Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Learnings of the SI-Drive project on employment, related to social innovation & workplace innovation - Peter Oeij


Published on

Lecture for 'Shaping the future of employment in Europe: social innovation as a driver for social change', Bilbao, 15 December 2017, organised by Universidad de Deusto (Bilbao, Spain)

Published in: Leadership & Management
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Learnings of the SI-Drive project on employment, related to social innovation & workplace innovation - Peter Oeij

  1. 1. SI‐DRIVE Project This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 612870. SI‐DRIVE Project Learnings of the SI-Drive project on employment, related to social innovation & workplace innovation Shaping the future of employment in Europe: social innovation as a driver for social change Bilbao, 15 December 2017, Sala Ellacuria, Biblioteca -CRAI. Universidad de Deusto Dr Peter Oeij, TNO, Project leader Work Package Employment in SI DRIVE Netherlands Social Innovation: Driving force of social change
  2. 2. SI‐DRIVE Project ‐ 1. Social Innovation: SI Drive project ‐ 2. Employment & Workplace Innovation: SI Drive project  and beyond Content of my presentation
  3. 3. SI‐DRIVE Project Sociology History Psychology PhD in  Management  Science &  Psychology Senior Research  Scientist &  Consultant, Project Manager Rotterdam Leiden Heerlen (south)
  4. 4. SI‐DRIVE Project What is SI drive and Social  Innovation?
  5. 5. SI‐DRIVE Project © European Union/The Young Foundation  2010 
  6. 6. SI‐DRIVE Project Social Innovation – drivers of social change ‐ a project of the European Commission ‐ must contribute to 1] social cohesion, and 2] economic growth ‐ a social innovation is a new solution for a social problem that is experienced by persons and  communities  ‐ often it is difficult to acquire financial resources to solve these problems; often enterprises  see no business in it; often government has limited financial possibilities; often communities  and civilians take the initiative ‐ Why is social innovation important? ‐ Technological innovation and business innovation alone are not enough to solve social  problems like climate change, pollution, shortage of natural resources, poverty, refugee‐ issue, ageing population, etc. ‐ Human talents and resources must be better used and applied to develop solutions on a  human scale and for which humans are motivated to contribute. ‐ Public sectors and welfare states are under pressure in many countries (cutting  expenditures). A shift in governance is needed and new actors should emerge (citizens  and communities are to play a larger role as self reliant social innovators).
  7. 7. SI‐DRIVE Project Social Innovation will play an important role in the  Europe 2020 Strategy "Creativity and innovation in  general and social innovation in  particular are essential factors for  fostering sustainable growth,  securing jobs and increasing  competitive abilities, especially in  the midst of the economic and  financial markets crisis."  (former EC president Barroso) 7
  8. 8. SI‐DRIVE Project Social Innovation moves from the margins to  the mainstream At the start of 2009 (former) US President Obama announced the establishment of a  new “Office for Social Innovation at the White House“ and allocated USD 50million  to a fund for social innovation. The Fund will focus on priority policy areas, including  education, health care, and economic opportunity. 8
  9. 9. SI‐DRIVE Project Social Innovation – (very) Comprehensive Working Definition Social innovation is seen as: • a new combination or figuration of practices in areas of social action; • prompted by certain actors or constellations of actors; • with the goal of better coping with needs and problems than is possible by use of existing practices. • An innovation is therefore social to the extent that it varies social action, and is socially accepted and diffused in society. • Depending on circumstances of social change, interests, policies and power, social ideas as well as successfully implemented SI may be transformed and ultimately institutionalised as regular social practice or made routine.
  10. 10. SI‐DRIVE Project "Social Innovations are innovations that are social both in their ends and in their means.  Specifically, we define social innovations as new ideas (products, services and models) that simultaneously meet social needs (more effectively than alternatives) and create new social  relationships or collaborations“  (Young Foundation, 2010; Caulier‐Grice et al, 2012) When social innovations lead to social change and become part of society (‘institutionalized’) we  can speak of sustainable  innovations. (simpler) Basic definition
  11. 11. SI‐DRIVE Project  Integrating theories and research methodologies to advance understanding of SI leading to a comprehensive new paradigm of innovation.  Undertaking European and global mapping of SI, thereby addressing different social, economic, cultural, historical and religious contexts in eight major world regions.  Ensuring relevance for policy makers and practitioners through in-depth analyses and case studies in seven policy fields, with cross European and world region comparisons, foresight and policy round tables. SI-DRIVE – Objectives Extending knowledge about social innovation Seven Major Policy Fields….
