File Name: social entrepreneurship and all that funk pirson .zip
Online digital platforms can increase access to educational opportunities for marginalised students, authors and communities, but digital platform design can further marginalise Indigenous knowledge because such platforms are structured according to western epistemological assumptions.
Social media marketing is the use of social media platforms and websites to promote a product or service. Companies address a range of stakeholders through social media marketing, including current and potential customers, current and potential employees, journalists , bloggers , and the general public. On a strategic level, social media marketing includes the management of a marketing campaign, governance , setting the scope e. When using social media marketing, firms can allow customers and Internet users to post user-generated content e.
The teacher clears her throat and stares at the floor. She starts to cry. She is sitting awkwardly on an undersized chair in an empty classroom. The neighborhood outside offers a familiar urban scene: lines of weathered row houses, many of them boarded up; a few struggling stores and bars; streets that are strewn with broken glass; here and there, a drug dealer on a corner. Inside, in the school where she works, the teacher is crying because she is trying to explain how happy she is.
Then she tells us a story about two very different people: the person she was last year, when she was working at another school, and the person she is now. That first person came home each night in a depressive stupor, suffocating from a fear of failure. She was hesitant to share her concerns with colleagues. She found it hard to like the kids she was teaching, and she found it hard to like the jaded teacher she was becoming. The second person is joyful.
She is in love with her students and excited by the kinds of challenges that used to confound her. She is eager to explore new ideas with her colleagues. She is delighted by how much she herself is learning. It produces a continual flow of new instructional approaches, new ways of relating to students, and new modes of community engagement.
Meanwhile, miles to the north, in Montreal, Tim is hunting bees. A swarm from a rooftop garden has decided to relocate, as swarms do, and after a brief interlude in a nearby tree, the bees have disappeared. Tim is the director of sustainability and urban agriculture at Santropol Roulant , an organization that cooks meals and delivers them to people with reduced autonomy.
Meals-on-wheels programs are hardly novel. The Roulant has an active composting program. The Roulant is a small organization, and it runs a seemingly traditional social program. Yet it has a way of continuously reinventing the social fabric of its community. It does so by threading together experiments in intergenerational connection, food system design, agricultural technology, urban transport, art, and much more.
These experiments often seem modest in their initial conception, but they grow to be astonishingly vibrant in practice. Since its founding almost 20 years ago, the organization has gained national recognition and won a number of awards for its innovative approach.
But what strikes people most strongly when they come in contact with the Roulant is the baffling ease with which it attracts hundreds of volunteers. They talk about a spirit of invitation. They talk about a sense of connection. There is something about really respecting what people can bring. In an expansive review undertaken for the Rockefeller Foundation, Christian Seelos and Johanna Mair argue that despite voluminous research on the subject, scholars have very little practical knowledge about what makes an organization good at social innovation.
But how does an isolated idea become a stream of interlinked ideas? How do inspired entrepreneurs make way for the emergence of inspired communities? How, in short, can people develop an organizational capacity for sustained social innovation, much as they might develop an organizational capacity for technological innovation? When it comes to innovation, social-purpose organizations face particularly daunting challenges.
How do social-purpose organizations maintain an adaptive, generative orientation—the kind of orientation that will allow them to grapple consistently and creatively with the complex social reality that they face?
We have been particularly struck by how readily these organizations disrupt the kinds of institutional patterns that elsewhere seem to be immutable. To date, research on social innovation capacity has largely taken an external approach, emphasizing the way that cross-sector networks can help an organization connect to diverse communities in novel ways.
Yet they have in common one apparently simple practice: They pay a great deal of attention to the inner experiences of the people who work in them. The key to changing the world may have less to do with understanding far-flung stakeholders than with understanding the person who sits at the desk right next to us. The idea that organizations should turn inward may seem paradoxical at first.
As members of an organization speak honestly with each other about their experiences of life and work, they come to understand that the social realities that they seek to change are not purely external. They are in the room. Socially innovative organizations draw on member experiences to generate the raw material of social change. They do so not just in special retreats or workshops, but in the routine meetings and conversations that make up most of organizational life.
We mean everything that makes up our inner lives: ideas and intuitions, aspirations and fears, values and memories. It helps people to see their organization as it really is, not as they wish it were. The concept is disarmingly simple, but inscaping in practice turns out to be rich and complex—and much less common than one might think. Far from being an easy recipe for success, it is an anti-recipe: It challenges people continually to engage with themselves and their environment in new ways.
To understand what inscaping is, it helps to understand what it is not. Inscaping is not group therapy. Inscaping, moreover, is not a forced, obligatory endeavor. No one should practice inscaping in a way that feels inauthentic. In fact, voicing discomfort with a particular form of inscaping is itself a form of inscaping. And, finally, inscaping is not something that a leader or a facilitator can manage. On the contrary, it requires people to take responsibility for sharing their experiences with each other.
Indeed, it requires even leaders to stop speaking for their organization and to start speaking for themselves—as human beings. Over time, the practice of inscaping can become an ingrained part of organizational life. At SBCS, the joy, confusion, and frustration inherent in working there form a natural part of any conversation. In job interviews, prospective teachers are surprised to find themselves honestly—and quite happily— recounting their failures at previous schools.
