What can be considered innovative in social good?
I have written before about the term “innovative” and how it is often overused in the field of social good. Most NGO’s think they have created innovative solutions to addressing social issues. But some of these solutions — even those that are innovative to the organization itself –actually lack the real innovation to address the social issue. So what really can be considered innovative in the social sector?
By design, innovation is the development of a process, product, good or service that transforms the outcome of a social issue. This new solution essentially changes the way we address the issue because past approaches no longer can cause the dramatic outcomes the innovation can.
Within the social good space, there is often a focus not necessarily to innovate for the issue but to produce an innovative approach with the goal of gathering more people to address the issue. For instance, when an institution is truly able to capture the attention of the public to address a social issue, some call it innovative. So while their marketing and communications approach may be different than the norm, does their work to address a social issue provide a unique solution that exceeds the societal benefit more than other approaches? Or is it an approach that no one else is choosing to perform — and therefore is considered innovative? Or is the institution and its leader different, unique and/or an outlier?
This especially can be seen when you ask the public to name innovative causes. Typically, the response will be a list of popular, well-known causes. If then asked what actually makes the cause innovative, the response usually describes how the organization makes a person feel rather than how it is specifically innovating for the issue it addresses.
In my latest book, Social Movements for Good, I focused on the social movements of the last five years by companies and causes and what made them so unique. The focus was not on innovation in the field — although the movement builders I spoke with created very notable approaches from grassroots to network building across the global to bring people together. While their work on the issues they address is noteworthy, their most remarkable accomplishments have been the approaches they take to get people engaged in social issues. This is a feat in and of itself that so many would do anything to obtain.
The question is, then, should we discount movement builders as non-innovators if the work they do doesn’t necessarily change the methodological approach taken to address an issue?
The answer is no.
We need movement builders to work closely with those who are the creators of innovative approaches and methods. These two groups — movement builders and innovators — need each other. The movement builder needs the innovator to develop a new approach so the people and attention they can bring to an issue has dramatic change on the beneficiary. On the other side, the innovator needs the movement builder because they need public engagement in order to sustain the approach on the beneficiary.
So how do these groups find each other to develop and sustain new approaches? Do so this year, in Washington DC at MCON. At MCON, we have intentionally created a space where innovators and movement builders can discuss their ideas, concepts and approaches — and to put them to work for good. The social sector needs both innovators and movement builders, and both groups can provide the field with remarkable returns if we respect, honor and engage both sides of the social good solution.
Originally published at www.linkedin.com.