  12. 12. SI‐DRIVE Project Policy Field Areas Environment & climate  change Transport/ mobility Energy Supply Poverty reduction &  sustainable development
  13. 13. SI‐DRIVE Project Policy Field Areas Education Employment Health & social care includes  Workplace  Innovation
  14. 14. SI‐DRIVE Project  SI‐DRIVE involves 15 partners from 12 EU Member States, 10 partners from other parts of the  world, and 14 high level advisory board members: all in all 31 countries.  International SI‐DRIVE Consortium Members blue: EU research partner red: non‐EU research partner green: Advisory Board 14
  15. 15. SI‐DRIVE Project
  16. 16. SI‐DRIVE Project See:‐
  17. 17. SI‐DRIVE Project New role for government social  innovation  initiatives more  power to  citizens Bourgon, 2011
  18. 18. SI‐DRIVE Project ‐1.focus/driver of social innovations are social needs and societal  challenges ‐ practices are highly varied in form and dynamics ‐3.backbone are manifold of actors and cross sector collaboration ‐4.core elements are empowerment and user involvement ‐5.different modes of government are needed: bigger role for citizens ‐ innovation ‘ecosystems’ emerge: collaboration public‐private  partners and science ‐7.drivers and barriers are highly varied ‐8.there is no ‘one simple model’ ‐ innovation friendly environment still has to be developed Overview study 1000 cases of social innovation Main conclusions comparative analysis (Howaldt ea, 2016)
  19. 19. SI‐DRIVE Project 1. Active society / Entrepreneurial and inspired  individuals 2. Funding / willingness to invest in Social Innovation 3. Use of new technologies / social media 4. Networks / platforms for cooperation stakeholders 5. Legislative support 6. Sense of urgency for social needs among politicians 7. Political change: new governance, space for civil  society What are framework conditions and enabling factors  for success? (Howaldt ea, 2016)
  22. 22. WP 11 Foresight & Policy Design of the research ‐ Literature study ‐ 1000 case mappings (136 Employment) via a survey ‐ 82 in‐depth case studies (10 employment)
  23. 23. WP 11 Foresight & Policy Policy field  Employment Case= a Social Innovation initiative Youth unemployment &  vulnerable groups Social  entrepreneurship & self‐creating opportunities Workplace innovation &  working conditions
  24. 24. WP 11 Foresight & Policy Table 1  The 136 cases of Employment form Mapping 1    Project practice field  Absolute  number    Percent  Valid  percent  Cumulative percent  1. Job search support & matching  43  31.6  31.6  31.6  2. Training & education  31  22.8  22.8  54.4  3. Workplace innovation & organisational innovation  20  14.7  14.7  69.1  4. Social entrepreneurship  26  19.1  19.1  100.0  Total  136  100.0  100.0      Youth unemployment &  vulnerable groups Social  entrepreneurship & self‐creating opportunities Workplace innovation &  working conditions Compressed into 3 practice fields; Oeij et al., June 2017)
  25. 25. WP 11 Foresight & Policy Youth unemployment and other vulnerable groups (elderly, women, minorities):  The practice field evolves around labour market participation, training and education and dis‐ crimination/inequality issues. The purpose is to improve individual competencies and to institutionalize  equal opportunities; Social entrepreneurship & self‐creating opportunities:  It concerns entrepreneurship with limited profit goals but focus on participation of groups with limited  opportunities and resources; and self‐organizing initiatives of businesses (including self‐employed  persons) that create jobs in niches with low and irregular income and job security and much flexibility  (risks); Workplace innovation & working conditions:  Entrepreneurs and employers seek new ways of working and innovation through novel ways of  employing persons, using talents, and organizing work processes, including application of new  technology. This leads to changing of job (content), team formation, role differentiation and more  dialogue and autonomy for employees. The purpose is to also improve sustainable employability (not  per se with the same employer). Practice fields within Employment
  26. 26. WP 11 Foresight & Policy Youth unem‐ ployment Social  entrepre‐ neurship Workpace innovation Public  Market Value driven Profit driven Traditional SI Newer forms Share ideas Competition PPP’s Individual businesses Intention to scale up                   No intention