Conversations, which can cover everything from mental health problems to racial issues, are frank and engaging. They are also generative, in that they foster connection instead of separation. Cultural chasms are just as present at this school as at any other school in Baltimore, but they feel different here. There is a similar dynamic in play at the Roulant. Meetings at the Roulant feature an odd mixture of program analysis and personal reflection, with one stream of conversation flowing easily and without comment into the other.
This way of interacting encourages people to offer each other not only work-related insight, but also appreciation, sympathy, and support. And the setting in which people work—a physical space that is almost entirely open—further supports a commitment to experiential awareness.
The Roulant is also remarkable for its strategic dexterity. The development of roles, projects, and initiatives is a supple process, rooted in the strengths and interests of individual staff members. The kind of inscaping practiced at SBCS and the Roulant has directly contributed to social innovation capacity at each organization.
To clarify the link between inscaping and social innovation, we distinguish between two dimensions of inscaping. Work inscaping involves exploring our experience of the day-to-day work that we do. What are we excited about or afraid of when we undertake a particular project? What intuitions and questions do we have that diverge from the current strategic direction of our organization? How do we experience the structures and processes that define our work? And, most important, how do we experience the relationships that we have with our colleagues?
Work inscaping brings energy and creativity to an organization. As people gain the freedom to express the hopes, fears, questions, and concerns that they have about their work, the space for divergent thinking expands around them. This understanding allows them to move together through difficult new terrain in a way that accommodates their specific strengths and flaws.
Life inscaping involves sharing aspects of our lives that exist beyond our work roles. What aspirations do we harbor, and what challenges do we face? What are our values? What do we care about, and where do we find meaning? As people share their life experiences, they come to see each other as whole human beings and not just as roles.
When members of an organization interact regularly as people with families, political interests, spiritual beliefs, artistic enthusiasms, and concerns for their neighbors and their planet, they become attuned to social possibilities that transcend immediate organizational objectives.
And those effects, in turn, produce very different kinds of organizations. The catalytic organization We apply the term catalytic to organizations that enable work inscaping but not life inscaping. Organizations of this type are good at questioning the status-quo within their field but are less adept at questioning the taken-for-granted social patterns and values on which their field rests. High-tech companies like those that emerge from Silicon Valley and Bangalore, for example, veer toward the catalytic model.
Such organizations value individual curiosity and initiative even in cases when the strategic implications of a new idea are not immediately obvious. They foster the kind of directness and honesty that can make even the most difficult work relationships productive, if not necessarily pleasant. These organizations, however, often seem to pursue innovation for its own sake. They are more technically creative than socially creative. For that reason, they may resist the challenge of exploring the deeper meaning or the social impact of their work.
Because they are so bounded by the mindset and values of their own industry, they also have significant difficulty in building authentic cross-sector relationships. Work inscaping alone, in other words, does not lead to social innovation. If people do not regularly draw on their life experiences, they remain stuck within the confines of their professional roles and identities. Their conversations rarely stray beyond certain institutionally defined objectives, and they find it difficult to see beyond those objectives.
The communal organization We use a different term— communal — to describe organizations that pursue life inscaping but not work inscaping. Communal organizations are generous and connected places. Unlike their catalytic counterparts, they empower people to grapple internally with big social and moral issues.
For Ashoka, the goal of social entrepreneurship is to make everyone a changemaker, ensuring that everyone can fulfil their potential and embody social transformation through the qualities of agency and empathy. Citizens themselves can ultimately decide in which direction European democracies develop, and it is essential that they become fully engaged in identifying solutions. Ashoka supports Fellows working towards this purpose, building a world in which everyone can truly become a changemaker. Social entrepreneurs are well suited to this challenge since they address problems in innovative ways that question current social dynamics, visualise the way forward, and directly pursue the future. Our analysis of 25 leading social entrepreneurs across Europe revealed seven strategies through which democratic systems can reach new levels of development.
The COVID outbreak is a sharp reminder that pandemics, like other rarely occurring catastrophes, have happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future. Even if we cannot prevent dangerous viruses from emerging, we should prepare to dampen their effects on society. The current outbreak has had severe economic consequences across the globe, and it does not look like any country will be unaffected. This not only has consequences for the economy; all of society is affected, which has led to dramatic changes in how businesses act and consumers behave. This special issue is a global effort to address some of the pandemic-related issues affecting society. In total, there are 13 papers that cover different industry sectors e. There has been a long history of fear of pandemic outbreaks.
The teacher clears her throat and stares at the floor. She starts to cry. She is sitting awkwardly on an undersized chair in an empty classroom. The neighborhood outside offers a familiar urban scene: lines of weathered row houses, many of them boarded up; a few struggling stores and bars; streets that are strewn with broken glass; here and there, a drug dealer on a corner. Inside, in the school where she works, the teacher is crying because she is trying to explain how happy she is. Then she tells us a story about two very different people: the person she was last year, when she was working at another school, and the person she is now.
Social status is the level of social value a person is considered to hold. Status is based in widely shared beliefs about who members of a society think holds comparatively more or less social value, in other words, who they believe is better in terms of competence or moral traits. As such, people use status hierarchies to allocate resources, leadership positions, and other forms of power.
This paper proposes - through the integration of self-congruence, brand personality, sponsorship and sports spectator behaviour literatures - a conceptual framework to extend our current understanding of self-congruence in specific consumption situations. Initial empirical results support the proposed framework which shows that self-congruence based consumers' orientation towards sports and brand personality is positively associated with sponsorship outcomes. Plewa, C. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Report bugs here.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *