Social Collectives: A Partial Form of Organizing that Sustains Social Innovation1

Abstract

We mobilize the organizational and practice-based literature to determine the mechanisms enabling a social collective to introduce innovation in public rescue. The case highlights how this collective acquired characteristics of a partial organization by: (1) emergent characteristics reacting to critical incidents, (2) an overarching agenda supporting actors participation, (3) complementarity of exclusion and inclusion membership practices to enforce collective identity and reach a critical mass, (4) recognition of collective actorhood through reification practices, (5) the role of a secretariat through theorizing and developing close but discrete relationships with an external actor with critical expertise and resources.

Designing organised clusters as social actors: a meta-organisational approach

“…Boundary work is defined as "the attempts of actors to create, shape, and disrupt boundaries" (Zietsma and Lawrence 2010). Boundaries help distinguish the organisation from its environment and can be defined either through formal membership (Ahrne and Brunsson 2008) or, in its absence, through the adherence of organisation members to common goals, identity or an overarching agenda (Gulati et al 2012;Dobusch and Schoeneborn 2015;Crespin-Mazet et al 2018). Thus, the previously defined 'organisationality' design choices play a role in the boundary work (see also Barberio et al 2018).…”

“…Thus, the previously defined 'organisationality' design choices play a role in the boundary work (see also Barberio et al 2018). The relationship between boundaries and identity are mutual and decisions on who makes part of the formal organisation and who does not affect its identity and allow to reach a critical mass necessary to legitimise the organisational action in the eyes of external stakeholders (Crespin-Mazet et al 2018). It also works the other way around: by deliberately shaping the collective identity by assembling elements from different institutional categories, organisations can disrupt the boundaries between these categories (Glynn 2008).…”

“…This type of work implies actors' efforts to affect the practices that are considered legitimate within a certain domain (Zietsma and Lawrence 2010). Practices can also relate to the way organisations 'perform' their identities in specific contexts and though such performances transform institutions (Glynn 2008) and 'construct' themselves as legitimate actors in the eyes of their external audiences (Crespin-Mazet et al 2018).…”

Connaissances et technologie dans les communautés d’innovation

“…Enfin, signe de la maturité du champ, les chercheurs se concentrent moins que par le passé sur les typologies de communautés ou leurs entités constitutives (domaine, pratique, identité, communauté…), que sur l'étude des processus (innovation, implémentation, pilotage, formation des collectifs (Crespin-Mazet et al, 2017), design, localisation, évaluation, gestion collective des biens communs…) et des mécanismes génératifs (créativité, coopération, institutionnalisation, enchevêtrement/imbrication, performativité…) qui les sous-tendent. L'on cherche alors à dépasser les seules observations et descriptions empiriques pour offrir une explication de la genèse, du fonctionnement et de la transformation des communautés.…”

Managing with communities for innovation, agility, and resilience

“…Collectives are defined as informal networks made up of heterogeneous actors promoting a common societal cause ( Crespin-Mazet et al., 2017 ) and can be seen as precursors of epistemic communities. While communities emphasize the acquisition of expertise or free access to expertise located in other organizations (scientific goal), collectives emphasize altruism, public action, the adoption of innovative practices by the largest number, and the highest level of sharing among members in order to transform society.…”