  28. 28. WP 11 Foresight & PolicyYouth unemployment &  vulnerable groups SSI Servicios Sociales Integrados [Spain] Goal Cooperation: to make people self‐employed in the realm of social care. Background: a task that could not be fulfilled by public body is replaced to this cooperation;  otherwise 300 women would become jobless Main drivers (push and pull) High unemployment (also of the husbands of those women); conflict between Bilbao City  Council and Bizkaia Provincial government (about workers and care); sharing interests of  women workers and administration representatives;  contracts awarded to SSI by the city of  Bilbao (paid with capitalisation of unemployment subsidies); training to enhance  employability; [later:] diversification and broadening of the scope and functions of the  cooperation (scaling out and up) Main barriers Losing contracts in competition; newness of cooperatives; restrictive Spanish labour  regulations Role Policy  SSI has strong relations with public entities; PPP with Bilbao City Hall Main impacts Support for unemployed women, provide care clients, and cost‐efficiency for the city  council; imitation of cooperation across the country; stepping stone towards systemic  change Main leverage factor Ms. Mendizabal, charismatic project leader, later Ms. Acedo; the need for survival created a  new market (niche) with both economic and public value and growing competition over the  contracts Social change mechanisms Solving two problems in one solution with a ‘closed purse’ (state care and unemployed  women); it is a well imitable social business model Effect on social change Cooperations like SSI became a PPP example al across Spain Remaining/emerging   questions/issues Is this social innovation (service innovation) or ‘bad governance’ ? Has economic  competition eventually become the main driver for sustainable growth and  institutionalisation of cooperatives (as a business model)?
  29. 29. WP 11 Foresight & Policy Social Entrepreneurship &  self‐creating opportunities Xiezhi Hotel (China) Goal An organisation that helps university graduates to find employment and improve their labour  market competencies; started to provide job seekers a cheap place to sleep.  Background: owner Mr. Wen found out that public organisations to match employment do  not work well; his driver was social responsibility / altruism. Main drivers (push and pull) Sustaining factors are the network of companies and the support of local public bodies (not  with money) for social entrepreneurship that help resolve social issues; attention of mass  media and winning prestigious prizes; the hotel owner can finance the activities from the  earnings (sustainable business model) Main barriers Because the state supported this activity the biggest possible barrier was absent; no barriers Role Policy  The state and local government support social innovation and social entrepreneurship; the  general climate is supportive of innovation and combating unemployment; every activity  that fits is promoted by media coverage, prizes and awards, lip service from officials; this  stimulates others (like the companies involved) to step in. Main impacts Public service of employment has become a social entrepreneurship business model, but  social entrepreneurship also became a practical value for alleviating social issues Main leverage factor The charismatic endeavours of Mr. Wen; the state supporting social innovation and social  entrepreneurship (in China such support is more important than how the market operates);  the timing was very good. Social change mechanisms Social responsible drive to help students and the drive of stakeholders (e.g. companies) to  better match demand and supply of student graduates. Effect on social change Many students have been helped and many employers have been provided proper  candidates in 8 years (8.000 students got jobs; 10.000 students were recruited for  companies; partnerships were built with 300 companies; 30.000 students resided at the  hotel). Remaining/emerging   questions/issues The social enterprise initiatives take place in a mixed‐economy, which require a specific  business model; in China social entrepreneurship is seen as a way to create employment and  to solve unemployment. Is this a viable model for EU countries?
  30. 30. WP 11 Foresight & Policy Workplace innovation &  working conditions MGL Media Group Limburg (Netherlands) Goal Goal: to redesign the work process into team work of good quality jobs and at the same  times create a viable business model Background: MGL is a newspaper company with declining income and was forced to re‐ organise to remain competitive Main drivers (push and pull) Employee‐driven innovation, meaning providing employees a role in the change process;  good cooperation between management, union representatives/works council, and  employees; bad business was a push factor; the city council and provincial authorities  promoted the job security which was helpful Main barriers The owners are everchanging investment companies / venture capitalists with no long term  vision and no strong sympathy for employee interests; there were several rounds of  redundancies; a good business model was not developed (still is not); pressure coming top‐ down from the top of the holding Role Policy  Local and provincial policy officials support the preservation of work and company, but  have limited influence (they offered a financial guarantee against bankruptcy)  Main impacts Inside the company: many see worker engagement as crucial for success; regional effect:  limited preservation of jobs/employment Main leverage factor Persistence of employees/woks council on quality; a charismatic CEO; a cost‐driven need  for change Social change mechanisms Market position is a driver; but also the role taken up by employees/works council and the  ‘progressive’ CEO Effect on social change MGL is on the one hand an ‘isolated case’ of WPI; but it also is being described in the  literature as an example of employee‐driven innovation and what the risks are of top down  investment policies; in that sense it has some impact on the relevance of WPI Remaining/emerging   questions/issues Is workplace innovation really social innovation when changes are strongly determined by  economic circumstances and external powers (i.e. investment companies)?
  31. 31. WP 11 Foresight & Policy Funding > self funding, partner funding, national public funding Drivers > people (networks, individuals, groups, charismatic leadership) Barriers > funding (also legislation) Partners > NGO/NPO, public body, private company Role actors > Knowledge provider, solution provider, funder Governance mode > mostly part of policy programme Outcome > increasing employability, (growing) number of beneficiaries,  integration Social change  Mechanism > cooperation (and charismatic leadership)  Some overall findings SI in employment (Oeij et al., June 2017)
  32. 32. SI‐DRIVE Project ‐1.SI is very much connected to traditional policy (usual actors) ‐2.Employment is so important for governments they do not (cannot?) leave it up  to market forces alone ‐3.Not much coherence within the practice fields, cases function isolated  (scattered), not much crosspollination and upscaling ‐4.Social entrepreneurship offers possibilities for start‐ups and sustainable self‐ employment ‐5.SI in Youth Employment and Social Entrepreneurship shifts social security  responsibilities from the state to individuals 6.Workplace Innovation links to employability but is less scalable 7.Left wing criticism: SI is a neoliberal substitute for social security, reducing social  cohesion and individualising social risks ‐8. SI of Employment should not be limited to unemployment and vulnerable  groups, but include entrepreneurship and innovation of organisation and work  processes (as in WPI) Main conclusions Employment as social innovations
  33. 33. WORKPLACE INNOVATION (WPI) Springer, 2017Eurofound, 2015
  34. 34. WORKPLACE INNOVATION: DEFINITION AND PRACTICES (OEIJ ET AL., 2015) A workplace innovation (WPI) is a developed and implemented practice or combination of practices that structurally (division of labour) and/or culturally (empowerment) enable employees to participate in organisational change and renewal to improve quality of working life and organisational performance. ‘structure orientation’ : structure work organisation and job design; provide employees with structural decision latitude or control capacity; can stimulate employee- control or autonomy, and provide voice (operational employment relations). ‘culture orientation’ : provide opportunities for employees to participate (e.g. in) organisational decision-making; dialogue and collective bargaining: can stimulate commitment and provide voice (social / contractual employment relations).34
