Session Information
32 SES 03 A, New Methods to Study and to Develop Organizations and Organizational Learning
Paper Session
Contribution
Social Service Organizations are under considerable pressure to change and innovate, e.g. because of hybrid logics and increasing complexity (Becher/Hastedt 2019). In the last decades, Innovation Labs are getting more attention to develop innovations within organizations. Innovation Learning Labs are an enabling factor to actively shape the future of the organization and foster social innovation (Schröer/Schmitz 2019). Besides the development of business models for social service innovations, innovation labs create a specific setting for workplace learning (Fenwick 2006) for their participants. The goal of the researched innovation labs, run by different social service organizations in Germany, is the development of entrepreneurial mind-set and practice of the participating social intrapreneurs (Schmitz/Schröer 2016), which are mainly employees of different social enterprises. They get to know an innovative combination of Design Thinking (Plattner et al. 2009) and Business Modell Development (Osterwalder & Pigneur 2010; Ries 2011) methods to foster Social Innovation (Mulgan 2012) through an Open Innovation (Chesbrough 2003) process.
Risk-taking is a central element of the innovation labs because of their entrepreneurial education perspective. Next to other professional competencies in the aspired field, risk-taking is a central element of entrepreneurs: Similar to entrepreneurs, intrapreneurs act with orientation toward social goals, striving for new and creative solutions with a particular set of traits (motivation, persistence, willing to take risks) and competencies (social skills, open for new knowledge, business acumen). In addition to these general entrepreneurial indicators, intrapreneurs are committed to their organization, have an insider-outsider perspective and have the ability to deal with resistance in a productive way (Schmitz/Schröer 2016). With focus on the learning process of entrepreneurship, we divide exploitation and exploration (March 1991). Explorative learning is characterized by experimenting, play, discovery, interpretation, e.g. developing a new alternative. Exploitative learning is characterized by refinement, efficiency, selection, execution, e.g. of existing technologies, paradigms or competencies. For entrepreneurial learning as for the survival and prosperity of the enterprises, an appropriate balance of both dimensions is necessary.
Risk-taking is different in social intrapreneurship than used in the field of entrepreneurship. As Schmitz and Schröer (2016) point out, entrepreneurial behavior holds the risk of decreasing future margin expectations while in intrapreneurship situation the risk of money already spent is even more interesting. If the project fails, the money is lost. In the case of intrapreneurship within established social welfare organizations, the financial risk is low compared to other organizations. The risk for intrapreneurs is more the one of personal career development (Kuckertz 2017, S. 28).
Social Welfare Organizations face considerable challenges to innovate (Schröer 2016). This is why the lab providers explicitly installed the lab as protected experimental space to develop solutions for social problems in their field or profession. Therefore our first question is: How do participants use this protected space of the lab for experiments?
Innovation Labs use methods like design thinking that differ from established ways of management in social service organizations. In addition participants are addressed as potential change agents (intrapreneurs). Both might contribute to a more innovative organizational culture. Therefore our second question is: How do lab participants deal with the uncertainty of developing innovations and to what extent does this process change their tolerance of uncertainty?
From a practice theory perspective (Schatzki 2002) we are interested in the ´modus operandi´ and collective practices of innovating. Lab participants are part of the „community of practice“ (Wenger 1998) engaged in practices of learning, collaborating and developing new services. Therefore, the third focus is to highlight the practices of risk-taking and uncertainty within the specific tension field of belonging to the lab community and to the organization.
Method
For the submitted paper, two innovation labs will be evaluated regarding their organizational configuration with a focus on dealing with risk-taking and uncertainty. The labs took place in social welfare organizations between 2017 and 2019, were divided in six to eight workshops, and self-organized phases with different tasks between the workshops. A team of two person moderated the workshops with 12 participants each and invited experts gave inputs. The mixed-methods-design of the studies includes semi-structured interviews with participants, lab providers and supervisors of the participants (two dates each), document analysis and participatory observation of the workshops. The qualitative material was analyzed following Qualitative Content Analysis (Mayring 2010). In a quantitative perspective, the participants did a self-assessment (before and after the lab), in one lab with the „Uncertainty Tolerance Scale“ (Dalbert 1999). The authors will present a comparison of the two innovation labs.
Expected Outcomes
How do Intrapreneurs deal with risk and uncertainty within the protected space of an Innovation Lab? The submitted paper presents empirical results out of an Action Research Project in the fields of Social Welfare Organizations and contributes to the discourses of Intrapreneurship Education, Innovation Labs, Adult Learning and Workplace Learning. With an Organizational Education perspective, the paper presents supporting and impeding factors of risk-taking and dealing with uncertainty at the interface of human resource development and organizational development. With a practice theory perspective, the authors highlight the practices of risk-taking and dealing with uncertainty. The paper contributes to the sub-theme “5) Organizations as actors of Organizational Futures and Innovation” of the conference.
References
Becher, B. & Hastedt, I. (2019). „Innovationen“ in der Sozialwirtschaft. Modethema oder Erfolgsnotwendigkeit? In Ebd. (Hrsg.), Innovative Unternehmen der Sozial- und Gesundheitswirtschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. S. 3-53. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation. The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Dalbert, C. (1999). Die Ungewißheitstoleranzskala. Skaleneigenschaften und Validierungsbefunde. Hallesche Berichte zur Pädagogischen Psychologie, 1-1999. Kuckertz, A. (2017). Management. Corporate Entrepreneurship. Wiesbaden: Springer. Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken (11. Aufl.). Weinheim: Beltz. Mulgan, G. (2012). The Theoretical Foundations of Social Innovation. In A. Nickels & A. Murdock, Social Innovations (S. 33-65). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Osterwalder, A. & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. New Jersey: Hoboken. Plattner, H., Meinel, C. & Weinberg, U. (2009). Design Thinking: Innovation lernen – Ideenwelten öffnen. München: mi-wirtschaftsbuch. Ries, E. (2011). The Lean Startup. How Today's Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses. New York: Crown Publishing Group. Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The Site of the Social. A Philosophical Account of the Constitution of Social Life and Change. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press. Schröer, A. (2016). Fostering Innovation in Social Services. A Diaconal Intrapreneurship Lab. Diaconia, (7) 159-173. Schmitz, B. & Schröer, A. (2016). How Giants Learn to Dance. Towards Conceptualizing the Social Intrapreneur. Arbeitspapiere der Evangelischen Hochschule Darmstadt, Nr. 21. Schröer, A. & Schmitz, B. (2019). Eine Methode der Innovationsförderung in der Sozialwirtschaft. Das Labor für Diakonisches Unternehmertum (LaDU). In Becher, B. & Hastedt, I. (Hrsg.), Innovative Unternehmen der Sozial- und Gesundheitswirtschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. S. 143-170.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.