, W. Lance, and S. Livingston. 2018. The disinformation order. European Journal of Communication 33 (2): 122–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Berman, M. 2000. Wandering God. Albany: SUNY.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bullock, L. 2019. 2019’s top five Most innovative and impactful social enterprises. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lilachbullock/2019/03/05/2019s-top-5-most-innovative-and-impactful-social-enterprises/?fbclid=IwAR2lM0PMxF8jPITIDy-r-rFzVJ1oFr0t6Uqwl8r_XWPuXo0FcLbmOcemKAs#9104986774a0. Accessed 13 March 2019.

  7. Buringh, E., and J.L. Van Zanden. 2009. The Journal of Economic History 69 (2): 409–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chin, R., Benne, K. D. 1967. “General strategies for effecting changes in human systems”. In Bennis, Warren, K. D. Benne, and R. Chin, the planning of change. Holt Rinehart & Winston 1985 edition.

  9. Cross, Rob, Chris Ernst, and Bill Pasmore. 2013. A bridge too far? How boundary spanning networks drive organizational change and effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics 42: 81–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1990. Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dacin, M. Tina, Peter A. Dacin, and Paul Tracey. 2011. Social Entrepreneurship: A Critique and Future Directions. Organization Science 22 (5): 1203–1213. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Estes, R.J., and M.J. Sirgy. 2017. The pursuit of human well-being: The untold global history. International handbooks of quality-of-life. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Fisk, Raymond P. 2009. A customer liberation manifesto. Service Science 1 (3): 135–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fisk, Raymond P., Alison Mary Dean, and Linda Alkire. 2018. Alison Joubert, Josephine Previte, Nichola Robertson, and mark Scott Rosenbaum. Design for service inclusion: creating inclusive service systems by 2050. Journal of Service Management 29 (5): 834–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Frederickson, B.L. 2002. Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional wellbeing. Psychological Science 13 (2) (March): 172–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Goman, C. 2017. Six crucial behaviors of collaborative leaders. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolkinseygoman/2017/07/11/six-crucial-behaviors-ofcollaborative-leaders/#268549c68cbe. Accessed 15 March 2019.

  17. Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  18. Greenberg, Dana, Kate McKone-Sweet, and H. James Wilson. 2011. The new entrepreneurial leader: Developing leaders who shape social and economic opportunity. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Greenhouse, L. 2013. "Wedding bells", nytimes.com Opinionator (20 march 2013) available online.

  20. Gugelev, A. and Stern, A. 2015. What’s your endgame? Stanford social innovation review, Winter.

  21. Kobayashi-Solomon, Erik. 2018. AgTech: A Great Investment for The Future. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkobayashisolomon/2018/10/31/agtech-a-great-investment-for-the-future/#4a02cc001a09. Accessed 12 March 2019.

  22. Laloux, F. 2014. Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage of Human Consciousness. Brussels: Nelson Parker.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Laszlo, C. and N. Zhexembayeva. 2011. Embedded sustainability: The next big competitive advantage. Stanford University Press.

  24. Lawson, H. 2003. Pursuing and securing collaboration to improve results. In Meeting at the hyphen: Schools-universities communities-professions in collaboration for student achievement and well being. The 102nd yearbook of the National Society for the study of education yearbook, ed. M. Brabeck and M. Walsh, 45–73. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lewis, J.J. 2018. International woman suffrage timeline. https://www.thoughtco.com/international-woman-suffrage-timeline-3530479. Accessed 15 March 2018.

  26. Louv, Richard. 2008. Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. New York: Algonquin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lusted, M.A. 2009. International suffrage. Cobblestone. 30 (3): 40.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Maslow, Abraham. 1968. Toward a psychology of being. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Meadows, Donella. 1999. Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system. Hartland: The Sustainability Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mulgan, Geoff, Simon Tucker, Rushanara Ali, and Ben Sanders. 2007. Social innovation: What it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated. London: The Basingstoke Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Munk, Julie, So Jung Rim, and Louise Pulford. 2017. Five ways universities are organising themselves to increase societal impact. Social innovation exchange. https://socialinnovationexchange.org/_library/_uploaded/_misc/University%20societal%20impact.pdf. Accessed 12 March 2019.

  32. Newport, Frank. 2013. In U.S., 87% Approve of Black-White Marriage, vs. 4% in 1958. https://news.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx. Accessed 22 Feb 2019.

  33. Nicolis, Gregoire, and Ilya Prigogine. 1977. Self-Organization in non-Equilibrium Systems. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Pew Research Centre. 2017. Gay Marriage Around the World available online http://www.pewforum.org/2017/08/08/gay-marriage-around-the-world-2013/. Accessed 15 March 2019.

  35. Piketty, Thomas, and Emmanuel Saez. 2014. Inequality in the long run. Science 344: 838–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Pirson, Michael. 2016. Editorial: Welcome to the humanistic management journal. Humanistic Management Journal 1: 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pirson, Michael. 2017. Humanistic management: Protecting dignity- promoting well being. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  38. Prahalad, C.K., and M.S. Krishnan. 2008. The new age of innovation: Driving Cocreated value through global networks. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Roser, M. and Ortiz-Ospina, E. 2017. Literacy. Published online at OurWorldInData.org.

  40. Steiner, G. 2018. Probabilistic functionalism to a mental simulation of innovation: By collaboration from vulnerabilities to resilient societal systems. Environment Systems and Decisions 38 (1): 92–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Torres, Gretchen Williams, and Frances Margolin. 2003. The collaboration primer: Proven strategies, considerations, and tools to get you started. Chicago: Health Research and Education Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Tsao, F. and C. Laszlo. 2019. Quantum leadership: New consciousness in business. Stanford University Press, forthcoming.

  43. UNHCR. 2018. Global trends: Forced displacement in 2017. https://www.unhcr.org/5b27be547. Accessed 15 March 2019.

  44. United Nations. 2015. The millennium development goals report. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20(July%201).pdf. Accessed 15 March 2019.

  45. Van Aken, J.E. 2004. Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: The quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of Management Studies 41 (2): 219–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Wells, D. E. 2018. From social entrepreneurship to everyone a Changemaker: 40 years of social innovation point to What’s next, Social Innovations Journal, Issue 52.

  47. Westley, Frances, and Nino Antadze. 2010. Making a difference: Strategies for scaling social innovation for greater impact. Innovation Journal 15 (2): 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Wijk, van, Charlene Zietsma Jakomijn, Silvia Dorado, Frank G.A. de Bakker, and Ignasi Martí. 2018. Social innovation: Integrating micro, Meso, and macro level insights from institutional theory. Business & Society 0 (00): 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650318789104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Wilf, S. 2018. How Ashoka fellows create systems change: New learnings and insights from the 2018 global fellows study social innovations journal, Issue 52.

  50. WWF. 2018. The living planet report. October 30, 2018. https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/living-planet-report-2018. Accessed 15 March 2019.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raymond Fisk.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The order of authorship is alphabetical. All authors made equal contributions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fisk, R., Fuessel, A., Laszlo, C. et al. Systemic Social Innovation: Co-Creating a Future Where Humans and all Life Thrive. Humanist Manag J 4, 191–214 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41463-019-00056-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Social innovation
  • Social progress
  • Systems change
  • Inclusion
  • Consciousness