  35. 35. WORKPLACE INNOVATION 35 Structure how production is organised Human work behaviour in the organisation Employee engagement = more voice Goals: 1. Better organisational performance 2. Better quality jobs
  36. 36. WHY IS WORKPLACE INNOVATION IMPORTANT? (OEIJ, RUS & POT, 2017; OEIJ ET AL., 2016 ISPIM PAPER) To remain competitive and control costs / efficiency To improve the innovative capability of the organisation To be an attractive employer on the labour market To create a resilient workforce (see also Oeij, 2017) To create healthy, safe and challenging work / jobs To sustain employment and prevent McDonaldization of work (Ritzer) To contribute to a better world in terms of humanistic work, and well-being and welfare for society at large 36
  37. 37. WORKPLACE INNOVATION: EXAMPLES OF INTERVENTIONS (OEIJ ET AL, 2015/EUROFOUND STUDY) Introduction of self-managing teams Minimising organisational levels Job enlargement to broaden functions and build cross-functional teams Partnership with unions to improve Occupational Health and Safety Knowledge sharing to improve innovative capability Regular information sharing between management and employees Provide employees with a say in working tomes to better combine private life Organise challenge for new ideas to stimulate innovation via commitment In general: design the core work process (structure) in such a way that employees have autonomy to co-decide (culture), in order to improve jobs, organisation performance and innovative capability (outcome) 37
  39. 39. SI‐DRIVE Project Youth unemployment (& other vulnerable groups) Social entrepreneurship (SE) (& self-creating opportunities) Workplace innovation (WPI) (& working conditions) Main challenge, goals, ambition -participation via jobs and other activities, social cohesion, equality for all -redistribution of work/jobs (shorter working weeks) -rebalance of power to give vulnerable groups voice (paradigm shift) -let people improve their skills in all possible ways -use SE for solving social problems -let SE grow and scale up -SE is seen as a possible solution to improve employment -Support SE to grow and scale up; -inclusive companies (social, environmental); sustainable, no unneeded hierarchy -no more front runner syndrome (WPI is more than being in competition), less polarisation -more room for cooperation, experimentation, bosses as facilitators -more engaged employees and good quality jobs   (Oeij, Vander Torre & Enciso Santocildes, 2017)
  40. 40. SI‐DRIVE Project Youth unemployment (& other vulnerable groups) Social entrepreneurship (SE) (& self-creating opportunities) Workplace innovation (WPI) (& working conditions) Crucial barriers to overcome and drivers -accept that there will be no full employment- need for mobility and refugee crisis (competition for jobs) across Europe -tension between value- creation and public value -vulnerable groups are badly presented by politics -social innovators are in conflict with rules and regulations -SE has a negative image as ‘not real’; improve the image of SE -‘scammers’ that abuse SE to make quick wins -unclear legal and fiscal barriers between social enterprise, social entrepreneuring, civil society initiatives -limited funding leads to unwanted competition and hinders start-ups and sustaining growth (scaling) -start-ups cannot learn from failures due to lack of systematic learning -Insufficient knowledge and proof about good practices -competition and unwillingness to share knowledge between companies -dilemma between WPI (when efficiency driven) and employment creation (too strong focus on efficiency gains)   (Oeij, Vander Torre & Enciso Santocildes, 2017)
  41. 41. SI‐DRIVE Project Youth unemployment (& other vulnerable groups) Social entrepreneurship (SE) (& self-creating opportunities) Workplace innovation (WPI) (& working conditions) Leverage factor for policy -create social innovators network as advisory body -intersectoral cooperation to avoid policy silos -change perception of SI by both public and policy makers -build an infrastructure, institutionalisation, regulate the field, create funding, build an ecosystem -improve ways in finding jobs, and the functioning of employment organisations -reform platform, circular or collaborative economy to help to include the ‘outsiders’ -stimulate experimentation with SI -consider to use part of private companies profit to grow SE (CSR, taxes) -improve SE by legislation, taxes -improve SE image via education, dissemination of good examples, quantify the benefits -support and empower intermediaries and social innovators who mediate between business / corporations and knowledge institutes / universities -disseminate good practices and enhance awareness and knowledge -develop ways to stimulate WPI, particularly bottom-up -stress the combination of economic welfare and social well-being  (Oeij, Vander Torre & Enciso Santocildes, 2017)
  42. 42. SI‐DRIVE Project Youth Employment = Entrance to the labour market Education policy = Enhancing employability Human resources = Enhancing mobility Chain: youth employment policy > social entrepreneurship policy > workplace innovation policy  = f (adding up to social cohesions and social inclusion in a sustainable manner) PAGE 42 Main message to policy makers regards Employment Integral perspective e.g. SI eco‐ system
  43. 43. SI‐DRIVE Project Forthcoming January 2018: Howaldt et al
  44. 44. SI‐DRIVE Project Thank you very much.‐
  45. 45. SI‐DRIVE Project -Bourgon, J. (2011). A new synthesis of public administration. Serving in the 21st century. Kingston, Ont.: McGill-Queen’s University Press. -Caulier-Grice, J., Davies, A., Patrick, R. and Norman, W. (2012), Defining Social Innovation. A deliverable of the project: ‘The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe’ (Tepsie), European Commission — 7th Framework Programme, Brussels: European Commission, DG Research. -Franz, H. W., Hochgerner, J. & Howaldt, J. (eds.) (2012). Challenge Social Innovation. Potentials for Business, Entrepreneurship, Welfare and Civil Society. Berlin, Germany: Springer. -Howaldt, J., Butzin, A., Domanski, D., & Kaletka, C. (Eds) (2014). Theoretical Approaches to Social Innovation - A Critical Literature Review. A deliverable of the project: ‘Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change’ (SI-DRIVE). Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle. -Howaldt, Jürgen/ Kaletka, Christoph/ Schröder, Antonius/ Zirngiebel, Marthe (2018): Atlas of Social Innovation: New practices for a better future. SI DRIVE. Forthcoming. -Howaldt, Jürgen and Oeij, Peter R.A. (Eds.) (2016). Workplace innovation – Social innovation: Shaping work organisation and working life. Special issue of World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainability Vol. 12, Issue 1, 1-129 -Howaldt, Jürgen/ Schröder, Antonius/ Kaletka, Christoph/ Rehfeld, Dieter/ Terstriep, Judith (2016): Comparative Analysis (Mapping 1) - Mapping the World of Social Innovation: A Global Comparative Analysis across Sectors and World Regions (D1.4). Internet: DRIVE-D1-4-Comparative-Analysis-2016-08-15-final.pdf -Oeij, P.R.A. (2017). The resilient innovation team. A study of teams coping with critical incidents during innovation projects. PhD dissertation Open University of the Netherlands. -Oeij, Peter R.A., Steven Dhondt, Rita Žiauberytė-Jakštienė, Antonio Corral & Peter Totterdill (2016). Workplace innovation as social innovation in European companies. Paper for The ISPIM Innovation Summit, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on 4-7 December 2016. -Oeij, P., Dhondt, S., Rehfeld, D., et al. (2017). Social Innovation in Employment: Summary Report. Policy Field Employment, D5.4_Employment: Final Draft. SI- DRIVE, Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change; Dortmund etc. Dortmund: TUDO. -Oeij, P., Van der Torre, W. & Enciso Santocildes, M. (2017). European Policybrief Social Innovation in Employment. [S.l.]: European Commission. SI-DRIVE, Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change. -Oeij, P., R. Žiauberytė-Jakštienė, D. Rehfeld, with S. Ecer, J. Eckardt, M. Enciso Santocildes, G. Henry Moreno, S. Kalac, K. Kapoor, M. Karzen, K. Lin, I. Kuzmin, J. Millard, J. Welschhoff, A. Popov, T. Soloveva, S. Terebova, W. van der Torre, F. Vaas (January 2017). Social Innovation in Employment: Case Study Results. Policy Field Employment. SI-DRIVE, Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change; Dortmund etc. -Oeij, P., Žiauberytė-Jakštienė, R., Dhondt, S., Corral, A., Totterdill, P., Preenen, P. (2015). Workplace Innovation in European companies. Luxemburg: Publications Office of the European Union. (Eurofound) -Oeij, P.R.A., Rus, D., & Pot, F.D. (Eds) (2017). Workplace innovation: Theory, research and practice. Cham (Switzerland) : Springer -Torre, van der W., P. Oeij, D. Rehfeld, A. Augustinaitis, D. Domanski, B. Elmadağ Baş, M. Enciso Santocildes, M. Golovchin, L. Gómez Urquijo, G. Henry Moreno, C. Kaletka, K. Kapoor, I. Kuzmin, L. Labanauskas, K. Lin , S. Mukhacheva, I. López Pérez, J. Millard, J. Nordhause-Janz, A. Popov, A. Shabunova, S. Terebova, A. Vladisavljevic, V. Weerakkody. (2015). Policy field Report Social innovation for Employment. SI-Drive project: Driving Force of Social Change. TNO / IAT, Leiden / Gelsenkirchen. References