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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to Nature and 55 other Nature journal
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $9.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015).
Wood, S. L. & DeClerck, F. Ecosystems and human well-being in the Sustainable Development Goals. Front. Ecol. Environ. 13, 123–123 (2015).
Brooke, C. Conservation and adaptation to climate change. Conserv. Biol. 22, 1471–1476 (2008).
Clark, W. & Dickson, N. Sustainability science: the emerging research program. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 8059–8061 (2003).
Morrison, S. A. A framework for conservation in a human-dominated world. Conserv. Biol. 29, 960–964 (2015).
Morrison, S. A. Designing virtuous socio-ecological cycles for biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 195, 9–16 (2016).
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).
Reed, M., Evely, A. & Cundill, G. What is social learning? Ecol. Soc. 15, r1 (2010).
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).
Kim, D. A. et al. Social network targeting to maximise population behavior change: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet 386, 145–153 (2015).
Granovetter, M. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78, 1360–1380 (1973).
Centola, D. The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science 329, 1194–1197 (2010).
Valente, T. W. Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations. Soc. Netw. 18, 69–89 (1996).
Coleman, J. S., Katz, E. & Menzel, H. Medical Innovations: A Diffusion Study (Bobbs-Merrill, 1966).
Becker, M. H. Factors affecting diffusion of innovations among health professionals. Am. J. Public Health 60, 294–304 (1970).
Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovations (Collier Macmillan, 2003).
Tushman, M. L. Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Adm. Sci. Q. 22, 587–605 (1977).
Williams, P. Special Agents: The Nature and Role of Boundary Spanners (ESRC Research Seminar Series, 2010).
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).
Hustad, E. & Bechina, A. A. Exploring the role of boundary spanning in distributed networks of knowledge. Electron. J. Knowl. Manag. 10, 121–130 (2012).
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).
Nochur, K. S. & Allen, T. J. Do nominated boundary spanners become effective technological gatekeepers? IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 39, 265–269 (1992).
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).
Pawlowski, S. D. & Robey, D. Bridging user organizations: knowledge brokering and the work of information technology professionals. MIS Q. 28, 645–672 (2004).
Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. Organizing knowledge. Calif. Manag. Rev. 40, 90–111 (1998).
Reagans, R. & McEvily, B. Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range. Adm. Sci. Q. 48, 240–267 (2003).
Valente, T. W. Network interventions. Science 337, 49–53 (2012).
Davis, J. A., Holland, P. & Leinhardt, S. Comments on Professor Mazur’s hypothesis about interpersonal sentiments. Am. Sociol. Rev. 36, 309–311 (1971).
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).
Wright, C. Inside out? Organizational membership, ambiguity and the ambivalent identity of the internal consultant. Br. J. Manag. 20, 309–322 (2009).
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).
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).
Peng, Y. & Sutanto, J. Facilitating knowledge sharing through a boundary spanner. IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 55, 142–155 (2012).
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).
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).
Armsworth, P. R. et al. The size, concentration, and growth of biodiversity-conservation nonprofits. Bioscience 62, 271–281 (2012).
Borgatti, S. P. & Everett, M. G. Network analysis of 2-mode data. Soc. Netw. 19, 243–269 (1997).
Doreian, P., Batagelj, V. & Ferligoj, A. Generalized blockmodeling of two-mode network data. Soc. Netw. 26, 29–53 (2004).
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).
Conservation by Design 2.0 Guidance Document (The Nature Conservancy, 2016).
Reddy, S. M. W. et al. Intra-organizational networks and the spread of evidence-based practices. Health Care Manag. Rev. 42, 292–302 (2017).
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).
Kates, R. W. et al. Sustainability. Science 292, 641–642 (2001).
Cash, D. et al. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 8086–8091 (2003).
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).
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).
Burt, R. S. Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital (Oxford Univ. Press, 2005).
Obstfeld, D. Social networks, the tertius Iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 50, 100–130 (2005).
Frank, K. A. et al. The social dynamics of mathematics coursetaking in high school. AJS 113, 1645–1696 (2008).
Swan, J. A. & Newell, S. The role of professional associations in technology diffusion. Organ. Stud. 16, 847–874 (1995).
Norman, G. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the ‘laws’ of statistics. Adv. Heal. Sci. Educ. 15, 625–632 (2010).
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).
Burt, R. S. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition (Harvard Business School Press, 1995).
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.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
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