Innovation diffusion within large environmental NGOs through informal network agents

Abstract

The Sustainable Development Goals present opportunities for environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) to address new challenges. Such innovation requires dynamism and adaptability that large ENGOs may lack, and flatter organizational structures common to large ENGOs may limit the efficacy of top-down diffusion of innovative ideas or approaches. Instead, diffusion may occur through informal networks. We conducted a network experiment to estimate the role of informal boundary spanners—individuals who cross internal organizational boundaries (for example, departmental or geographic) via their informal social networks—for diffusing innovations in a large ENGO. We find they are four times more likely to diffuse innovations than non-boundary spanners, although organizational positions (for example, formal organizational hierarchy) can moderate this behaviour. We also find evidence they play a role in changing attitudes in favour of the innovation. These findings highlight how informal boundary spanners can drive organization-wide diffusion of innovations in ENGOs to strengthen capacity to address pressing sustainability challenges.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Sociograms for treatment and control operating units within the North America region of TNC.
Fig. 2: Adjusted predictions of diffusion by number of direct reports and organizational hierarchy.

References

  1. 1.

    Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015).

  2. 2.

    Wood, S. L. & DeClerck, F. Ecosystems and human well-being in the Sustainable Development Goals. Front. Ecol. Environ. 13, 123–123 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Brooke, C. Conservation and adaptation to climate change. Conserv. Biol. 22, 1471–1476 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Clark, W. & Dickson, N. Sustainability science: the emerging research program. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 8059–8061 (2003).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Morrison, S. A. A framework for conservation in a human-dominated world. Conserv. Biol. 29, 960–964 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Morrison, S. A. Designing virtuous socio-ecological cycles for biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 195, 9–16 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Clark, W. C., van Kerkhoff, L., Lebel, L. & Gallopin, G. C. Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 4570–4578 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Reed, M., Evely, A. & Cundill, G. What is social learning? Ecol. Soc. 15, r1 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Cross, R., Ernst, C. & Pasmore, B. A bridge too far? How boundary spanning networks drive organizational change and effectiveness. Organ. Dyn. 42, 81–91 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Kim, D. A. et al. Social network targeting to maximise population behavior change: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet 386, 145–153 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Granovetter, M. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78, 1360–1380 (1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Centola, D. The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science 329, 1194–1197 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Valente, T. W. Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations. Soc. Netw. 18, 69–89 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Coleman, J. S., Katz, E. & Menzel, H. Medical Innovations: A Diffusion Study (Bobbs-Merrill, 1966).

  15. 15.

    Becker, M. H. Factors affecting diffusion of innovations among health professionals. Am. J. Public Health 60, 294–304 (1970).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovations (Collier Macmillan, 2003).

  17. 17.

    Tushman, M. L. Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Adm. Sci. Q. 22, 587–605 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Williams, P. Special Agents: The Nature and Role of Boundary Spanners (ESRC Research Seminar Series, 2010).

  19. 19.

    Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P. & Kyriakidou, O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 82, 581–629 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Hustad, E. & Bechina, A. A. Exploring the role of boundary spanning in distributed networks of knowledge. Electron. J. Knowl. Manag. 10, 121–130 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Levina, N. & Vaast, E. The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Q. 29, 335–363 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Nochur, K. S. & Allen, T. J. Do nominated boundary spanners become effective technological gatekeepers? IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 39, 265–269 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Long, J. C., Cunningham, F. C. & Braithwaite, J. Bridges, brokers and boundary spanners in collaborative networks: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv. Res. 13, 158 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Pawlowski, S. D. & Robey, D. Bridging user organizations: knowledge brokering and the work of information technology professionals. MIS Q. 28, 645–672 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. Organizing knowledge. Calif. Manag. Rev. 40, 90–111 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Reagans, R. & McEvily, B. Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range. Adm. Sci. Q. 48, 240–267 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Valente, T. W. Network interventions. Science 337, 49–53 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Davis, J. A., Holland, P. & Leinhardt, S. Comments on Professor Mazur’s hypothesis about interpersonal sentiments. Am. Sociol. Rev. 36, 309–311 (1971).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Frank, K. A., Penuel, W. R. & Krause, A. What is a ‘good’ social network for policy implementation? The flow of know‐how for organizational change. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 34, 378–402 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Wright, C. Inside out? Organizational membership, ambiguity and the ambivalent identity of the internal consultant. Br. J. Manag. 20, 309–322 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Frank, K. A., Zhao, Y. & Borman, K. Social capital and the diffusion of innovations within organizations: the case of computer technology in schools. Sociol. Educ. 77, 148–171 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Frank, K. et al. Network location and policy-oriented behavior: an analysis of two-mode networks of coauthored documents concerning climate change in the Great Lakes region. Policy Stud. J. 40, 492–515 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Peng, Y. & Sutanto, J. Facilitating knowledge sharing through a boundary spanner. IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 55, 142–155 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Tortoriello, M., Reagans, R. & McEvily, B. Bridging the knowledge gap: the influence of strong ties, network cohesion, and network range on the transfer of knowledge between organizational units. Organ. Sci. 23, 1024–1039 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Aral, S. & Walker, D. Creating social contagion through viral product design: a randomized trial of peer influence in networks. Manag. Sci. 57, 1623–1639 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Armsworth, P. R. et al. The size, concentration, and growth of biodiversity-conservation nonprofits. Bioscience 62, 271–281 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Borgatti, S. P. & Everett, M. G. Network analysis of 2-mode data. Soc. Netw. 19, 243–269 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Doreian, P., Batagelj, V. & Ferligoj, A. Generalized blockmodeling of two-mode network data. Soc. Netw. 26, 29–53 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Field, S., Frank, K. A., Schiller, K., Riegle-Crumb, C. & Muller, C. Identifying positions from affiliation networks: Preserving the duality of people and events. Soc. Netw. 28, 97–123 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Conservation by Design 2.0 Guidance Document (The Nature Conservancy, 2016).

  41. 41.

    Reddy, S. M. W. et al. Intra-organizational networks and the spread of evidence-based practices. Health Care Manag. Rev. 42, 292–302 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Frank, K. A., Maroulis, S. J., Duong, M. Q. & Kelcey, B. M. What would it take to change an inference? Using Rubin’s causal model to interpret the robustness of causal inferences. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 35, 437–460 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Kates, R. W. et al. Sustainability. Science 292, 641–642 (2001).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Cash, D. et al. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 8086–8091 (2003).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C. & Dietz, T. Influences on attitude–behaviour relationships: a natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environ. Behav. 27, 699–718 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Starkey, F., Audrey, S., Holliday, J., Moore, L. & Campbell, R. Identifying influential young people to undertake effective peer-led health promotion: the example of A Stop Smoking in Schools Trial (ASSIST). Health Educ. Res. 24, 977–988 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Burt, R. S. Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital (Oxford Univ. Press, 2005).

  48. 48.

    Obstfeld, D. Social networks, the tertius Iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 50, 100–130 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Frank, K. A. et al. The social dynamics of mathematics coursetaking in high school. AJS 113, 1645–1696 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Swan, J. A. & Newell, S. The role of professional associations in technology diffusion. Organ. Stud. 16, 847–874 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Norman, G. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the ‘laws’ of statistics. Adv. Heal. Sci. Educ. 15, 625–632 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Frank, K. A., Mueller, A. S. & Muller, C. The embeddedness of adolescent friendship nominations: the formation of social capital in emergent network structures. Am. J. Sociol. 119, 216–253 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Burt, R. S. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition (Harvard Business School Press, 1995).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by David and Lucile Packard Foundation grant no. 2014-40349. We thank T. Dietz, J. Goldstein and M. Wallace for their thoughtful comments and feedback.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Y.J.M., Y.L., S.M.W.R. and K.A.F. designed the research; Y.J.M., Y.L., S.M.W.R., K.B. and J.R.B.F. performed the research; Y.J.M., Y.L. and K.A.F. analysed data; and Y.J.M., Y.L., S.M.W.R., K.A.F., K.B., J.R.B.F. and J.M. wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuta J. Masuda.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Masuda, Y.J., Liu, Y., Reddy, S.M.W. et al. Innovation diffusion within large environmental NGOs through informal network agents. Nat Sustain 1, 190–197 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0045-9

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing