We Ask of Social Innovation: Where To?

Social progress is not guaranteed. Nor is it going to be the result of a divine inspiration or a creative flash by some as yet to be discovered genius. It’s  going to be work, methodical, disciplined work. And it will be work done by many. There will be localized, customized answers. There will be a pluralism of approaches. Together they will provide us all the ability to move forward.

Our recent interviews with Olivia Khalili are a case in point. Olivia is catalyzing thinking and discussion about the integration of business activity and social mission. A read through her latest blog entries illustrates, among other things, the development of thinking on the subject all the way back to CSR. The social mission ideas and how-tos provided on the blog span large concepts to practical implementation.

The advocacy being done on the question of social mission is rich and diverse. Like many streams feeding into a mighty river, the force gathering behind this movement to social and business integration comes from many places.

Those moving towards the integration include non-profits, family enterprises, businesses, CSR practitioners, co-ops, to name a few. Despite their structures or genesis these diverse types of organizations are circling around a common notion.

Social innovation calls for entrepreneurship. A defining trait of entrepreneurship is to configure previously existing elements in new ways. These many streams are affecting exactly that kind of reconfiguration.

On the other hand there is the work Brian Robertson and colleagues are doing on the concept of Holacracy. An opening premise of Holacracy is that we must see the parts of an organization in contemplation of the whole.

The approach adds a new element to our discovery path. Rather than focusing on the parts and reconfiguring them, Holacracy takes a non-linear step into the realm of the whole. It asks for a sort of “out of body” experience, a view of an organization as an entity and purpose of its own, a purpose independent and beyond the combination of egos and interests of its stakeholders.

As we look at our organizations Brian asks us to, “tune into what does this organization need to be in the world, and what does the world need this organization to be?” What is its evolutionary purpose? What is its role to fill in the broader journey of unfolding what’s next?

Both these approaches are magnetic and exciting. One inventories what we already know: that we want to make a difference and that we have the skills and process available to recombine in order to make that difference. The other asks to imagine what we do not yet necessarily know – what’s next and what would our organization, if it had a mind of its own, do when it came out to play?

That’s a big question. What’s next?

Both of these approaches seem to have a future in mind.  “Seem” is the operative word. We have yet to encounter, in our reporting, a clearly expressed picture of this future. Giving it shape might be the next task.

To that end, what can we learn from all the work being done about what that future looks like? What deep imaginings are there? What are the values and life they wish to bring into expression?