Social innovation processes in dignity-centered organizations: evidence from hybrid and indigenous enterprises

The social and environmental issues that humanity is currently facing demand solutions that challenge current organizational practices. Such practices have also been blamed for increasing some of these problems, and different stakeholders are more strongly demanding that organizations seek different, more innovative approaches to sustainability, wellbeing and the generation of profits. One of the approaches that is gaining tremendous attentions is social innovation. However, this concept has also different approaches and scholar are still looking for frameworks that foster more social inclusion and enhance well-being. In this sense, the concepts of dignity and dignity-centered organizations have recently gained traction as a form of organizing that prioritizes the inherent worth of individuals, offering pathways to human flourishing. This new form of organizing may constitute a social innovation that is based on the principle of dignity. How these concepts intersect to generate processes that shape effective organizational practices and generate positive societal outcomes is a literature gap worth exploring and with important implications for managerial practices. The first study emphasizes the central role of dignity in shaping social innovation process. Humanistic management theory constitutes a promising framework that provides a different, more-human approach to how a social innovation generates and consolidates. The authors examined four Indigenous enterprises in Latin America and proposed a four-stage process of social innovation (origin, mobilization, execution, and integration) based on a four-case qualitative study that explores how the notions of dignity and humanistic management practices are present at every stage of the social innovation process. This study is one of the first to explore the relationship between humanistic management principles, dignity, and social innovation processes, a literature gap with important praxeological implications.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3521-0118